Comments on: What We Believe- Article VII, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper (part 2) http://toddongod.com/2009/03/01/what-we-believe-article-vii-baptism-and-the-lords-supper-part-2/ Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:24:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Jonathon http://toddongod.com/2009/03/01/what-we-believe-article-vii-baptism-and-the-lords-supper-part-2/#comment-676 Jonathon Mon, 02 Mar 2009 19:10:43 +0000 http://toddongod.com/?p=1226#comment-676 This is a serious issue to consider when one is charged with the oversight of the church. My brother has already had to deal with this inthe context of ministry. He had a person come from a Presbyterian background that was struggling with the issue of having to be immersed before he could joing a baptist church. This wasn't some nominal believer either. This guy was a solid follower of Christ. He was seriously studying the issue along with my brother, but was unconvinced that he should be baptized by immersion. Basically he did not find warrant in the Scriptures to invalidate his infant baptism. So as they were studying together, over a period of months, the church came upon a time to take the Lord's Supper. My brother struggled here. Should this guy be allowed to take the Lord's Supper with them or not? He would sit at the Lord's Table in heaven with this man but couldn't here on earth? Could we really tell R.C Sproul that if he visited our church, as baptist, that he was not welcome to the Lord's Table? I struggle here and have not a conclusive answer. This is a serious issue to consider when one is charged with the oversight of the church. My brother has already had to deal with this inthe context of ministry. He had a person come from a Presbyterian background that was struggling with the issue of having to be immersed before he could joing a baptist church.

This wasn’t some nominal believer either. This guy was a solid follower of Christ. He was seriously studying the issue along with my brother, but was unconvinced that he should be baptized by immersion. Basically he did not find warrant in the Scriptures to invalidate his infant baptism.

So as they were studying together, over a period of months, the church came upon a time to take the Lord’s Supper. My brother struggled here. Should this guy be allowed to take the Lord’s Supper with them or not? He would sit at the Lord’s Table in heaven with this man but couldn’t here on earth?

Could we really tell R.C Sproul that if he visited our church, as baptist, that he was not welcome to the Lord’s Table?

I struggle here and have not a conclusive answer.

]]> By: Todd Burus http://toddongod.com/2009/03/01/what-we-believe-article-vii-baptism-and-the-lords-supper-part-2/#comment-675 Todd Burus Mon, 02 Mar 2009 16:49:35 +0000 http://toddongod.com/?p=1226#comment-675 Yeah, I agree with you on the variety of definitions. I wasn't meaning to define closed as anything other than what you have said, members of the church performing the ordinance. I would then call the forms of close "near close," which would be only within a specific denomination, and then "far close," which would be the like faith but different baptisms type inclusion. This is where I am unsure of my convictions, if I think it should be "near close" or "far close." I believe that the BF&M argues for "near close," but I am unconvinced on this in my own ecclesiology. I am pretty sure I don't see enough evidence myself for advocating a fully closed communion. Yeah, I agree with you on the variety of definitions. I wasn’t meaning to define closed as anything other than what you have said, members of the church performing the ordinance. I would then call the forms of close “near close,” which would be only within a specific denomination, and then “far close,” which would be the like faith but different baptisms type inclusion. This is where I am unsure of my convictions, if I think it should be “near close” or “far close.” I believe that the BF&M argues for “near close,” but I am unconvinced on this in my own ecclesiology. I am pretty sure I don’t see enough evidence myself for advocating a fully closed communion.

]]> By: Jonathon http://toddongod.com/2009/03/01/what-we-believe-article-vii-baptism-and-the-lords-supper-part-2/#comment-674 Jonathon Mon, 02 Mar 2009 16:37:55 +0000 http://toddongod.com/?p=1226#comment-674 Todd, Great post. I would want to add that there are a variety of definitions out there on what constitutes open, close, and closed communion. You definded "close" as allowing someone from other denominiations (PCA) to participate. However, there are some that define "close" as allowing those from the same denomination (SBC to SBC or even Baptist to Baptist, or believers baptism to believers baptism) to partake. "Closed" would be regarding those who are "members" of your church, not just denominationally affiliated. It is hard to nail down the inticacies with various definitions and pratices out there. "Open" has generally be defined as you put it, with a "come all" attitude. Dangerous to say the least. Todd,

Great post. I would want to add that there are a variety of definitions out there on what constitutes open, close, and closed communion.

You definded “close” as allowing someone from other denominiations (PCA) to participate. However, there are some that define “close” as allowing those from the same denomination (SBC to SBC or even Baptist to Baptist, or believers baptism to believers baptism) to partake. “Closed” would be regarding those who are “members” of your church, not just denominationally affiliated.

It is hard to nail down the inticacies with various definitions and pratices out there.

“Open” has generally be defined as you put it, with a “come all” attitude. Dangerous to say the least.

]]>