Paedobaptists and credobaptists and communion, oh my
August 22nd, 2007Justin Taylor has provided a handy-dandy compilation of the ongoing paedobaptist-credobaptist-communion-baptism debate involving John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Mark Dever, Sam Storms, Albert Mohler, Ligon Duncan, et al.
For what it’s worth, I’m in agreement with Justin, who agrees with “old Piper, new Grudem, and unchanging Storms.”
Tim, you and Justin are partially correct. However, Mohler & Dever’s position is the only consistent position.
Here’s a few points to consider:
1) It is inconceivable that a person should be admitted to the celebratory rite of the New Covenant community (Communion) without first having received the initiatory rite (Baptism). We even see this in the signs of the Old Covenant - a person had to be circumcised (initiatory) to partake in the passover (celebratory).
2) For the same reason above, every major Christian denomination (including the Presbyterians) require Baptism as a prerequisite to Communion. They just have a very loose definition of what constitutes Baptism. We “seem” overly strict because of our particular view of baptism NOT our view of communion - though most do not understand this and think the reverse.
3) Communion is an ordinance of the local church for confessing members of Christ’s Church. The only ecclesiastical means Christ has given us to ID those in or out of this Church is the ordinance of baptism. I can personally recognize the fruit of conversion through other means, but this is not the same issue.
4) I would receive members of paedobaptist congregations to the Lord’s Table IF they have received believer’s baptism, which is entirely possible.
Where does the Bible say that The Lord’s Supper is a local church ordinance?
Does anyone here really believe that Paul was a member of many local churches or that he moved his “letter of membership” each time he visited one of the local churches he planted in order to celebrate the love feast with them?
I’ve regularly attended churches of multiple different “major denomiantions” at different points in my life that did not require baptism before partaking in communion.
If I’m a pastor of a church, and we’re celebrating communion, can only people that have been baptized by me participate? Or only those whose baptism I’ve witnessed? Or should I go around and question each person who wants to participate to make sure they’ve been baptized?
jwd, the individual churches you visited probably did not say anything, but the official positions of most denominations do see baptism as a prerequisite. Paedobaptists tend to assume that everyone has been baptized as an infant and aren’t really thinking about this - I’ve read a number of Presbyterians commenting on how this assumption must be shored up with intentional inquiry.
Tony, what are the ordinances of the church? I understand them as: Baptism & The Lord’s Supper. Is communion ever represented in the NT as an individual spiritual discipline? No. It is a corporate celebration of the covenant community.
Tony & jwd - you mistook my comments as arguing for a completely closed communion (open only to the members of a specific church body). The historic baptist position I have articulated is a “Close” Communion - everyone who has experienced genuine conversion and professed their faith through baptism is invited.
No Paul didn’t move any letters. He was, however, baptized.
Klay,
Why do you feel Presbyterians have a loose view on Baptism?
As for the Presbyterians and who is welcome to partake in the Lords Supper. The statement is made during the cermony that any who is a member of this or any other Bible believing church is welcome.
So Klay, you’re saying that you wouldn’t allow R.C. Sproul (assuming he had been baptized as an infant) to take communion at your church, correct? Would you allow him to preach at your church?
Because what Mohler and Dever are saying is that it’s OK for them to share their pulpits with a paedobaptist, but not the communion table.
I fail to see how there’s any consistency to that at all.
I agree with you Tim. I see no consistency either.
I attended a Baptist church for about a year (I was not a member) I was not permited to join the church based on our paeodobaptisms, however I was permited to partake in communion and my daughter and I taught at their vacation Bible school. I also hosted their talent show and read scripture during several church services.
Klay,
You mentioned that Drs. Mohler and Dever have the only consistent position. Let’s assume that baptism is prerequiste for communion (I have not come to a firm position on this yet).
From what I’ve heard Dever say in the past, and from what others have told me, while Dever would not allow a paedobaptist to regularly take communion at his church, he sees no problem in allowing a visiting paedobaptist occasionally taking communion (called modified-close commuion). If this is true, how does he still hold a consistent position?
I’m not trying to be antagonistic, but anyone holding to modified-close commuion while arguing for baptism being prerequisite appears very inconsistent to me.
This is a worthy and timely discussion. Therefore, I will oblige the interested (from here/Taylor’s/9Marks - yes I posted at all three) with a more developed post on my blog - hopefully by Friday afternoon. Until then, here are few clarifications:
Verne, by “loose” I meant that they tend to accept a wide range of baptismal practices as being valid - infant & believer; sprinkling, pouring or immersion. In contrast the Baptist position is strictly or narrowly defined — Biblical baptism is the immersion of a professing believer alone.
Tim & Joseph, when I referenced the “consistency” of the Mohler/Dever position I failed to identify the basis of comparison - sorry. What I meant is that theirs is the only position on communion that is also consistent with the “baptism-is-necessary-for-membership” position.
Tim, no I would not knowingly serve communion to RC Sproul. I would, however, invite him to publicly profess his faith in the biblical manner - believer’s baptism. Allowing another person to address the congregation (”preach”) is not a church ordinance - there is the difference.
Oh and Joseph, I agree that a “modified-close communion” position is internally inconsistent. That is not what I was referencing.
Klay,
I follow what you are saying, however I would not call that loose. Presbyterians believe in one baptism for the remission of sins. Where we differ is that we (Presbyterians do not require one to be re-baptised where Baptists do require it) I do support believers baptism in a case where one was not baptised as an infant. I myself was baptised at age 13 after a profession of faith. I believe the mode of baptism can be either way sprinkled, poured, or immersed. Obviously you can’t safely immerse an infant. I also feel that scripture supports infant and believers baptism. I believe that the water is used for the cleansing and how it is applied is not significant
John Piper and R.C Sproul had a very interesting debate on this topic years back. After listening to it several times I believe Mr. Piper would serve communion to Mr. Sproul. They have tons of respect for one another.
May I recomend a book by Robert R. Booth (a former Baptist preacher) titled “Children of the Promise”
As promised HERE is a beginning sketch in support of “Close Communion”.
I have now added a clarifying note to the main post, and in the comments I have links to the Lutheran (MS) and Presbyterian (USA) statements which restrict communion to those who have been baptized.