The Lord's Supper

[JM]

If a Christian refuses to baptize their children would they be excluded from the Lord's Supper?

Thanks.

jm

 

[ADKing]

One would hope that the pastor and elders would spend time trying to reason with them from the Bible first in order to satisfy their consciences. But ultimately, if after instruction, a person refused to have his child baptized, then yes he should be excluded from the Lord's Supper. If a person, after being taught, absolutely refused to submit to any of the Lord's commands, this would need to be the case.

 

[JM]

A few years ago I visited a church and the Pastor new I was a Baptist and that I refused to baptize my children according to the Reformed manner. We spoke often about the issue previous to my visit, and I was still invited to take part in the Lord's Supper. Shouldn't I have been excluded?

Thank you.

jm

 

[westminken]

I can only speak for the PCA churches I have been involved with. The TE will fence the table and by this I mean that he will explain who can and cannot partake of Communion. If you are a member of a Gospel believing church, then you can partake. If you are under discipline or an unbeliever, then you cannot partake. At my former church, you can go the table and the elders that are serving will pray with you but not serve Communion to you.

To answer your question, my answer is yes you can partake of Communion.

Anyway, there was a married couple that was still working through the paedobaptism issue and were still full members of the church and had not presented their children for baptism. For the PCA, membership vows do not specifically address the issue of baptism.

 

[Dearly Bought]

V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
(WCF XXVIII.v

And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
(Genesis 17:14, AV)

And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.
(Exodus 4:24-26, AV)

Baptism does and should divide us in this manner.

 

[Jack K]

There are some churches where a person would be excluded. There are also many where he would not. None of the Presbyterian or Reformed churches I've been part of would likely exclude a person who otherwise had a faithful witness but, for reasons of conscience, did not have his children baptized. The reasoning would be that a theological error, held to in good conscience, is not the same as stubborn refusal to repent of known sin. The purpose of exclusion from the table is to use "tough love" to bring back sinners who have strayed from the Lord, not to enforce quick conformity from people who are honestly still struggling with an issue such as this.

 

[MLCOPE2]

Part of the requirements of membership in an RPCNA church is that you baptize your children upon joining or if you have a child while a member that they be baptized. Therefore, as a member, if you refuse to have your child baptized you would be barred from the table until such a time as you submitted or sought transfer. As a visitor with unbaptized children I would say that they would be allowed to partake (after being examined by an elder) but only for a time (~1 year).

 

[JM]

Thank your for your answers, they were very clear.

 

[TimV]

I think the key would be church membership. Most Presbyterians are more concerned that you're a member in good standing in an evangelical church than whether or not you're a baptist. After all, in the PCA, OPC and I assume other NAPARC churches baptists can be members in good standing.

So I'll go out on a limb and say that in the big majority of conservative Presbyterian churches your refusal to baptise your kids would take a back seat to whether you are a member of an evangelical church under proper leadership which includes discipline. I know you'd be welcomed as a brother in my church, and be allowed to sit next to me and celebrate the Lord's Table.

 

[Edward]

A few years ago I visited a church and the Pastor new I was a Baptist and that I refused to baptize my children according to the Reformed manner. We spoke often about the issue previous to my visit, and I was still invited to take part in the Lord's Supper. Shouldn't I have been excluded?

Were you a member of that congregation? If so, it should have been a matter for the elders to determine as a matter of discipline. If not, and just a visitor, you'd be welcomed to the table at almost all PCA churches.

 

[Kaalvenist]

Some of the problems with and inconsistencies in open communion are being brought out by this thread.

To my fellow Presbyterians, who adhere to the Westminster Standards: Please identify which of these principles you affirm or oppose...

1. "The sins forbidden in the second commandment are... corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever... all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed." (WLC Q. 109)

2. "It be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance" of baptism. (WCF 28.5)

3. "To these (church) officers (distinct from the civil magistrate) the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed; by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain, and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word, and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the gospel; and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require." (WCF 30.2)

4. "Church censures are necessary, for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethren, for deterring of others from the like offenses, for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump, for vindicating the honor of Christ, and the holy profession of the gospel, and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the church, if they should suffer his covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders." (WCF 30.3)

5. "For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the church are to proceed by admonition; suspension from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper for a season; and by excommunication from the church; according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person." (WCF 30.4)

6. "Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament; yet, they receive not the thing signified thereby; but, by their unworthy coming thereunto, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with him, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table; and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto." (WCF 29.8)

Who are those the church ought to regard as wicked or ungodly? Those who live in unrepentant sin.

When a parent refuses the sacrament of baptism for their child, is this not contemning and neglecting the sacrament, hindering and opposing the worship which God has instituted, and therefore a violation of the second commandment?

Is not living in the regular and habitual disregard of the second commandment, living in unrepentant sin?

Regardless of whether we believe them to be true Christians, we would be unfaithful to what we know and understand to be the truth of God concerning this sacrament to admit such to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, while they live in disregard of this commandment.

Moreover, if the individual was a member in our church, they would fall under the discipline of the church. The requirements for admission to the Table are (or ought to be) the same for all, whether or not they happen to be members of our congregation. (As is frequently stated, it is not our Table, it is the Lord's Table: He makes the rules, not us.) If an individual from another church lives in a practice which would cause a member of our congregation to be barred from the Table, that individual from another church ought likewise to be barred from the Table.

 

[JM]

Some of the problems with and inconsistencies in open communion are being brought out by this thread.

My thoughts exactly. I believe Dagg does a fine job of addressing them as well in his Manual of Church order.

I'm interested in some of the responses to Sean's post.

jm

 

[PuritanZealot]

Wouldn't the major point be that yes you should have been excluded because the WCF, which the Presbyterian church you were attending hold to, says that you must baptise your children if you wish to be a communion table attending member?

If you arrived as a Presbyterian at a Gospel Standard chapel, if you didn't meet any one of the Gospel Standard articles of faith or disagreed with them or didn't have fellowship with the members present then you would be invited to the service but not the table.

I think if a church is going to allow someone to attend the service, it is an entirely different thing to attending the table of the Lord. The chapel I attend is quite large, I would say 100 people go each Lords Day morning, but out of that congregation of 100 I would say the actual signed up Church membership who sit at the communion table is more like 50-60.

Our Pastor is very firm on what constitutes church membership and I believe that is something a lot of churches are slack on, to their detriment. I have seen the Lords table treated like a fuddy duddy old out of date ritual by other christians in less strict churches and have been horrified at their disregard and lack of self analysis before attending.

 

[Phil D.]

Here's kind of an interesting twist. I've heard ministers advocate that even if a person simply doesn't believe in infant baptism, even though they may not have any children of their own (or they are all grownups), a church that subscribes to the WCF shouldn't admit them to the table.

 

[PuritanZealot]

I would agree with that pastors interpretation. If someone came to our church and didn't agree with a single point even in theory of the articles of faith he would be refused communion at our church. You can't have people who disagree with you muscling in on the table as if they own the church. Out of respect for the denomination I hold dear, Presbyterianism being the religion of countless numbers of my Fraser forefathers, I would not even ask the pastor for communion in a Presbyterian church. If you don't agree with the WCF I just wouldn't ask for membership at a WCF observing church.

 

[Kaalvenist]

Here's kind of an interesting twist. I've heard ministers advocate that even if a person simply doesn't believe in infant baptism, even though they may not have any children of their own (or they are all grownups), a church that subscribes to the WCF shouldn't admit them to the table.

I would advocate (and have advocated) the same thing.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/church-memebership-confessional-adherence-fencing-table-56828/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/establishment-principle-confessional-church-membership-61272/

 

[Phil D.]

I would agree with that pastors interpretation. If someone came to our church and didn't agree with a single point even in theory of the articles of faith he would be refused communion at our church. You can't have people who disagree with you muscling in on the table as if they own the church. Out of respect for the denomination I hold dear, Presbyterianism being the religion of countless numbers of my Fraser forefathers, I would not even ask the pastor for communion in a Presbyterian church. If you don't agree with the WCF I just wouldn't ask for membership at a WCF observing church.

One answer I've heard given in defense of allowing such person's to partake of the Supper is that the Bible calls it "the Lord's Supper," not "this or that perfect denomination's table." Furthermore, the Bible puts the emphasis on the participants' examination of "themselves." Therefore, anyone who credibly professes saving faith in Christ, is a member in good standing of a credibly evangelical (in the original sense of the word) church, including not having contempt for or being neglectful of the sacrament of baptism itself, is permitted to come and partake.

The whole issue of subscription comes into play here too. For better or worse, churches like the PCA don't require members to hold to every single article in the Standards, including those relative to baptism. For that matter, it even allows their ministers to take "scruples'" regarding the Standards, although opposing infant baptism certainly wouldn't be something allowable.

I think the alternative to this stance raises some problematic questions. First, exactly where is the line to be drawn drawn on subscription? It must be drawn somewhere. Should members and officers be held to different standards in this? What about the fact that the Confession itself says that councils, presumably including the WA, are/were not infallible? Doesn't it defend and promote the concept of liberty of conscious in "lesser" things in order to prevent religious despotism? Aren't many confessional points and articles given somewhat different interpretations by equally sincere and capable leaders even within churches that hold to them? Thus, if someone finds a "minor" point here or there that they conscientiously disagree with based on their understanding of Scripture, should they outright be denied membership in the church, or participation in the Supper? Isn't demanding "absolute" subscription a recipe for hypocrisy and turning a blind eye to one's own conscious on certain issues, in many cases?

Just to be clear: I fully understand the intention behind, and indeed the need for confessional subscriptionism in the church. I am wholly supportive of it. At the same time I don't think the above questions concerning "to what degree" and" with what allowable nuances" inherent in a matter like subscription can be glossed over or ignored. Nor are they easily answerable. Still, even though like any other church it certainly has its share of problems and shortcomings, I think the PCA actually has this particular issue right.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Item 1) Craig, I'm going to allow your post, even though it's long on presentation, and short on question. This particular forum (paedo-answers) is not the place.

2) With regard to the latest point, particularly as raised by Sean:

There are differences present here between Baptist practice, and Presbyterian; as well as differences between open-and-closed communion. The Baptist's theology, for which a consistent practice would (I say) exclude the non-baptized (in the Baptist-sense) from the Table, is different from the Presbyterian's theology, that might lead to the same outward sort of closed or close communion practice.

From a strictly outward observation, I may be a Presbyterian minister; however, I'm not even recognizable as a Christian to an intelligent, consistent Baptist. Since all men, Baptist and Presbyterian, may only judge of outward exhibition, the only way to truly grant a man his claim to the name "Christian" (I do not say that we cannot grant that a person IS a believer/Christian) is to say to him, "Great! What church do you belong to?"

As we know, the only proper way to membership in a church is by baptism. Only the baptized are formally and outwardly "under-discipline," that is, they are disciples. Since, in the Baptist's reckoning I am neither baptized nor a church-member, how can I be even more--admitted to the Table, or less, administer the Table?! I may well BE a Christian, and so the Baptist may charitably judge me. But he should by no means let me proceed apart from discipline, as he understands proper discipline to be performed.

As we also know, the Presbyterian acknowledges many baptisms, even if they are not their own. Our main concern, if a visitor comes to us and asks to partake in the Lord's Supper, is to know (as best we may) if this person is a baptized, communicant member of some recognizable, gospel-church. We want to know if this person is under-discipline, what form it takes, and if there is at least some hope that he holds to some faith-essentials.

In this respect, we are more open to recognizing some Baptist-church as nevertheless being a true church, although we think their sacramental discipline is irregular. Our churches are more "catholic" (small 'c') in this regard.

As to Sean's points concerning the "sin of neglecting this ordinance," the fact is, that particular churches have to decide which set of risks to take. On the one hand, there is the risk of permitting people who "should know better" to participate. On the other hand, there is the risk of barring worthy Christians from a Table where they have a right, where we claim Jesus is presiding.

If Joe-Baptist (who has hardly had any reason to really think about such particulars most of his life) is willing to sit with us (when perhaps, he should consider whether or not he can properly call our gathering "church" or not!), and eat with US who are eating at Christ's Table, the person who is truly compromising his doctrine is the Baptist, not the Presbyterian.

There are other rationales for closed or close communion, which I think are more worthy of consideration than this matter of a man's holding to a Baptist understanding of baptism. I am not an advocate of the super-close policy, nor (by any means) am I an advocate of "open" communion. I believe the Table is to be "fenced," for the protection of all concerned. But we confess that the Table is for sinners, for disciples, for those who are learning what it means to be Christians. It is for those who have attained a certain, measurable and exhibited level of understanding in the faith--such that if some church which we recognize as a true church has invited them to membership including the Table, we should . It is not for those who have attained perfection in doctrine or life (or who think they have).

Bottom line: for me, I think Baptists ought to bar those from the Table whom they cannot identify as disciples, i.e. the baptized; and he ought not wish to partake at a Presbyterian communion where there they are "playing church." And Presbyterians ought to bar those whom we cannot identify as baptized and already communicant disciples. This is the minimum requirement. If a particular church wishes to make somewhat stricter criteria, so let them. But our sessions will differ.

 

[JM]

Thank you Rev. Buchanan, crystal clear.

 

[Mushroom]

If a man is a member of a Presbyterian Church, and yet refuses to baptize his children, is this not unrepentant sin and contumacy? And thus shouldn't he be barred from the table?

 

[Kaalvenist]

Bruce,

You didn't really address the points that I raised from the Confession of Faith and Larger Catechism. It sounds as though you are setting up requirements for admission to the Lord's Supper different from those set forth in our Standards; or, that you are not admitting all that the Standards say can disqualify someone from admission to the Table.

If a belief or practice would disqualify a member of your own congregation from admission to the Table, why would it be permissible in someone who is a member of a church dedicated to maintaining that error in doctrine or practice? Does it make such doctrine or practice more permissible in the sight of Christ, whose Table it is?

On the other hand, there is the risk of barring worthy Christians from a Table where they have a right, where we claim Jesus is presiding.

You demonstrate the very reason why I maintain this principle. How are we to judge of the worthiness of an individual to come to the Table, and "be admitted thereunto" (WCF 29.8)? Certainly not by infallibly knowing them to be regenerate, but by their profession, and by their walk consistent with that profession. If an individual lives in the habitual and impenitent disregard of any of the commandments, they should not be admitted to partake.

If we are commanded to have our children baptized, then it is a commandment, falling under the second commandment. The refusal to do so would therefore be a sin against the second commandment; and the habitual, impenitent refusal to do so is living in violation of the second commandment. Therefore, members of Baptist churches should not be admitted to the Table in a Presbyterian church, so long as they refuse to have their children baptized.

I understand the logic behind Baptist "close communion," which usually has centered on whether the individual has received baptism, or is a member of a truly constituted church (since they maintain immersion only of professors only). I also understand why we accept their baptism as valid. But I do not believe that (1.) a valid baptism, (2.) membership in a schismatic assembly (that is, maintaining doctrines and practices divisive from that taught in Scripture, and therefore divisive from the true unity of the church set forth in Scripture), and (3.) faith in Christ for salvation, should automatically qualify anyone for admission to either church membership or the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, while they maintain errors in doctrine at variance with the profession of the church, and practices which we believe and profess are sinful.

 

[Dearly Bought]

In this respect, we are more open to recognizing some Baptist-church as nevertheless being a true church, although we think their sacramental discipline is irregular. Our churches are more "catholic" (small 'c') in this regard.

Bruce,
If a belief or practice would disqualify a member of your own congregation from admission to the Table, why would it be permissible in someone who is a member of a church dedicated to maintaining that error in doctrine or practice? Does it make such doctrine or practice more permissible in the sight of Christ, whose Table it is?

This brings us to another important confessional matter. Not only do the various Reformed standards testify that an individual who contemns or neglects baptism is committing a great sin, but there is also ample confessional testimony that a church which rejects biblical baptism has no claim to the title of a true church of Jesus Christ.

"The marks, by which the true Church is known, are these: if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin: in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself."
(Article 29, The Belgic Confession of Faith)

"first, the true preaching of the word of God, in which God has revealed himself to us, as the writings of the prophets and apostles do declare; secondly, the right administration of the sacraments of Christ Jesus, which must be annexed unto the word and promise of God, to seal and confirm the same in our hearts; last, ecclesiastical discipline uprightly ministered, as God's word prescribes, whereby vice is repressed, and virtue nourished."
(Chapter 18, The Scottish Confession of Faith)

Someone who has not united himself to the visible true church of Christ has no claim upon the supper of our Lord.

 

[Phil D.]

In this respect, we are more open to recognizing some Baptist-church as nevertheless being a true church, although we think their sacramental discipline is irregular. Our churches are more "catholic" (small 'c') in this regard.

Bruce,
If a belief or practice would disqualify a member of your own congregation from admission to the Table, why would it be permissible in someone who is a member of a church dedicated to maintaining that error in doctrine or practice? Does it make such doctrine or practice more permissible in the sight of Christ, whose Table it is?

This brings us to another important confessional matter. Not only do the various Reformed standards testify that an individual who contemns or neglects baptism is committing a great sin, but there is also ample confessional testimony that a church which rejects biblical baptism has no claim to the title of a true church of Jesus Christ.

"The marks, by which the true Church is known, are these: if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin: in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself."
(Article 29, The Belgic Confession of Faith)

"first, the true preaching of the word of God, in which God has revealed himself to us, as the writings of the prophets and apostles do declare; secondly, the right administration of the sacraments of Christ Jesus, which must be annexed unto the word and promise of God, to seal and confirm the same in our hearts; last, ecclesiastical discipline uprightly ministered, as God's word prescribes, whereby vice is repressed, and virtue nourished."
(Chapter 18, The Scottish Confession of Faith)

Someone who has not united himself to the visible true church of Christ has no claim upon the supper of our Lord.

Just so I'm clear on this: Are you saying that all non-paedobaptist churches are ultimately false churches, and that they are profaning the Lord's Supper whenever they practice it?

 

[Dearly Bought]

Just so I'm clear on this: Are you saying that all non-paedobaptist churches are ultimately false churches, and that they are profaning the Lord's Supper whenever they practice it?

Yes. To steal a phrase from a Reformed Baptist theologian originally referring to paedobaptists, "there is one gospel preached by their lips and another by their water" (Samuel Waldron, Biblical Baptism, p. 12). As Rev. Buchanan has already mentioned, many Baptists regard vast numbers of Presbyterian and Reformed congregants as unbaptized members of gatherings that they would be quite hesitant to call true churches. At least we recognize their baptisms, if not their membership in a true church.

 

[Phil D.]

I would argue that the historical Reformed position would not say that Calvinistic Baptist churches are false churches. Even the WCF makes this pretty clear:

Ch. 25 Of The Church

III. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.

IV. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.​

In historical Reformed writings the term "synagogue of Satan," which is synonymous with "false church" in this context, is clearly reserved for RC and EO churches which have distorted the fundamental truths of the Gospel beyond recognition. The Confession's admission that NO manifestation of the visible church is error free is spot on.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Bruce,

You didn't really address the points that I raised from the Confession of Faith and Larger Catechism. It sounds as though you are setting up requirements for admission to the Lord's Supper different from those set forth in our Standards; or, that you are not admitting all that the Standards say can disqualify someone from admission to the Table.

Sean,
I don't think that parsing the Confession is what we should be doing to answer the question. And whether you start there or the Bible, you are going to have to field additional challenges from all over the Confession or the Bible.

Of all your WCF refs., only 29:8 comes from the chapter that specifically addresses the Lord's Supper. I think that's a salient point, of omission. Whether because the issue was too nascent, or because it was too trivial, or divisive--whatever the case, the Confession doesn't actually address (in the chapter that most directly focuses on the Lord's Supper) the question of communicating those who are "separatists." If I had to hazard a guess, I think that most likely (given the situation of church-establishment) the CoE Puritans who composed the document, as well as the Scots, would have viewed the separatist' coming to the Table at the establishment's church as a major concession by the separatists. Their whole point was to repudiate the establishment church and its ordinances. So, rather than refusing to serve them, I should think the establishment church only too willing to undercut their argument by saying, "Ah, so we AREN'T too poor a church to serve you, after all."

Which is why I argued above that the real issue of communing by Separatists at a church with a more "catholic" practice is an issue of compromise NOT on the part of the Presbyterian, but the Baptist.

The answer to the question, if addressed from the Confession's standpoint, must be "put together" by combining statements from here and there in the Confession. In which case, it is a question for which an answer is far better established and defended by a simpler defense from Scripture itself, bolstered (if need be) by the support of the Confession's statements. The risk, then (as is probably obvious), is that the breadth of Scripture opens up the field as wide as the Bible itself. It's harder (and rightly so) to condense the biblical material down to a few salient propositions, which is what Confessions do.

But whichever route you choose (confessional exegesis or biblical exegesis), you are still left facing the reality that unless the church confesses together with one mouth, then each session must come to their own conclusions on this issue. And the simple truth is, that except for those denominations which have made such decisions binding--by explicit statements in their constitutional documents, or by precedent-setting judicial rulings--who is admitted is NOT a matter of Presbyterian or Reformed law, where the Confessions are silent. In other words,, spell out the basic argument for me from WCF.29. If you start bringing bits and pieces to the argument from all over the Standards, you will get other arguments that ALSO come from all over the Standards, challenging your selective quotes with others.

In the cases where some churches have simply gone to closed-communion, the answer is either found, or mooted, take your pick. Either we serve only to our own members, and no others, on principle; or else we serve only to our members, so as to avoid thorny questions.

If a belief or practice would disqualify a member of your own congregation from admission to the Table, why would it be permissible in someone who is a member of a church dedicated to maintaining that error in doctrine or practice?

But, don't you see? This person isn't a member of my congregation. And I really don't know how "precise" his theological knowledge is on any point whatsoever. What his church body teaches, I don't know precisely either. What's important to me is: 1) is he a baptized, communicant member of a gospel-church?, and 2) what is his "disciplinary" status? Rom.14:4 "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand."

I'm going to allow that some Baptist-churches are "gospel-churches," and their sacraments (though irregular) have not completely obliterated the gospel-testimony in them. These churches (like our own) are "subject both to mixture and error:" but have not "so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan" (WCF 25:2). For this we ought to be thankful. Their baptism isn't (necessarily) "an accursed idolatry," HC 80, the way the RC mass is. Anyway, individuals aren't responsible for all the errors of their churches.

There could be churches from my own, or a true "sister-denomination," who are one with ours on paper, but whose practice and doctrines are actually quite un-Presbyterian! Unless I practice closed-communion, closed even to members of my own denomination, I must admit some persons to Table for whom I cannot offer the same certitude that they are subject to Christ's discipline, as those for whom I am directly responsible. If an elder is too concerned about some practice, then he needs to register his concern, raise an objection where necessary, protest, refuse to serve some person, complain, press charges, or resign.

As for the final points, I offer this one response: this isn't the 17th century. It is patently fallacious to argue that in 21st century America, a significant fraction of "the" Baptist church are there because they know what it is they reject out of the rest of Church-dom. They are there (many of them) because they are the 7th generation in that church. Or because that's the church where they were brought to faith in Christ. You may be comfortable informing them that they are "schismatics," and therefore "rebels," but I'm going to suggest that just sounds inflammatory They not only don't understand what you're saying, they only know that you are proud and inflexible, and situated in some century other than the present.

I used the term "separatist" 1) because its less pejorative, 2) it puts us all (in a sense) on the same side of things--we've all (just about) separated, or been separated from some other church-body. "Schismatic" is the judgment of one church on the generation that separated. As time marches on, and historic memories fade, and the reason the fight was fought is reinterpreted or forgotten, "schismatic" has to be reapplied in a new context, if it is to have any real force.

I don't think the separatism was justified in the 17th century. So, I account that generation of the Baptists to be schismatic, because I identify with the Puritans and Presbyterians. But I can hardly justify labeling today's ubiquitous Baptist churches as "schismatic," without risking the same epithet hurled my way. It's simply a fact that these people are NOT, themselves, schismatic. To the degree they are self-consciously "independent," I think they can be shown to be "separatists," because many of their churches keep that identity alive. They are discrete, particular, privately accountable (to God, unaccountable to another church). It's part of who they are.

But, despite this separatism, many Baptists still maintain the Bible, the gospel, and some semblance of order. Contrast this with Rome who obscures the Bible, denies the gospel, and has an inefficient, mechanistic command structure, with autonomic rite-activity.

I think, the bottom line is spelled out in your last paragraph. And it corresponds to this line from Bryan:

Someone who has not united himself to the visible true church of Christ has no claim upon the supper of our Lord.

You call their gatherings, "schismatic assemblies,' rather than churches, so both of you are on the same sheet of music. Neither of you are quite as "catholic" with regard to modern Baptists as you are toward Anglicans, Lutherans, and (possibly?) even Papists.

In this, you are in conformable agreement with the Baptist who will not have you at his Table, nor will he share at yours. Neither side sees "church" in the other.

If that's your real conviction, then you should NOT commune Baptist persons. I don't think that I can deny Baptist bodies the name of "church." If I refuse the name, then I too cannot commune such. But, I do not so refuse, because I cannot in good conscience base my present judgment mainly on events of 400 years ago. The present must discharge its own burden of proof.

 

[Kaalvenist]

Rev. Buchanan,

I'm not trying to get into an argument over ecclesiology. I really don't think that the question needs to go even that far.

Major Premise: Living in the habitual, impenitent violation of the commandments disqualifies one from admission to the Lord's Supper. (WCF 29.8; 30.2-4; WLC Q. 173)
Minor Premise: Refusal to baptize one's infant children is a violation of the second commandment. (WCF 28.5; WLC Q. 109)
Conclusion: Therefore, those who live in the habitual, impenitent refusal to baptize their infant children are disqualified from admission to the Lord's Supper.

Which part of the syllogism would you contest?

The reason why I said, "It sounds as though you are setting up requirements for admission to the Lord's Supper different from those set forth in our Standards; or, that you are not admitting all that the Standards say can disqualify someone from admission to the Table," was because you said,

Our main concern, if a visitor comes to us and asks to partake in the Lord's Supper, is to know (as best we may) if this person is a baptized, communicant member of some recognizable, gospel-church.

Whereas the Confession and Larger Catechism say,

Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament; yet, they receive not the thing signified thereby; but, by their unworthy coming thereunto, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with him, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table; and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto.

Q. May any who profess the faith, and desire to come to the Lord's supper, be kept from it?
A. Such as are found to be ignorant or scandalous, notwithstanding their profession of the faith, and desire to come to the Lord's supper, may and ought to be kept from that sacrament, by the power which Christ hath left in his church, until they receive instruction, and manifest their reformation.

They do not limit the question to a valid baptism and membership in some branch of the visible church. If that would suffice for a visitor, that should suffice for any member of your own congregation. If it does not suffice for the latter, it should not suffice for the former. It says that if individuals are (1.) ignorant, or (2.) wicked/ungodly/scandalous, they should not be admitted. Certainly, in the context of when the Standards were written, this is not referring to those who are unbaptized or not members of some branch of the visible church -- the assumption was that most, if not all, of those individuals living in the countries receiving these Standards were baptized members of the church. How does your view do justice to the entirety of Confession 29.8, and Larger Catechism Q. 173?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Sean,
As to your syllogism, I'm not going to dispute it; however I will say that I'm not prepared to lump every Baptist into the category of "habitual, impenitents." There is a long-established principle of jurisprudence that criminality involves "intent." I believe the Bible teaches that the essence of the wicked's conviction in the Day of Judgment will be the results of what he DID know of God's will, and not what he did not. All are "without excuse" precisely because the DO know things.

But they don't know everything. Ignorance is a legitimate category. And not only the reprobate have ignorance to overcome, but so do Christians.

If you want to argue that the Baptist is thus "ignorant" per Q173 and 29:8, I have to ask why you would restrict them from the L.S. on the basis of ignorance about our doctrine of baptism alone, but not, say, ignorance about the doctrine of the Second Coming, the correct stance on the "millennium," misconception regarding the doctrine of Creation, and the list goes on. These are not people, for the most part, whom I think are radically obstinate concerning following the Bible's teaching. They have been taught something else, and they are not yet persuaded they are presently in error.

These Baptists may barely have a "doctrine" of baptism at all. I know plenty of Presbyterians who in the SAME BOAT; they are almost totally ignorant of their own church's doctrine of baptism. They understand what it is Presbyterians DO, but have little concern to really understand WHY. So, consistency would bar them from the Table also, yes? Or in their case, is it OK for them to have "implicit faith" in their church's teaching on baptism? If you simply say they avoid sin by blindly obeying their leadership, and not withholding the sign of baptism from their children, I must seriously question that stance.

In any case, I do not believe the "ignorance" spoken of in 29:8 and Q173 is speaking especially to the doctrine of baptism. I'm willing to say that baptism has a core significance, which is related to the doctrine of salvation, and is a practice of the church, the understanding of which is MEANT to grow over time, long after it is administered. It is not to be expected that new believers, or even new communicants, have plumbed the depths of baptism. The ignorance of that question has to do with the fundamentals of the faith, the basic articles of the creed, and the ability of the person to "examine himself," per 1Cor.11.

As for me differing from the Standards stated requirements, first be aware that in your quote, you cut off my immediately following sentence, which states:

We want to know if this person is under-discipline, what form it takes, and if there is at least some hope that he holds to some faith-essentials.

In other words, I explicitly insist that we also know what level of discipline this person is under with respect to his own session or other government. So, what sounds to me like skipping a relevant portion of what I wrote is at least partly to blame for this accusation. I said the same thing in a later post, using slightly different language:

1) is he a baptized, communicant member of a gospel-church?, and 2) what is his "disciplinary" status?

In any case, I already explained why I do not think that the language of "ignorant" is of particular value for application to an otherwise competent church-member of a Baptist church, a Bible reader, a Christian-parent, he might even hold the 5 points of Calvinism, etc. His ignorance-quotient is tiny, by anyone's standard; but you seem to make this one point a make-or-break matter.

Nor, does it seem to me fitting to label him "wicked," "ungodly," or "scandalous." Why pick at baptism, at this point? Why not check his solidity on the uses of the Law, before he comes to the Table? Or better yet, can he explain how the L.S. is a sign? And how about a seal? Shouldn't we have a 20-question quiz for the whole congregation? If we're going to check the Baptist on one doctrinal issue, I would think we ought to check him, and everyone else, on a whole slew of things. Does your church expect all would-be communicants to read through the whole of the church's doctrinal standards the week before communion, as part of preparation, just to make sure there isn't a single point of ignorance, to say nothing of dispute?


As I stated above, the real issue for you is, you cannot in good conscience attribute the status of "church members" to most, if not all, Baptists. OK. I don't have to agree with that position, but I can respect that you will not share a Table with such persons you cannot recognize as being within the pale. My thoughts on the matter are, that since we do not expect our members to swear to the Confession (that our office bearers swear to), we likewise extend a judgment of charity to members of other churches, so long as we can tell it is a church, that preaches the gospel, that does implement the sacraments in a recognizable (if irregular) fashion, and has some form of church-discipline.

I hope this clarifies some.

 

[sdesocio]

Part of the requirements of membership in an RPCNA church is that you baptize your children upon joining or if you have a child while a member that they be baptized.

Are you sure about that? Do you have a reference?

 

[Kaalvenist]

There is a long-established principle of jurisprudence that criminality involves "intent." I believe the Bible teaches that the essence of the wicked's conviction in the Day of Judgment will be the results of what he DID know of God's will, and not what he did not. All are "without excuse" precisely because the DO know things.

But it is a principle of Scripture that sins of ignorance are still sins. Leviticus 4 and 5, and Numbers 15 speak of the sacrifices that had to be offered for sins of ignorance.

And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. (Luke 12:47, 48)

Note that it does not say, He that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with no stripes. It is worse to sin against light and knowledge; but that does not mean that sin is not sin.

I have to ask why you would restrict them from the L.S. on the basis of ignorance about our doctrine of baptism alone, but not, say, ignorance about the doctrine of the Second Coming, the correct stance on the "millennium," misconception regarding the doctrine of Creation, and the list goes on.

I was trying to keep my posts to the OP:

If a Christian refuses to baptize their children would they be excluded from the Lord's Supper?

Descending into other particulars would be out of the purview of the purpose of this thread (and forum, for that matter).

We want to know if this person is under-discipline, what form it takes, and if there is at least some hope that he holds to some faith-essentials

I know that you made that statement (I was not trying to imply otherwise); but the problem becomes compounded when your session would discipline for items which would not be disciplined in another church. Your session (I presume) would discipline one of your own members for refusal to baptize their child. That means that you believe, not only that infant baptism is Scriptural, but that Scriptural church discipline, faithfully carried out, should in all instances be applied against those who refuse to bring their children for baptism.

If a Baptist family comes to your church during the administration of the Lord's Supper, if you admit the parents to the Table, you thereby nullify your own testimony concerning both baptism, and what are legitimate grounds of discipline. If their church was Scriptural and faithful in the administration of discipline, they would be under discipline for their refusal to have their children baptized. When you receive to the Table individuals who are not members of your church, you submit the Table to the discipline, not of your own church, but of every church represented there. If it is an un-Scriptural discipline administered toward them, you are thereby assenting to the legitimacy of an un-Scriptural discipline.

As Rev. King has said several times (to which no response has ever been given, that I recall), Reformed Presbyterians are not permitted to join secret societies. If a Reformed Presbyterian became a Freemason, he would immediately be placed under discipline, and barred from the Table. How can we consistently apply such discipline if we turn around and admit another Freemason, who is a member of a church which has no such rule (perhaps the PCA), to the Table, while barring our own member? We do not believe such to simply be a cute little denominational peculiarity; we believe such to be demanded by the Word of God for all who would obey its precepts. But we would testify otherwise, if we hold our own members to one standard, and require nothing of others but that they maintain an entirely different (and even contradictory) standard, held by another church.

As I stated above, the real issue for you is, you cannot in good conscience attribute the status of "church members" to most, if not all, Baptists.

I don't think that is actually the issue. My use of "schismatic assembly" was not to get around using the word "church." It was more to address the fact that, according to you by your own public profession, they are maintaining errors in doctrine, worship, government, and discipline; they have organized a church designed to perpetuate these errors; and you are submitting the discipline of the Table in your church to their discipline (in accordance with their principles, rather than in accordance with your principles). That was also why I clarified that their schism, separation, or division, is from the Word of God on certain points, and not to say that they are not actually churches. There may be a lot of mixture and error, but I do not believe that they have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Their sacraments are still valid (though not according to the truth of Scripture in all things), which Presbyterians and Reformed Christians have always recognized. If they were not a true church, their sacraments would be invalid -- and I would, incidentally, need to be rebaptized.

Are you sure about that? Do you have a reference?

From the Covenant of Communicant Membership: "5. To the end that you may grow in the Christian life, do you promise that you will diligently read the Bible, engage in private prayer, keep the Lord’s Day, regularly attend the worship services, observe the appointed sacraments, and give to the Lord’s work as He shall prosper you?"

Directory for Church Government, Chapter 2: "2. Children of communicant members of the Church, in consequence of their covenant relationship, shall receive baptism, pastoral care and instruction, and are baptized members of the Church, but are not to be admitted to the Lord’s Supper until they have reached years of understanding and have voluntarily professed their faith in Christ and assumed for themselves the vows and obligations of the Covenant of Church Membership. Baptized members have no vote in the congregational meetings."

I know that these do not state it quite as expressly as Michael did; but they would be understood as setting forth the same principle, that parents with young children are required to have them baptized.