The Early Particular Baptists were Protestant

[JonC]

Jon, I think today we tend to define Anabaptism in ways that may not fit historically, probably because of who the majority thinks "continue to be" Anabaptists. Narrowly, Anabaptists are "rebaptizers" and broadly, Anabaptists were almost anyone established churches could get away with calling that and labeling them as heretics.

One good example of what I mean is the Anabaptist kingdom of Munster. They were radicals run amuck, but Anabaptists nonetheless (e.g. a disciple of Jan Matthias, the instigator of Munster, baptized Obbe Philips, who ordained and probably baptized Menno Simons.). The generally-thought-of non-resistance pacifist label certainly wouldn't fit the Munster Anabaptists.

Yes, I agree. When the Reformers (when people like Luther and Calvin) used the term they used it broadly to address "heretics". I hesitated to include non-violence because of the Munster Anabaptists (whose actions/beliefs were extreme and a departure from what was accepted among their "peers").

That said, is there any evidence that a Reformed theory of atonement existed within these "Anabaptist" churches prior to the Reformation? Is there any evidence, in fact, that our concentration on penal substitution would even be accepted within the teachings of these churches?

My argument is that "they" were not "us" and "we" don't need to reach back except that we reach for Scripture. It is an error to reach back to another church as our "mother". Most baptist churches would be excluded from the beliefs of those "baptistic" churches (we benefited not only from truths taught by "Anabaptist" churches but also from truths taught by the Reformers).

When I read the accounts of the early churches in Acts, I cannot help but conclude that there has NEVER existed a church unified in denominational doctrines as many would have us believe. The church in Galatia, Corinth, and Rome...for example....differed in doctrine and practice except that they were united in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I don't know why we concern ourselves with trying to form an identity from pre-Reformation churches existing outside of the RCC as this does not matter. If I were a former Roman Catholic Priest who came to know Jesus by reading my Bible and through me God saved my congregation and we became Baptists...well, we'd be no less baptists with our short history because our long history is based on God and not denominational ties.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Perhaps you've heard of Mark Dever? He served under Roy Clements at Eden Baptist in the UK in the early 1990s:

Mark Dever - What I Can and Cannot Live With as a Pastor

I know of Dever. He is in Britain quite often. If I were he, I wouldn't put serving under Roy Clements at the top of my CV (google up Clements to find out why).
I can agree with much of what Dever says. I couldn't live with paedobaptism going on in my church. But that is a very different thing to refusing a Christian visitor the Lord's Supper purely because he attends a paedobaptist church.

 

[Jerome]

Read it again. Dever does refuse the Lord's Supper to those who have not been baptized (including paedobaptists):

Mark Dever - What I Can and Cannot Live With as a Pastor

I cannot live with infant baptism....I simply lack the authority to admit someone to the Lord’s Table who has not been baptized....I have many dear paedo-baptists friends from whom I have learned much. Yet I see their practice as a sinful

 

[The Biblicist]

The early confessions do spell out much of what the Reformers affirmed (which is to be expected). What I mean is that there are beliefs within Reformed churches that would exclude them from holding Anabaptist theology (I fully agree that an Anabaptist could fit within the baptist distinctive, but a Baptist would fall short of agreement in terms of Anabaptist distinction). In other words, our criteria is not the same as their criteria (we should deal with the Anabaptist, the Waldenses, the Donatists, etc., within their own context and not try to stretch their "orthodoxy" to incorporate our theologies).

There are essentials to be a Christians and there are essentials to be a Christian church. Perhaps what you may define to be "essential' to be "Baptist" and what I define essential to be "Baptist" may not be one and the same.

 

[JonC]

There are essentials to be a Christians and there are essentials to be a Christian church. Perhaps what you may define to be "essential' to be "Baptist" and what I define essential to be "Baptist" may not be one and the same.

I'm not talking about essentials. I'm talking about distinctive, and here I am speaking of historical baptist doctrine. It is best that we leave our opinions at the door and deal with historical definitions.

If you disagree then please explain exactly how an Anabaptist would fall short of what has been historically called (but perhaps not so unanimously defined) "baptist distinctive".

To illustrate - I can hold to a Christus Victor theory of atonement without departing from the Baptist distinctive. But if I hold to Penal Substitution theory in the Reformed tradition then my view is a departure from Anabaptist theology.

Another illustration - just because I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin does not mean I am a Catholic (although Catholics teach the virgin birth).

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm not talking about essentials. I'm talking about distinctive, and here I am speaking of historical baptist doctrine. It is best that we leave our opinions at the door and deal with historical definitions.

If you disagree then please explain exactly how an Anabaptist would fall short of what has been historically called (but perhaps not so unanimously defined) "baptist distinctive".

To illustrate - I can hold to a Christus Victor theory of atonement without departing from the Baptist distinctive. But if I hold to Penal Substitution theory in the Reformed tradition then my view is a departure from Anabaptist theology.

Another illustration - just because I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin does not mean I am a Catholic (although Catholics teach the virgin birth).

I understand what you are saying and how you are approaching this issue. However, I am not approaching this issue from your perspective. "Baptist distinctives" mean very little to me if they are not New Testament essentials to be a true New Testament congregation. Indeed, the very name "Baptist" means very little to me as I reject the vast majority that claim that name as New Testament congregations. Therefore, when I look at the Anabaptists and Particular Baptists in England it does not bother me if the Anabaptists don't conform to all the denominational distinctives of Particular Baptists or whatever denomination of Baptists you care to name.

I view all who claim the name "Baptist" and all who are called "Anabaptists" not by traditional historical denominational distinctives but rather by common New Testament essentials. For example, I do not regard five points of Calvinism to be an absolute essential to be a true New Testament congregation whereas I believe justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works to be such an essential. Therefore, when I look at Anabaptists versus English Particular Baptists it does not bother me in the least if there are differences in traditional distinctives just as long as they both have in common the New Testament essentials to be regarded as a true congregation of Christ.

 

[JonC]

I understand what you are saying and how you are approaching this issue. However, I am not approaching this issue from your perspective. "Baptist distinctives" mean very little to me if they are not New Testament essentials to be a true New Testament congregation. Indeed, the very name "Baptist" means very little to me as I reject the vast majority that claim that name as New Testament congregations. Therefore, when I look at the Anabaptists and Particular Baptists in England it does not bother me if the Anabaptists don't conform to all the denominational distinctives of Particular Baptists or whatever denomination of Baptists you care to name.

I view all who claim the name "Baptist" and all who are called "Anabaptists" not by traditional historical denominational distinctives but rather by common New Testament essentials. For example, I do not regard five points of Calvinism to be an absolute essential to be a true New Testament congregation whereas I believe justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works to be such an essential. Therefore, when I look at Anabaptists versus English Particular Baptists it does not bother me in the least if there are differences in traditional distinctives just as long as they both have in common the New Testament essentials to be regarded as a true congregation of Christ.

I have, then, misunderstood your position in part. I agree that as we look through the corridors of time there has always existed diverse and legitimate churches as local expressions of the Body of Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

I have, then, misunderstood your position in part. I agree that as we look through the corridors of time there has always existed diverse and legitimate churches as local expressions of the Body of Christ.

My sentiments would be more correct if I reworded your last sentence to say "legitimate congregations as local expressions of the kingdom of God on earth" as the Anabaptists and ancient English Baptists did not believe in any kind of present universal invisible body of Christ and neither do I.

However, the 14th century Waldenses confession expresses more in keeping with the position of English Particular Baptists. Christian and others claim that the Waldenses in the 14-16th centuries were evangelistic and travelled. It is my theory that 14th century Baptist churches in England were a product of these travelling Waldenses Anabaptists preachers. The Waldenses in the Valley of the Piedmont who retained the name "Waldenses" were converted to Presbyterianism in the middle of the 17th century. That is why Moreland was interested in documenting their history.

 

[JonC]

My sentiments would be more correct if I reworded your last sentence to say "legitimate congregations as local expressions of the kingdom of God on earth" as the Anabaptists and ancient English Baptists did not believe in any kind of present universal invisible body of Christ and neither do I.

However, the 14th century Waldenses confession expresses more in keeping with the position of English Particular Baptists. Christian and others claim that the Waldenses in the 14-16th centuries were evangelistic and travelled. It is my theory that 14th century Baptist churches in England were a product of these travelling Waldenses Anabaptists preachers. The Waldenses in the Valley of the Piedmont who retained the name "Waldenses" were converted to Presbyterianism in the middle of the 17th century. That is why Moreland was interested in documenting their history.

I would agree has you used "church" in place of "Body of Christ". I believe that the Body of Christ incorporates those who will be raised in Christ while churches are local assemblies of believers. I would include those who "sleep" within this body but not within the church. Probably we believe the same but use different words (perhaps "Bride" would be a better choice).

And....unfortunately there are some invisible churches...blending in with the world.

 

[The Biblicist]

I know of Dever. He is in Britain quite often. If I were he, I wouldn't put serving under Roy Clements at the top of my CV (google up Clements to find out why).
I can agree with much of what Dever says. I couldn't live with paedobaptism going on in my church. But that is a very different thing to refusing a Christian visitor the Lord's Supper purely because he attends a paedobaptist church.

Martin, I did not see any reply to my post #33.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Read it again. Dever does refuse the Lord's Supper to those who have not been baptized (including paedobaptists):

Mark Dever - What I Can and Cannot Live With as a Pastor

Indeed so. I said I can agree with much of what he said, but not all.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Martin, I did not see any reply to my post #33.

Indeed you didn't. Nor will you until I get back from holiday at the end of next week. I'm afraid I have not so much as glanced at it yet.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

At last I have a little time to reply to some of Biblicists points. Perhaps I may start here:

Although modern historians speculate that the English Particular Baptists may have originated with the Separatist movement in England between 1630-1645, the earliest known leaders denied they originated from the Separatists or any other denomination. The three earliest and most well known leaders were John Spilsbury, William Kiffin and Hensard Knollys. Both Kiffin and Knollys had been members of the Pedobaptist Jacob-Lathrop-Jessey Separatist Church but there is absolutely no proof that John Spilsbury was. The earliest information is that both Kiffin and Knollys left the Separatist church and joined the church organized by John Spilsbury. If anyone knew the denominational origin of John Spilsbury it would be Kiffin and Knollys. However, they deny that this church was gathered by a Separatist. Knollys says concerning the origin of the seven Particular Baptist Churches of London:


“I say that I know by mine own experience (having walked with them), that they were thus gathered; Viz., Some godly and learned men of approved gifts and abilities for the Ministry, being driven out of the Countries where they lived by the persecution of the Prelates [Episcopalians-R.E.P] came to sojourn in this great City, and preached from house to house, and daily in the Temple, and in every house they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ; and some of them having dwelt in their own hired houses, and received all that came unto them, preached the Kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concerns the Lord Jesus Christ. And when many sinners were converted by the preaching of the Gospel, some of them believers consorted with them, and of professors a great many, and of the chief women not a few. And the condition which these Preachers, both publicly and privately, propounded to the people, unto whom they preached upon which they were to be admitted into the church was by Faith, Repentance and Baptism. And whosoever. . . .did make a profession of their Faith in Jesus Christ, and would be baptized with water, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, were admitted Members of the church; but such as did not believe, and would not be baptized, they would not admit into Church communion.”- Hensard Knollys - A Moderate Answer Unto Dr. Bastwick's Book Called Independency not God's Ordinance; London, 1645. – (emphasis mine)

I see no mention of Spilsbury here, but of foreign Anabaptists coming to England fleeing persecution. Is Knollys speaking of his own church or of the General Baptist churches which we know were in London at this time? The Baptist church in Tiverton, Devon, UK, just about 20miles from where I live claims its date of origin to 1607, being founded by Anabaptist woollen merchants. These would not have been Particular Baptists and the Tiverton church did not become Calvinistic until the 1650s.

Spilsbury's origins seem impossible to discover, but we can say of Knollys that he was at one point an Anglican minister, then an Independent and finally a Baptist. We can say of Kiffin that he was saved around 1631, joined the Jacob-Lathrop-Jessey Independent church in 1638, was still an Independent in 1641 when he co-authored A Glimpse of Sion's Glory, but became a Baptist before 1644.

So both Knollys and Kiffin fit the title of this thread: The earliest Particular Baptists were Protestant.

 

[The Biblicist]

At last I have a little time to reply to some of Biblicists points. Perhaps I may start here:

I see no mention of Spilsbury here, but of foreign Anabaptists coming to England fleeing persecution. Is Knollys speaking of his own church or of the General Baptist churches which we know were in London at this time? The Baptist church in Tiverton, Devon, UK, just about 20miles from where I live claims its date of origin to 1607, being founded by Anabaptist woollen merchants. These would not have been Particular Baptists and the Tiverton church did not become Calvinistic until the 1650s.

Spilsbury's origins seem impossible to discover, but we can say of Knollys that he was at one point an Anglican minister, then an Independent and finally a Baptist. We can say of Kiffin that he was saved around 1631, joined the Jacob-Lathrop-Jessey Independent church in 1638, was still an Independent in 1641 when he co-authored A Glimpse of Sion's Glory, but became a Baptist before 1644.

So both Knollys and Kiffin fit the title of this thread: The earliest Particular Baptists were Protestant.

There were over 30,000 Dutch in England during the reigns of Henry VIII and Elizabeth and are you going to tell us that none were Dutch Anabaptists but all Anabaptists were foreigners?????

Most Baptist before 1632 and after 1632 were Protestants before being converted. Even today many Baptists come from various denominations. However, to claim that Baptist congregations were self-baptized, thus self-organized Protestants is clearly another matter which Knolly, Kiffin and Spilsbury deny.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

OK, let's have a look at post #33.

Here is where apostasy among English Baptists began. 1 Corinthians 5 makes it very clear that the Lord's Supper is a congregational rather than a Christian ordinance and the participants are regulated by church discipline.

I quite agree that the Lord's Supper is a congregational ordinance insofar as it is for the individual church to decide, under God and according to its understanding of His word, whom it accepts. However, the apostasy amongst English Baptist churches did not begin with open communion, but with ministers baptizing people whom they know are not saved, and with parents pressurizing pastors to baptize their 6 year-old children because they think that somehow it will save them. If the cap fits you over there in the USA, you can wear it. People who are unfit to receive the Lord's Supper do not suddenly become fit purely because they have been dipped in water.

However your interpretation of 1 Cor. 5, or at least your application, is a very long way below your usual high standard. The context is the immoral man of verse 1, and the reaction of the Corinthian church to his activities. 'And you are puffed up and have not rather mourned......' (v.2). First Paul declares what the action of the church should be (vs. 3-5) and then he explains why.

'Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?' (v.6).

Paul is not speaking of the Lord's Super here. He is speaking of leaven as something that starts very small but then permeates everything (eg. Matthew 13:33). If the Corinthians allow immorality into the church, it will spread throughout. Do we not see this in many denominations today?

'Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For Christ our Passover [Lamb] was sacrificed for us' (v.7).

Paul is using the preparation of the Jewish house for observing the passover. The head of the house would lead the members of the household in a candlelight search throughout the house to remove all food leaven and then the preparation of the dough would be without leaven.

This is correct. The 'old leaven' is the immorality of this member. It must be cleared out; the evil must be purged from the midst. For the church is the bride of Christ (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:2-3). She has been cleansed by the blood of Christ, the Passover Lamb, and is therefore pure, 'unleavened.' She cannot allow herself to fall back into sin (cf. Romans 6:1-4; Isaiah 1:21).

'Therefore let us keep the feast, not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth' (v.8).

Paul is instructing the church at Corinth to do housecleaning before they could rightly observe the Lord's Supper as a congregation. First, they must remove the leaven from their congregational membership so that the "WHOLE lump" becomes a "NEW lump":

Again, this is quite right. Church membership must be kept pure.

But now you go overboard with your zeal for closed communion.

He is referring to what is required to participate in the Lord's Supper as "Christ OUR PASSOVER is sacrifced FOR US.....Let us keep the feast....with unleavened bread..."

The only observance by Christians of "Christ" as "our passover" and the only "feast" we observe with "unleavened bread" is the Lord' Supper. However, the application is to the congregational body of Christ at Corinth "as YE are unleavened"

Your application is skewed by your zeal. The "feast" is neither the Passover nor the Lord's Supper, but, wonderfully, the whole Christian life. Christ is not only our Passover, but also our Yom Kippur, our Feast of Tabernacles, Trumpets and Pentecost. Every day is our Christian festival.

The only "WHOLE LUMP" that wherein such leaven can be purged out so that the "whole lump" becomes a "new lump" is the local church body.

Also the Christian's own life.

Try obeying this command for your universal invisible church body! Try purging out a "brother" (v. 11) from your "WHOLE lump" so that your "WHOLE lump" becomes a "NEW lump"!!! This is utterly impossible for your universal invisible church body filled with unbaptized Christians. No New Testament congregation can scripturally observe "open" communion as it violates the very symbol of "unleavened bread" that demands even that a "brother" who is unfit to observe the Supper is to be removed by church discipline so that the "WHOLE lump" can become a "new lump." The unleavened bread represents the spiritual condition of the local congregational body observing it. The Lord's Supper is an institutional ordinance that has its only concrete proper observation with the concrete congregational body that can exercise discipline over the partakers. Those who oppose this restriction do so only on the basis of silence and inferences rather than on clear explicit precepts and/or illustrations as given in 1 Cor. 5.

2 Timothy 2:19. 'Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: "the Lord knows those who are His," and "let everyone who names the name of Christ depart from iniquity."' From the God-ward side, His universal Church rests on election; on the man-ward side, 'by their fruits you shall know them.' Those who are God's will inevitably turn away from the works of the flesh and towards the fruit of the Spirit. Those who continue in iniquity should most certainly be removed from the Lord's table, but there are true Christians who have misunderstood the Bible's teaching on baptism. I do not believe that it is right to deny table fellowship to such people.

So no, our church would nether allow a pedobaptist to preach in our pulpit much less observe the Lord's Supper with us as that pollutes the symbolism of "unleavened" bread as leaven is a symbol of FALSE DOCTRINE as much as false practices.

You have misunderstood the passage which has nothing to do with the Lord's Supper but with church discipline.

Please do not misrepresent my position here. The person the congregational body of Christ at Corinth is to remove before they can scripturally observe the Lord's Supper is a "BROTHER" (v. 11). This passage is about scriptural preparation to observe the Lord's Supper by a New Testament congregation.

You are quite wrong. The instruction concerns someone who is 'named a brother.' That is, he has been counted as a brother, but his sinful behaviour has called that status into question. He is being removed not only from the communion table, but also from the church, and the congregation are told 'not to keep company.....not even to eat with such a person.' The aim of such action is to bring the person to repentance and to restore him (2 Corinthians 2:3-11), but if that does not happen, then the offender is found to be not a brother and permanently excluded (1 John 2:19).

This is about OPENLY KNOWN sin whereas chapter 11 deals with UNKNOWN sin in their midst. A Paedobaptist is living in OPENLY KNOWN sin as every Baptist knows that such a person is not fit to be a member of New Testament congregations much less partake of symbolism that demands spiritual and doctrinal unity of the "WHOLE" body observing it.

The person who 'is not fit to be a member of New Testament congregations' is not a Christian. I want to have full fellowship with all the Lord's people, so unless and until you can convince me that unbaptized people are not Christians, I will support my church as it continues to practise open communion.

 

[The Biblicist]

OK, let's have a look at post #33.

I quite agree that the Lord's Supper is a congregational ordinance insofar as it is for the individual church to decide, under God and according to its understanding of His word, whom it accepts. However, the apostasy amongst English Baptist churches did not begin with open communion

You quite forget that "open communion" began among English Baptists by allowing unbaptized persons into their membership (John Bunyan) which in turn produced "open communion" at the Lord's table. So their apostasy did begin with "open communion" as formerly described which in turn produced "open communion" at the table.

However your interpretation of 1 Cor. 5, or at least your application, is a very long way below your usual high standard.

We shall see about that. I think I can show that the low quality is found in your interpretative response instead of my interpetation.

The context is the immoral man of verse 1, and the reaction of the Corinthian church to his activities. 'And you are puffed up and have not rather mourned......' (v.2). First Paul declares what the action of the church should be (vs. 3-5) and then he explains why.

'Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?' (v.6).

Paul is not speaking of the Lord's Super here.

You are jumping the gun. I never said it was. I said he is introducing the preparation of a Jewish house in order to be qualified to participate in the Passover. Verse 6 cannot be disconnected with verses 7-8 as verse 6 has verses 7-8 in view as the final application.

He is speaking of leaven as something

Wrong! The context bears out that he is not speaking of "something" but he has in view the sinful member in the congregation at Corinth. It is not that the corinthians allow some abstract "morality into the church" but they would tolerate a MEMBER who is characterized by immorality. Boasting about this member was probably the boast Paul countered in Romans 6:1 where some may have thought that such sin only magnifies God's grace and so let us sin that grace may abound.

'Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For Christ our Passover

[Lamb] was sacrificed for us' (v.7).


This is correct. The 'old leaven' is the immorality of this member.

No it is not! The "old leaven" is the member himself as it is the member himself that is to be "purged out" as explicitly stated in verses 12-13.

It must be cleared out; the evil must be purged from the midst. For the church is the bride of Christ (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:2-3). She has been cleansed by the blood of Christ, the Passover Lamb, and is therefore pure, 'unleavened.' She cannot allow herself to fall back into sin (cf. Romans 6:1-4; Isaiah 1:21).

Wrong again! The church at corinth IS what is being represented by the "whole lump" which is being leavened by that one member. Twice he says "YOU" (plural you) are that lump:

"purge out the old leaven, THAT YOU may be a new lump...YOU...are unleavened"

He is using the direct language of a metaphor. A Metaphor conveys representation and uses state of being verbs (is, are, am, was, etc.) to convey that representation. The church is that "whole lump" which is being leavened by that sinning member, and only by purging out that member (see. vv. 12-13) will they become a "new lump" and thus truly metaphorically "unleavened" as a "whole lump."

However, your interpretation is perverting the whole context as you are attempting to define the problem as an abstract condition of immorality with regard to the "Christian life" when in fact it is speaking of a specific sinning member with regard to the membership of the congregation. The contextual leaven is the sinning member an the contextual solution is removal or metaphorically purging of that member (vv. 12-13) from the congregational body. The congregational body is metaphoricallly the "whole lump" with that sinning member but becomes a metaphorical "new lump" after that member is excluded identifying the congregation at Corinth qualified to partake of the "unleavened bread" in the Lord's supper which is metaphorical of the congregational body of Chrsit partaking of that bread.

'Therefore let us keep the feast, not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth'

(v.8).


Again, this is quite right. Church membership must be kept pure.

But now you go overboard with your zeal for closed communion.


Your application is skewed by your zeal. The "feast" is neither the Passover nor the Lord's Supper, but, wonderfully, the whole Christian life. Christ is not only our Passover, but also our Yom Kippur, our Feast of Tabernacles, Trumpets and Pentecost. Every day is our Christian festival.

You talk about a "skewed" application and interpretation, this takes the cake! The leaven is not abstract immorality. The lump is not the Christian life that must be clean and the feast is not not Yom Kippur, tabernacles, trumpets, Penteocost or the Christian life, but the Jewish Passover.

He is talking about how the CHURCH BODY must prepare itself to observe the Lord's Supper so that it does not violate the symbol of the unleavened bread which metaphorically represents both the physical and metaphorical body of Christ.

Your interpretation is based upon ignoring the clear metaphorical application of leaven to be the person of the sinning member as you make it represent abstract immoraltiy. Your interpretation is based upon ignoring the clear contextual identification of the "lump" to metaphorically represent the congregational body as "the whole lump" being leavened by the presence of an openly known sinful member, and then as the "new lump" after the exclusion of that member represented in the metaphor of purging out that leaven so that the "whole lump" becomes "unleavened."

Your interpretation is based upon failure to recognize the metaphorically application of how the house of God, the congregational body of Christ is qualified to "keep the feast" wherein "unleavened bread" respresents the moral condition of the congregation partaking of it. Your interpretations are skewed by your zeal to be a Protestant rather than a Baptist and your universal invisible church theory. This has nothing to do with the "christian life" but the moral condition of the congregation as prerequisite for properly observing the Lord's Supper.

You have misunderstood the passage which has nothing to do with the Lord's Supper but with church discipline.

Who is reading into the text Yom kippur, tabernacles, trumpets, Pentecost and the Chrhistian life as "the feast" when the immediate context demands it is singular in number and it is the Passover??? Every child of God knows that the only observance the congregations of Christ "keep" that is associated with "unleavened bread" and "Christ as OUR Passover" is the Lord's Supper as it is the Lord's Supper that has replaced the Passover. The metaphors and their application are stunningly clear. The leaven represents the sinning member. Purging represents exclusion of that member from the church body. The "whole lump...new lump...unleavened" are explicitly identified as the condition of the church body before and after the exclusion of that church member. The whole metaphor is about preparation that qualifies the people of God to partake of the Passover which is directly applied to the observance of the Lord's Supper by the congregation.

You are quite wrong.

No, you are quite wrong because the "whole lump" and "new lump" and "unleavened" are all explicitly identified as "the whole" congregation at Corinth, and thus a metaphorical body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27) that contains leavened members which can be removed so as to make "the whole lump" which is leavened by that member into a "new lump" by church discipline so that it then becomes a "unleavened" whole lump. Again, your misinterpret the leaven to be an abstract immoral quality when it is representative of a specific church member and you misinterpret the "lump" to be the Christian life when it explicitly is said to represent the congregational body of members at Corinth.

The instruction concerns someone who is 'named a brother.'

You argument is vain and empty because that "brother" is identified as the "leaven" needing to be purged from the "whole lump" which is identified as the congregational body at Corinth. Hence, these metaphors do not represent abstract morality or the condition of the "Christian life" and your whole interpretation hinges on these misinterpretations.

 

[The Biblicist]

I forgot to a make a comment on verse 8 with regard to your exposition. Just as the contextual identification of "leaven" is a PERSON not an abstract moral quality of the Christian life, and just as the "whole lump...new lump...unleavened" refers to the congregational body at Corinth, before and after the exclusion of that PERSON, (not to the Christian life) so also the "the old leaven...leaven of malice and wickedness" refers to PERSONS as members in the congregation and the removal of such by church discipline changes the moral condition of the church body to a "new lump" characterized by "unleavened sincerity an truth".

Observing the Lord's Supper corporately as a body or individually as a member with known sin among the participates will result in chastening (1 Cor. 11) as that sinful condition violates the symbolism of the "unleavened bread" which metaphorically represents both the physical and metaphorical body of Christ.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I've been uncertain as to how to continue this thread. It is already a long way from the O.P., and I'm not sure that registering disagreement with every stage of your last post is going to move the conversation forward. So I'm just going to take up two issues which I think are most important:

No it is not! The "old leaven" is the member himself as it is the member himself that is to be "purged out" as explicitly stated in verses 12-13.

I don't think this view can be sustained. Certainly the member is to be expelled from the church (not just excluded from the Lord's Supper) but the leaven which must be rooted out is the immorality of the member and perhaps even more importantly, the laissez-faire attitude of the church. The church has actually 'gloried' in its tolerant attitude to this man (vs. 2, 6) and it is this attitude (leaven) that, if not repented of will run through the whole church.

The other places where 'leaven' comes up in the N.T. are where our Lord warns against the leaven of the Scribes, Pharisees and Herodians. But this leaven is not the Jewish leaders themselves, but their 'teaching' (Matthew 16:12) and their 'hypocrisy' (Luke 12:1). In other words, 'leaven' does not refer to people but to attitudes. The proof of this is that when this man has repented of his wickedness, he is to be welcomed back into the congregation. It is not he that is the leaven but his immorality.

Secondly, you seem (correct me if I'm wrong) to place the immorality of the member at Corinth on a par with someone partaking of the Lord's Supper whilst unbaptized. If it is a case of an unconverted person barging into a church and arrogantly expecting to partake of communion, then you are quite right, but I am not thinking of that. I am thinking of a regenerate visitor to our church who was 'christened' as an infant and who does not understand the importance of believers' baptism.
Consider these verses:

2 Chronicles 30:18-19. 'For a multitude of the people, many from Ephraim, Manassah, Issacher and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet they ate the Passover contrary to what was written. But Hezekiah prayed for them saying, "may the good LORD provide atonement for everyone who prepares his heart to seek God, the LORD God of his fathers, though he is not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary.'

No doubt these people should have been cleansed, but the Lord nevertheless accepted them, because their hearts were right towards Him. I think this is a very important principle: 'For the LORD does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart' (1 Samuel 16:7).

 

[The Biblicist]

I 've been uncertain as to how to continue this thread. It is already a long way from the O.P., and I'm not sure that registering disagreement with every stage of your last post is going to move the conversation forward. So I'm just going to take up two issues which I think are most important:

I don't think this view can be sustained. Certainly the member is to be expelled from the church (not just excluded from the Lord's Supper) but the leaven which must be rooted out is the immorality of the member and perhaps even more importantly, the laissez-faire attitude of the church. The church has actually 'gloried' in its tolerant attitude to this man (vs. 2, 6) and it is this attitude (leaven) that, if not repented of will run through the whole church.

The attitude and/or immorality cannot be "purged" without purging the member as the two are inseparably connected with each other. That is why what is actually "purged" is the member (vv. 12-13). Please explain how this kind of immorality or an attitude can be removed from a congregation in this context apart from removing the member?? Remember, Paul says twice that the "lump" represents the congregation ("you are") rather than a state or quality of Christian life.

The other places where 'leaven' comes up in the N.T. are where our Lord warns against the leaven of the Scribes, Pharisees and Herodians. But this leaven is not the Jewish leaders themselves, but their 'teaching' (Matthew 16:12) and their 'hypocrisy' (Luke 12:1). In other words, 'leaven' does not refer to people but to attitudes. The proof of this is that when this man has repented of his wickedness, he is to be welcomed back into the congregation. It is not he that is the leaven but his immorality.

Their "teachings" are leaven because their persons have been leavened by unholy spirits (1 Tim. 4:1). The purpose of congregational discipline is to turn the person over to Satan for destruction of the flesh in order to remove the attitude and practice from the person. That is why the person is received back because he has been separated from being leavened himself by that attitude and practice.

Moreover, you are totally ignoring that twice Paul explicitly says that "YOU ARE" that lump demonstrating the "lump" represents the congregational members rather than a STATE OR QUALITY OF CHRISTIAN LIFE. Therefore, the metaphorical direct representation of the "whole lump" as the congregation itself, that is transformed into a "NEW" lump by removal of the leaven must have reference to the member characterized by the immorality.

Secondly, you seem (correct me if I'm wrong) to place the immorality of the member at Corinth on a par with someone partaking of the Lord's Supper whilst unbaptized.

That is not my point at all. Indeed, in the New Testament that could never occur as unbaptized person were not admitted to the membership or the privileges of congregational communion. My point, if you will carefully re-read post #33 is that the Lord's Supper is regulated by church discipline, thus restricting it to the membership of the partaking congregation or closed communion. More importantly, the symbolism of the unleavened bread refers to the physical and metaphorical body of Christ - meaning the congregational body observing the Supper as they represent the "whole" lump which by removal of a leavened member transforms the congregation into a "new" lump which qualifies as "unleavned" bread.

If it is a case of an unconverted person barging into a church and arrogantly expecting to partake of communion, then you are quite right, but I am not thinking of that. I am thinking of a regenerate visitor to our church who was 'christened' as an infant and who does not understand the importance of believers' baptism.
Consider these verses:

2 Chronicles 30:18-19. 'For a multitude of the people, many from Ephraim, Manassah, Issacher and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet they ate the Passover contrary to what was written. But Hezekiah prayed for them saying, "may the good LORD provide atonement for everyone who prepares his heart to seek God, the LORD God of his fathers, though he is not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary.'

No doubt these people should have been cleansed, but the Lord nevertheless accepted them, because their hearts were right towards Him. I think this is a very important principle: 'For the LORD does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart' (1 Samuel 16:7).

This has to do with merely "ceremonial" cleansing rather than moral fitness. Note that Hezekiah admitted their heart was right but only the ceremonial regulations had not been met. However, in 1 Corinthians neither the heart of the immoral person was right nor the congregation's heart was right as they were boasting in sin.

 

[The Biblicist]

Let me sum up my position.

1. The "whole lump" is explicitly interpreted by Paul to be the congregational body of Christ at Corinth

"Ye may be...Ye are"

However your interpretation claims it is a STATE or QUALITY of Christian life.


2. The PURGING of leaven equals the REMOVAL of the immoral member from the membership

"purge out.....put away from among yourselves that wicked person."

However, your interpretation is purging out equals removing an immoral QUALITY from the CHRISTIAN LIFE.


3. The removal of the immoral MEMBER changes the membership of the "whole" lump to become a "new" lump of unleavened bread = disciplined church body as represented by the unleavened bread in the Lord's Supper.

Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
7 ¶ Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened.....
with such an one no not to eat.

However, your interpretation has nothing to do with church discipline or removal of known unrepentant sinful members but rather the removal of an immoral quality within the Christian life.

4. The Passover preparation equals the Lord's Supper Preparation of the congregational body

"Let us keep the feast.....Christ our passover was sacrificed for us....unleavened bread.....
with such an one no not to eat.

However, your interpretation is this is representative of the state of the Christian life and this not the singular "feast" but feasts (passover, tabernacles, Penetcost, etc.).

5. My position harmonizes the moral condition of the congregational body with the metaphorical application of the "unleavened" bread used in the Lord's Supper as representative of the literal and metaphorical body of Christ, thus demanding removal of known sinning members from the congregational body before observing the metaphorical body (unleavened bread) in the Lord Supper.

"leaveneth the whole lump....Ye may be a new lump....ye are unleavened....Let us keep the feast....Christ our passover was sacrificed for us......with such a one no not to eat"

The Lord's Supper requires the congregational body to inspect its public membership condition with regard to open and known sin because the unleavened bread represents that congregational body without known sin. Church discipline removes known unrepentant sinners from the membership in order to qualify the congregation to partake of the Lord's Supper symbolism.

Finally, the fact that Paul says "YE may be....YE are" demonstrates the unleavened bread metaphorically represents the "WHOLE" body at Corinth which church discipline can alter the membership so that it becomes "NEW" with regard to membership number and moral condition as a body that excludes Paul and all other Christians outside that congregational membership at Corinth. Proving the "unleavened bread" represents the local congregational body rather than some all inclusive universal invisible church body that would include Paul and all other true Christians.

This condemns "open communion" with regard to a mixed membership of sprinkled, poured and immersed believers as much as it condemns "open communion" with those known to embrace false doctrine.

6. The fact that the "whole" lump is explicitly represented to represent the whole membership at Coirnth ("YE may be....YE ARE") proves that a "brother" can be removed from this "whole" membership denying the "whole" represents all true believers from which no true "brother" can be removed from the "whole" universal invisible church. The fact that he was a true "brother" which was "purged out...put away from among yourselves" repudiates the universal invisible church theory or the Protestant church view.

However, your interpretation required to reinterpret verse 11 in order to cast doubt upon its application to a true brother in order to avoid the idea of a true brother being removed from the "whole" universal invisible church theory since Paul explicitly demands the "whole" lump of unleavened bread represents "YE.....YE ARE".

7. Closed Communion repudiates the whole Protestant view of ecclesiology. John Bunyan's "open communion" membership is the only view consistent with "open communion" observance of the Lord's Supper. However, the Particular English Baptist Association refused to recognize John Bunyan's "open communion" congregation as a rightly constituted congregation of Christ.

In 1659 the West Country Association of Baptists had this question and answer with regard to unbaptized persons and the Lord's Supper:

Query 3. Whether baptism be absolutely necessary to an orderly church communion?

Answer: We judge it so to be, becuse it's sutable to the declared will and ordinance of Jesus Christ, Mat. 28:19f., Acts 2:38, 41; 10:48.

Secondly, it's the clear and trodden paths of saints that have gone before us whose steps we judge it our duty to follow, Acts 2:41, 1 Cor. 11:1; Cant. 1:8.

Thirdly, it's the duty of those that believe in Christ to put on Christ in a visible way of profession by which they are distinguished from the world which profession or putting on is entered into by one baptism and is presented by the apostle as an argument to unite in the church of Christ, Eph. 4:5, Gal. 3:27.

Fourthly, it much concerns those who profess Christ to walk according to the rule of God in scriptures in faithfulness to the Lord, Acts 3:22, II Thes. 2:15 with which they cannot with clearness and comfort approve themselves either to God or men. Ps. 119:6, Jn. 15:10, or expect the blessing and promise of God to his people that do faithfully follow him in this his will, Acts 2;38, 5:32.
B.R. White, ed., Association Records of the Paricular Baptists of England, Wales, and Ireland to 1660, Part 2, The West Country and Ireland (The Baptist Historical Society, London

They believed it was disorderly to even go listen to unbaptized preachers or to observe the Lord's supper with such (The 8th meeting at Chard, 1657, Query 6, Query 7).