Featured The Early Particular Baptists were Protestant

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

 

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 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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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).