Featured The Early Particular Baptists were Protestant

In the Records of the Abingdon Association in the year 1651 concerning one named Thomas Proud we read:

"Thomas Proud, having greviously sinned against God by broaching that destructive opinion maintaining the mixed communion of the baptized and unbaptized in visible church fellowship, and haveing endeavored to draw other to the same judgment by several wayes and meanes and seek to rend and divide this church, as in preaching his error " - third general meeting, summer 1651

The Abingdon Association was in fellowship with both William Kiffin and John Spilsbury (p.131)


The Midland Associational records in June 1656 ask whether or not baptized believers should go and listen to unbaptized ministers:


Question 1. Whether baptized believers may joyne in any part of worship or publike hering the national ministers preach or other that are not baptized.


Answer: baptized believers ought not to here the nationall ministers preach or joyne with them in their publike worship, their pretended ministry being Babilonish, Rev. 18:4. Neither may they soe heare or joyne with unbaptized persones, though hoped to be godly, because they are disorderly in carrying one a publick ministery and worship without baptism, Col. 2:5; 2 Thes. 3:6 no, nor with baptized persons neither if not sound in the faith which is the cause of htose that are called free willers, Prov. 19:27. (Association Records of the Midlands to 1658, The Fifth General Meeting 4/6 June 1656)


Daniel King and Benjamin Coxe were part of this Association

 

The Association Records of the West Country in its 8th meeting at Chard in 1657 were so opposed to unbaptized preachers when asked whether it was right to go hear an unbaptized preacher and/or allow such to preach in their congregations, even though this person was not opposed to baptism, said it to go hear such should be governed by "their rule for such a practice" (which previously was declared to be against their rule) but to let unbaptized ministers preach in their congregation was condemned.

Query 6. Whether it be unlawfull or contrary to any rule in the New Testament for baptized believers to hear a person that hath received a gift from the Lord, which gift hath been blest by the Lord to the conversion of sinners and to the confirming of saints in the faith of Christ, being of a holy and grave conversation, and denying wholly the world's waies and which, though not yet baptized, yet so far from opposing that ordinance that he is earnestly longing and diligently waiting for further information therein to the end he may not practice the same formerly but in the power of him into whose name believers ought to be baptized?

Answer: for the hearing of such a person when the church is not assembled, as we desire to be very tender and cautious in our conclusions in such a case, so we do earnestly desire the brethren concerned in this matter to look to their rule for such a practice.

Secondly, but for such a person to be permitted to preach in the church assembled, we judge it altogether without rule, and of dangerous concernment and that for these grounds:
first, because we are to keep close to the commands of Christ and not do everything that is not expressly forbidden, Mat. 28:19f., Acts 3:23, Col. 2:18 to the end.
secondly, because it is a disorderly practice, being contrary to the rule of the gospel, II Thes. 3:6, compared with 2:15, 1 Cor. 14:40. For, if disorder in a person dully received into communion may hinder him from administering in the church, much more will it him that was never orderly received.
thirdly, because that such a practice, being contrary to the rule, becomes justly offensive to the churches and saints and so is contrary to that, 1 Cor. 10:31, Ro. 14:14, II Cor. 8:12, Ro. 16:17.
fourthly, because it will prove the ready way to disorder and confusion in the churches of Christ and therefore is not of God, 1 Cor. 14:33: for God is not the author of confusion but of peace as in all the churches of the saints.
Fifthly, it may prove a means to hinder the person himself and likewise others that are waiting at Zion's gates from their obedience to the truth and also beget a low esteem thereof in the hearts of those that are already in the truth, Mat. 2:8.
Sixthly, it laieth the church who ownes such a practice liable to the unsoundness and errours of disorderly persons standing out of the truth, who ordinarily are more subject to receive principles contrary to Christ then persons standing in the truth. And this seems to us to be in part already bothin the person presented and in the persons presenting this query who, as it seems to us, owns it to be a formal thing to obey the Lord in his ordinances upon the account of faith in Christ and love to him but look for a greater power, which principle we desire the Lord to deliver his people from. Wherefore, as our judgement is, that such a practice is disorderly and so contrary to the rule of Christ and dangerous to persons both within and without the church and likewise will prove dishonorable to the Lord, so it is our advance and counsel to such brethren and churches that are or may be concerned in his matter in the fear of the Lord to weigh and soberly to consider the grounds presented by us in this answer.
(Association Records of the West Country - Particular English Baptists - 1655).

Here is evidence that such early English Baptists discourged their members from attending services by unbaptized preachers and would not allow them to preach in their pulpits much less take communion with them.

The early American Baptists came from these early associational English Baptist prior to 1689.

 

Good.

The introduction of church discipline begins in verse 5 after he had already rebuked the congregation for their pride. They could not administer verse 5 without first dealing with their own sin. However, verse 5-13 deals with discipline of the member and why he should be disciplined. One primary reason is that they cannot "eat" the Lord's Supper with such an open sinner in their midst just as Paul's analogy in verses 6-10 makes clear.

The "feast" is singular not plural as your interpretation demands. It specific not generic as your interpretation demands. The analogy is crysytal clear. The house of God at Corinth cannot be prepared to eat the Lord's Supper with an open sinner in their midst any more than the Israelite could be prepared to observe the Passover with leaven in their house. The "whole lump" when becomes a "new" lump when the member that is openly sinning is removed as well as when all openly known sin is removed. Verse 5 deals directly with the member just as verse 11-13 deals directly with that member and any other member like him. Verses 6-10 provides the perfect Old testament analogy that makes the transition from preparation to observe the Passover to preparation necessary to observe the Lord's Supper - cyrstal clear!

Removal of their pride is not the action of church discipline in verse 5 but requires that attitude of the church be rectififed prior to taking the action in verse 5. Their glorying was in this SINFUL MEMBER the glorying had to be removed prior to observing verse 5. Both their glorying and church discipline had to be removed prior to observing the Lord's Supper. The Old Testament analogy for removing leaven from the house of an Israelite is the perfect transition to proper preparation "to keep....to eat" the Lord's Supper for the House of God at Corinth.

While you argue that the "leaven" must include the attitude of pride by the congregation, you cannot deny it does not also include the member which is the object of that glorying. Hence, both are leave and both must be removed or else they cannot "eat" the Lord's Supper any more than the Israelite could eat the Passover.

This is pure eisegesis at its finest! You are hammering on a HALF truth while missing the WHOLE truth of this application. The leaven must include the member as he is the object of their glorying and that must be taken care of before they obey verse 5 and before they can "keep the feast" without leaven of both attitude and member. Until that member is purged they cannot "eat" the Lord's Supper (v. 11) and the reason they can't eat with such a one is metaphorically provided in a very clear picture in verses 6-8. They can't eat the Lord's Supper because they have leaven - known public sinner - in the "whole lump." The direct application to preparation of the Lord's Supper is easy to see and a clear transition to make Paul's point why they can "eat with such a one" and so they are commanded to remove him (vv. 12-13).

You are confusing your universal invisible church with the kind of church that can exclude a "brother" which Paul is speaking of in this context. Unbaptized Christians are not church members in the New Testament period and you can't provide a single text to demonstrate they were. In contrast I can provide clear Biblical evidence that demands baptism prior to church membership (Mt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:40-41).

 

So, you admits that British baptists apostatized from their historic position. Good, that is a start. I also believe that such an apostasy began to take affect in 1689 but I don't think you can prove that all British Baptist congregations had completely left the older more Biblical order.

. Another admission that the older order still existed in this transition of apostasy from the older order. Baptists after the older order had already come to America and that is made clear in the Philadelphia minutes and the New Hampshire Confession of faith.

 

Again, you are equating church membership with salvation. They never had believed that baptism demonstrated salvation. Read Benjamin Coxe's admission to that in the explanation he wrote with the 1646 Confession.

XVI. Although a true believer, whether baptized, or unbaptized, be in the state of salvation, and shall certainly be saved: Yet in obedience to the command of Christ every believer ought to desire baptism, and to yield himself to be baptized according to the rule of Christ in His word:

Your whole argument is based on confusing the church with salvation. Baptists have ALWAYS taught that salvation is the prerequisite for baptism and baptism is the prerequisite for church membership NEVER vice versa. Your whole argument is based upon confusion of this Baptist and Biblical order - Acts 2:38-40; Mt. 28:19-20. Your whole argument is based upon a complete repudiation of the consistent Biblical command (Mt. 28:19-20) and example (Acts 2:38-41). You have nothing to base your view upon but PURE SILENCE at the expense of and incomplete contradiction to both Biblical precept and example spelled out clearly without any ambiguity.

Nothing to do with it???? The commands "let us keep the feast" followed by the command "not to eat with such" all in the same context of "unleavened bread" and you think the Lord's Supper is not implied in the very preparation background in order to keep the Passover?????.

After admitting that the London Baptists regarded both as orthodox (closed and open communion) this is your "last word" evaluation of those who practiced closed communion????? Your "last word" would be equally valid in the mouth of the fornicating man at Corinth in response to church discipline as he was a "brother" which the disciplined proved (1 Cor. 11:5 with 2 Cor. 2:6). Church membership not only demands the prerequisite of baptism but also a holy life and to respond to one prerequisite "Keep to yourself, do not come near me, for I am holier than you" would be equally applicable to the other prerequisite, even more so if your view were true. You are right, we are clearly not going to agree with each other.

 

This was a good discussion. I will give credit to Bro. Martin for pointing out that the attitude of the congregation was in fact how the sinful member had already leavened the whole lump (metaphor for the observing congregation) and therefore both the wrong attitude and sinning member constituted the leaven that needed to be purged out before they were qualified to partake of the Lord's Supper.

In 1 Corinthians 11 where there can be no question that the Lord's Supper is in view. Here both the congregation and certain individual members failed to "discern the Lord's body." Meaning, they failed to understand that the symbolism of "unleavened bread" used in the supper required that congregational body observing the Supper had to understand that known leaven in the body disqualified that body from observing the supper. Such known leaven consisted of sinful pride and members (1 Cor. 5) as well as open schism (1 Cor. 11:17-18) and to partake in that condition failed to discern the Lord's Body as represented by "unleavened" bread. The individual member who partook of the Supper with KNOWN sin in their own life failed to discern the Lord's Body as represented by the "unleavened bread" as it required that all known sin in the individual member's life be purged as well.