IMB Trustee Meeting

[Hardsheller]

Nobody in the Southern Baptist Convention is proposing that we start accepting any of those baptisms.

 

[Lamin Dibba]

I also wonder about their position on missionaries who practice open communion. Open communion is without question in opposition to the BF&M.

Dear Mark,

Here's what the BF&M of 2000 says about the Lord's Supper:

The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.

Open and closed communion isn't even mentioned! How can you say that it is "without question" in opposition to open communion?

Sorry, but I can't see your point.

LD

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Lamin Dibba:
Open and closed communion isn't even mentioned [in the Baptist Faith and Message]! How can you say that it is "without question" in opposition to open communion?

Aritcle VII, on Baptism and the Lord's Supper, says:

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.

The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming [emphasis added].

The Baptist Faith and Message, beyond any shadow of a doubt, precludes the practice of open communion.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[Lamin Dibba]

Aritcle VII, on Baptism and the Lord's Supper, says:

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.

The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.

The Baptist Faith and Message, beyond any shadow of a doubt, precludes the practice of open communion.

Mark Osgatharp

Dear Mark,

Having preached in Southern Baptist Churches for 20 years, and having served as a pastor, missionary, and as a denominational worker, I have never been in an SBC church that practiced closed communion. No one I know, and I am with Southern Baptists every day, would interpret that passage to mean that a church should restrict partaking of communion to only the members of a particular local church.

That is not to say that there might be an SBC church that you know that practices closed communion, but I have not had that experience. At the same time, I am aware that you can't prove a negative.

Sorry, but I still disagree with your assertion.

LD

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
The Baptist Faith and Message, beyond any shadow of a doubt, precludes the practice of open communion.

So before each time you have the Lord's supper in your church you also give an invitation and have a baptism first?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
Ask yourself the question: how much theology does a new believer know?

The alien immersion question has nothing to do with how much a new believer knows. It is about the fact that immersions administered by cults cannot possibly be the baptism of Christ, for Christ does not countenance heresy.

For example, most Baptists in this country do not acknowledge Mormon immersion because they consider Mormonism a cult. If the Alliance of Baptists do not constitute a cult, the word has no meaning.

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]I was not talking about cults. I was talking about churches such as non-Baptist evangelical churches such as some Bible churches and other churches which are clearly evangelical and teach the Bible.

 

[Jimmy C]

Mark O is merely demonstrating the dangers of Landmarkism, and why it was so important for the SBC to separate themselves from the landmarkers in the early 1900s

If you go back and read Dr Burleson's blogs you can see that creeping landmarkism is one of his concerns

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Lamin Dibba:
No one I know, and I am with Southern Baptists every day, would interpret that passage to mean that a church should restrict partaking of communion to only the members of a particular local church......Sorry, but I still disagree with your assertion.

Lamin,

Open communion is the practice of inviting all believers present, whether baptized or not, to partake of the supper. Historically, Southern Baptist have been opposed to open communion, though they have been divided on the question of whether communion should be extended to all baptized present or only members the church partaking the suppers.

There is no question whatsoever that the words of the BF&M were intended to assert the historic Baptist doctrine of restricted communion and to proscribe the practice of open communion. It may be that many Southern Baptists ignore this article of the BF&M, but there can be no question whatsover about what it teaches.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[gb93433]

Remember SBC churches are autonomous. At least that is what they say.

 

[RandR]

I think its pretty obvious that the article intnetional does not define what constitutes "church," knowing that some churches will read that article and think, "only this one particular local part of the body." While others will read "church" and think of the church universal. Personally, since there is one faith, one God, and one baptism, it would seem to me that there is but one church as well. Any confessing believers who've made a public profession of their faith in Christ are members of the church, and are therefore welcome at my table.

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by RandR:
I think its pretty obvious that the article intnetional does not define what constitutes "church," knowing that some churches will read that article and think, "only this one particular local part of the body." While others will read "church" and think of the church universal.

RandR,

No such thing can be extrapolated from the Baptist Faith and Message, much less is it "obvious".

The Baptist Faith and Message does define what constitutes a church and it is 100% clear that immersion in water on a profession of faith is prerequisite to membership in the church as well as participation in the Lord's supper. This was standard Baptist doctrine in the days when the Baptist Faith and Message was framed, among Landmark and non-Landmark Baptists alike.

When the Baptist Faith and Message was first written, it didn't even mention a "universal church." That clause was not added until the 1960s. But even with that clause, it is still clear and incontrovertable that the local church is under consideration in article VII which addresses baptism and the Lord's supper. I quote it again for all impartial readers:

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.

The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.

Words could not be more plain and anyone in the least familiar with the history of 19th century Baptists knows that close communion was standard Baptist doctrine, and one for which they were "every where spoken against" by the Protestant denominations.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[Hardsheller]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lamin Dibba:
No one I know, and I am with Southern Baptists every day, would interpret that passage to mean that a church should restrict partaking of communion to only the members of a particular local church......Sorry, but I still disagree with your assertion.

Lamin,

Open communion is the practice of inviting all believers present, whether baptized or not, to partake of the supper. Historically, Southern Baptist have been opposed to open communion, though they have been divided on the question of whether communion should be extended to all baptized present or only members the church partaking the suppers.

There is no question whatsoever that the words of the BF&M were intended to assert the historic Baptist doctrine of restricted communion and to proscribe the practice of open communion. It may be that many Southern Baptists ignore this article of the BF&M, but there can be no question whatsover about what it teaches.

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Mark you are wrong about this one. At the organizational meeting of the SBC in 1845, the delegates present that week attended Church on Sunday Morning at FBC Augusta. They had communion and all participated.

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Hardsheller,

So how does that make me wrong? How have I misrepresented the case? Here are the facts:

A. Open communion is the practice of allowing all believers, whether baptized or not, to partake of the communion.

B. Close communion is the practice of Baptists from different local churches taking the communion together.

C. Closed communion is the practice of only members of one local church partaking of the supper together.

Close communion was probably the majority Baptist practice in the 1800s. That is what you describe as taking place at the organizational meeting of the SBC. Even J.R. Graves, who later became a strong advocate for closed communion, at one time participated in communion services at associational meetings.

Closed communion was a minority practice among Baptists but by the influence of the Landmarkers came to be be very common, especially in the south, toward the later 1800s.

Open communion was considered by the regular Baptists of the 1800s to be an abberation and was practiced chiefly by the Freewill and other Arminian Baptists. It was not until well into the 1900s that open communion became a popular practice among the regular Baptists; and the old Baptist doctrine of restricted communion is still part and partial of most Baptist confessions of faith.

Even to this day, many Baptist churches which in reality practice open communion, profess to practice close communion.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[gb93433]

Mark Osgatharp

You never did answer the question I asked.

So before each time you have the Lord's supper in your church you also give an invitation and have a baptism first?

 

[Hardsheller]

The definition of Closed Communion as practiced by Southern Baptists is Observance of the Lord's Supper as a Local Church Ordinance with Baptized Members of that local church being the only ones qualified to partake.

All the others that you mention are varying examples of Open Communion.

Mark, I would like your references for other definitions of closed communion that extend to members of other churches.

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
Hardsheller,

So how does that make me wrong? How have I misrepresented the case? Here are the facts:

A. Open communion is the practice of allowing all believers, whether baptized or not, to partake of the communion.

B. Close communion is the practice of Baptists from different local churches taking the communion together.

C. Closed communion is the practice of only members of one local church partaking of the supper together.

Close communion was probably the majority Baptist practice in the 1800s. That is what you describe as taking place at the organizational meeting of the SBC. Even J.R. Graves, who later became a strong advocate for closed communion, at one time participated in communion services at associational meetings.

Closed communion was a minority practice among Baptists but by the influence of the Landmarkers came to be be very common, especially in the south, toward the later 1800s.

Open communion was considered by the regular Baptists of the 1800s to be an abberation and was practiced chiefly by the Freewill and other Arminian Baptists. It was not until well into the 1900s that open communion became a popular practice among the regular Baptists; and the old Baptist doctrine of restricted communion is still part and partial of most Baptist confessions of faith.

Even to this day, many Baptist churches which in reality practice open communion, profess to practice close communion.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Hardsheller:
The definition of Closed Communion as practiced by Southern Baptists is Observance of the Lord's Supper as a Local Church Ordinance with Baptized Members of that local church being the only ones qualified to partake.

All the others that you mention are varying examples of Open Communion.

Jim, that may be the current understanding and use of the term among Southern Baptists in your area, but I believe that a quick review of Baptists writers in the 1800s, such as Pendleton, Howell, Dagg, et al., will demonstrate that is not the historical use of the term. Baptists have not historically called inviting other Baptists of like faith and order to participate in the Lord's supper open communion.

BY close communion we mean that practice among Baptists in which they limit the participation in the observance of the Lord’s Supper, to those who are members in good standing in Baptist churches. And by open communion the practice of other denominations in which they give and accept invitations from members of other churches.

Why Close Communion and not Open Communion, by O. L. Hailey (J. R. Graves' son-in-law) from Baptist Why and Why Not Edited by J. M. Frost, The Sunday School Board of The Southern Baptist Convention, 1900

We have seen that the Lord's supper has been committed to the local churches for observance and perpetuation; and that local churches, if organized according to the Scriptures, contain none but baptized persons. It follows hence, that baptism is a pre-requisite to communion at the Lord's table. The position which baptism holds in the commission, determines its priority to the other commanded observances therein referred to, among which church communion must be included. This is the doctrine which has been held on the subject by Christians generally, in all ages; and it is now held by the great mass of Pedobaptists. With them we have no controversy as to the principle by which approach to the Lord's table should be regulated. We differ from them in practice, because we account nothing Christian baptism, but immersion on profession of faith, and we, therefore, exclude very many whom they admit. But there are Baptists, who reject the principle that baptism is a prerequisite to communion, and maintain that nothing ought to be a condition of communion, which is not a condition of salvation. They hold that all pious persons, baptized or unbaptized, have a right to the Lord's supper. Their practice is called open or mixed communion, and the arguments in defence of it will now claim our attention.

Communion by J. L. Dagg, A Treastise on Church Order, 1858

Open, free, or mixed communion, is, strictly speaking, that which permits any one who desires, and believes himself qualified, to come to the Lord 's table, without any questions being asked, or conditions imposed, by the Church where the communion is observed. But ordinarily the term open communion is applied to the practice of the greater part of Pedobaptist churches, in which they permit and invite, not all persons, but the members of other evangelical churches to their Communion, whatever may be their views of doctrine, or Church order, in other respects.

Close, strict, or restricted communion is properly that which does not invite all, indiscriminately, who may choose to come to the Lord's table, but restricts the invitation to a particular class. But ordinarily the term close communion is applied to the practice of Baptist churches, which invite to it only baptized believers, walking in orderly fellowship in their own churches. And by baptized believers, they mean, of course, immersed believers; since they hold that nothing but immersion is baptism.

The Lord's Supper , Hiscox's New Baptist Church Directory, 1859

Baptist Principles Reset, by J. B. Jeter, Chapters 10-13

These are some resources I found quickly online. I'm sure there are many others.

 

[Hardsheller]

R.L. Thanks for the clarification. I stand corrected!

 

[rlvaughn]

You're welcome. I think the above excerpts are a fair sample (of many that could be quoted) demonstrating historical usage.

Common and regional usage may vary. For example, it is not unusual to hear someone in my area refer to inviting others of like faith and order as "closed communion". Yet, on the other hand, for polemical and prejudicial purposes, many of the "closed local church members only communionists" in our area will consistently refer to a church inviting members from sister churches (if present) to commune as "practicing open communion". IMO, that is not a proper use of terminology, but it is a use nevertheless.

 

[RandR]

Mark,

While the BFM prescribes a particular mode of baptism as a prerequisite (a forgiveable offense, we are "Baptists" after all), there is nothing in those two paragraphs that indicate that only members of one local body can share the meal together.

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by RandR:
I think its pretty obvious that the article intnetional does not define what constitutes "church," knowing that some churches will read that article and think, "only this one particular local part of the body." While others will read "church" and think of the church universal...

Rand, it would seem pretty unlikely that this could be taken to mean the church universal, since the wording of the BF&M is "it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper." I don't see how any Baptists could take the church here to mean something other than the local church, since baptism is a prerequisite to being part of it. Do any Baptists who believe in the church universal believe one enters that church by baptism? If so, wouldn't that be baptismal regeneration?

While the BFM prescribes a particular mode of baptism as a prerequisite (a forgiveable offense, we are "Baptists" after all), there is nothing in those two paragraphs that indicate that only members of one local body can share the meal together.

I think somewhere along the way in this discussion we got away from Mark's original contention that open communion is in opposition to the BF&M, to thinking he said that it teaches closed communion (local church only). We need to refocus.