Well said, Pastor Mark!

Should believers who are mistaken on the proper subjects for baptism be excluded from the Lord’s Supper? This, at least in my mind, is a much more serious question than whether they should be excluded from membership in Baptist churches. Mark appears to have answere the first question with a "not always," with his position that baptism is prerequisite only to REGULAR participation at the Lord's Table. He has in various places and in practice made it clear that occasional participation by a visiting paedobaptist may be tolerated if not welcomed. I would like to see him go a bit further, though, in explaining why only occasional Table unity is permissible among believers who on all issues other than baptism and its polity implications may be likeminded in conviction.

Here are some thoughts to prompt further discussion:

As errors regarding the initiatory rite of the new covenant community -- baptism -- had yet to creep in to the church during the NT period, the NT itself does not answer the question of how an evident believer bearing the marks of true conversion, striving to conform to the image of Christ, and seeking to live in unity with fellow Christians who yet misunderstands the biblical teaching regarding the preconditions for the initiatory rite and, in fact, fails to biblically receive the rite should be treated. Do they deserve the whip of discipline (1 Cor. 4:21)? Or motherly nurture and instruction (1 Thess. 2:7)?
It seems to me that there is no text of Scripture that demands such an individual be excluded from the life of the new covenant community, hence no reason that they should, in every instance, be excluded from the continuing rite of the new covenant community -- the Lord's Supper. To the contrary, biblical principles of Christian unity - expressed even in Paul's teaching on the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 10-11 where the covenant community is held to be created in its deepest sense not by the initiatory rite of baptism (a human act) but by the atoning cross-work of Christ (a divine act) -- seem to suggest that such an errant believer be welcomed to participate in the Lord's Supper even as she receives gracious, biblical correction on her sub-biblical understanding of baptism.

Such an approach does not deny that the clear pattern in Scripture is baptism preceding the Lord’s Supper. Indeed, baptism precedes every aspect of the Christian life in the New Testament. In the First Century there was such a strong correspondence between the symbol of entering into the new covenant people of God – baptism -- and the reality of entry into the new covenant people of God – conversion – that even in the New Testament the symbol was used as a short-hand for referring to the reality itself.

Today, however, the strong correspondence between symbol and the spiritual reality of conversion has been lost in many parts of the church. There are millions of gospel-believing, Christ-loving believers who believe that their infant baptism was a valid baptism. Through a hermeneutical error, a misreading of Scripture, the initiatory rite has been detached from the reality (conversion) in many churches. As Baptists, we are working to restore the biblical correspondence of the symbol to the reality: baptism is only appropriate where there is evidence of faith, a true conversion. Baptism should come at the beginning of an individual’s Christian life, not their biological life. But when someone who by the evidence of their life shows themselves to be a brother or sister in Christ is confused on this point, the right response is not to deny them the symbol of Christ’s body broken and blood spilt. Rather, we should to address the point on which the confusion exists: baptism. We should admit the person to the Lord’s Table, but seek to teach them and admonish them to come into conformity with the biblical teaching on baptism. We should not let our commitment to the ideal ordering of the symbols (baptism, then the Lord Suppers) become an excuse for treating fellow believers as second class citizens of the kingdom.

Denying someone a place at the Lord’s Supper in the New Testament era was tantamount to saying that they were outside the faith. Is that what we want to communicate to our evangelical brothers and sisters who are confused about baptism? We’ll read and commend their books, sing their hymns, listen to their sermons, celebrate their ministries, speak at their conferences and then inform them that they are unfit for the act of remembering Christ through the cup and the bread?

Is it not a better approach to delight in shared convictions about the symbolic value and meaning of the Lord’s Supper and, in other settings, to gently work to gain shared convictions about baptism?

I don't envy the very, very difficult decisions that pastors/elders have to make for their flock. I believe that Mark Dever and John Piper both make some very excellent points. And I believe the decisions they are making is strictly for care for their flock.

Mark makes the very excellent point of the very clear teaching, in my opinion, in Scripture of believer's baptism. I think Mark makes the excellent point that we will continue to sin in this life. A question I've heard raised before is that, "is believing in wrong doctrine, sin?" Within the confines of orthodoxy, Christians have different beliefs in eschatology. Some Christians believe in the day age theory, others in the framework interpretation, and others the 24 hour six day creation. The list goes on. With issues that are not salvation related, Christians have different positions, and if believing in wrong doctrine is sin, well, I guess we are all in unrepentant sin.

John Piper also made an excellent point when his church reconsidered this issue of baptism and ultimately changed their constitution to allow people who were not baptized as believers to be members. He and the elders thought it was a very serious thing to say to a regenerate person that they may not be members of their church.

These are difficult decisions. Where does the leadership draw the line of telling a regenerate person they may not become a member? I think we would all agree that a person gives evidence that s/he is a Christian if they trust Christ alone for their salvation. In fact, a person trusting in Christ alone for their salvation is evidence of their entrance into the kingdom. And I think what John Piper may be saying is that it is a very serious matter to deviate what is required to be in the kingdom verses what is required to be a member in the church.

I'm reminded of the passage of Mark 8:28, where Jesus spits on the blind man's eyes and asks the blind man, "Do you see anything?" And the blind man says, "I see people but they look like trees walking around." Then Jesus puts his hands on the man's eyes and completely heals the blind man. I know the primary application of this passage is to new converts in that new converts really dimly understand the things of God and they don't fully understand that God is concerned about her whole life.

But I think we can apply this passage to all us. I know there are some issues we all dimly understand, hopefully not many of them, but some nonetheless. The Lord will not exclude them from the kingdom because they dimly understand or misunderstand some issues. And I think what Piper might be saying is that we should very, very carefully weigh these issues before we exclude someone from a church membership who the Lord does not exclude from His own kingdom.

"Until there, the greatest of things--the proclamation of the Gospel--we can partner in."

Well, it seems that this really isn't possible either in light of 1 Cor. 11:26.

“For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” (1 Corinthians 11:26 ESV)

Jeremy

I still have yet to see a biblical argument for the exclusion of another believer in Christ based on their view of Baptism. Can someone point me in the right direction?

I have yet to read a biblical argument that would forbid the likes of Robert M'Cheyne, Samuel Rutherford, Martin Luther, John Knox,Jonathan Edwards, Gilbert Tennant, Samuel Davies, Richard Sibbes, or John Owen from participating at the Lord's Table. I am not trying to be belligerent in tone, this is how I run the question through my pea brain.

James

Yes, I'd like to see Mark answer the question of whether or not it is consistent for him to allow Lig into his pulpit, but not allow him to partake of communion.

As Ed commented in an earlier post, I also would benefit from some pastoral advice in relation to the "mode" of baptism. My wife was sprinkled as an adult in a Methodist church. Pastor Dever, how would you view her "baptism"? I am about to begin ministry with a Baptist congregation in Pennsylvania and this is a pressing issue for us as a result. Would you suggest that she be immersed? On what grounds?

In Christ,
Bryan Peters

"There are always going to be other sins of which we are not aware. A particularly difficult category would be those things that one set of Gospel-trusting Christians take to be sin and another set do not"

This may be true in our own personal lives as it pertains to our daily walk with Christ. But if we truly believe and recognize that a person is in "unrepentant sin", and we have a firm biblical conviction of why that person is in unrepentant sin, how can we share a pulpit or continue to fellowship closely with that person, knowing they are in unrepentant sin? Even if that person doesn't realize he/she is sinning, it is still sin, is it not (Lev. 4:13-14)?

I'm certainly not trying to encourage division over this issue, nor am I saying I take, as someone referred to in a previous post, the JR Graves position of pulpit affiliation. I'm simply trying to understand where the balance is between compromising our convictions for the sake of unity and defending our convictions for the sake of preserving truth. I've listened to the sermon you presented at the New Attitude conference, and thought it was great (it was a huge help to me, given my very legalistic background). However, saying that somebody is in unrepentant sin seems somewhat contradictory to the underlying lesson behind your message. Thoughts?

Pastor Dever,

It would be neat to see how you respond to Sam Storms' thoughts on this issue [http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/enjoying-god/piper-grudem-dever-et-al-on-baptism-the-lords-table-and-church-membership-just-how-together-for-the-gospel-are-we/]. I just wanted to point out that article in case you might miss it.

Thanks and God Bless,

Bob Hayton

If anyone is interested, in a recent post I give links to basically all the key posts in this baptism discussion.

http://fundyreformed.wordpress.com/2007/08/20/agreement-on-baptism/

Blessings in Christ,

Bob Hayton

I was reading up some discussions that Bethlehem Baptist Church had on changing their constitution to admit as members those who weren't immersed as believers.

It says, "Thus, we would welcome into membership candidates
who, after a time of study, discussion, and prayer, prescribed by the Elders,
retain a conviction that it would be a violation of their conscience to be baptized
by immersion as believers. This conviction of conscience must be based on a
plausible, intelligible, Scripturally-based argument rather than on mere
adherence to a tradition or family expectations."

Let me first say, that I believe there are some very, very, good reasons why a church that subscribes to believers' baptism by immersion should not just say "okay, you don't believe in baptism by immersion, no prob." BBC takes a very strict approach in that AFTER a time of study, discussion and prayer, if it violates that prospective member's conscience, then and only then do they admit the person as a member.

So, a church that affirms believer's baptism could require a pedobaptist that wanted to join a believer's baptist church to go through a study of believer's baptism. Having that pedobaptist go through a study allows allows the elders to see their attitude. In their conviction of pedobaptism are they going to have a sort of a "fold their arms" and "roll their eyes oh pul-leaze" attitude everytime the church baptizes someone by immersion? If so, then they may want to search for another church - in this respect, I think denominations are a good thing, because it allows believers with deep convictions to worship without any hindrances.

But, there may be many good reasons why a pedobaptist would join a local baptist church. There may not be good pedobaptist churches around that have good teaching for example. Or that person really feels pull and drawn to serve in that church.

When the Lord first save me it wasn't until a year after or so that I was baptized by immersion. (I was Catholic). The church I went to wasn't a particular good teaching church, but they stood their ground in that they would not admit me as a member. In one sense, it was good that they stood their ground, but they didn't really offer a good defense of believer's baptism. The only reason why I gave in was that they were having a massive public baptism at a river and to me that seemed more, oh, I don't know, authentic, than doing it in a bath tub. At any rate, it wasn't until I heard a debate a few years later by John MacArthur and RC Sproul when it became crystal clear on the Bible's teaching of baptism.

Mark, My question is, "what do you do when it's a interpretation problem?" If both sides are saying with all honesty that there right, what then? It's one thing to be in blatant sin, it's another thing to just be wrong on how one interprets the scripture. Also this teaching isn't clear cut and dry, if it was then there wouldn't be this conversation going on.

I Cor. 1.17

In response to Jeremy, a couple of lines up, about the primacy of preaching the gospel

1 Cor 1:10-18 "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel-- not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

Pastor Dever,

Would you allow Lig Duncan to come to communion at CHBC?

Grace and peace,

MO

Here’s a few points to consider:

1) It is inconceivable that a person should be admitted to the celebratory rite of the New Covenant community (Communion) without first having received the initiatory rite (Baptism). We even see this in the signs of the Old Covenant - a person had to be circumcised (initiatory) to partake in the passover (celebratory).

2) For the same reason above, every major Christian denomination (including the Presbyterians) require Baptism as a prerequisite to Communion. They just have a very loose definition of what constitutes Baptism. We “seem” overly strict because of our particular view of baptism NOT our view of communion - though most do not understand this and think the reverse.

3) Communion is an ordinance of the local church for confessing members of Christ’s Church. The only ecclesiastical means Christ has given us to ID those in or out of this Church is the ordinance of baptism. I can personally recognize the fruit of conversion through other means, but this is not the same issue.

4) I would receive members of paedobaptist congregations to the Lord’s Table IF they have received believer’s baptism, which is entirely possible.

Gardner,

I apologize if I missed your point. Let me say that I agree with "the primacy of preaching the gospel." However, let me try and expound on my logic since it may have been missed.

1) Dever supports Lig Duncan's "proclamation of the Gospel."

2) According to 1 Cor. 11:26 the partaking of the bread and the wine _is_ to "proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes" (i.e. the gospel).

3) Dever would (as I understand it at this time) deny Duncan from "eat[ing] this bread and drink[ing] the cup."

4) Therefore, Dever would deny Duncan from this specific form of proclaiming the Gospel.

Don't minimize this. If Dever denies sharing the Table with Duncan then denies Duncan from proclaiming the Gospel - maybe not in the way that you usually think of it but certainly in at least one way Paul (i.e. Jesus) thinks of it.

Peace to you,

Jeremy

In the summary conclusions of his fine book 'Last Supper and Lord’s Supper' (Eerdmans 1980, 155-57), NT scholar I. Howard Marshall records the following observation:

“The New Testament says nothing about any particular conditions for participation in the sacrament beyond a willingness to come to Christ in faith and with love for other believers. The Lord's Supper today should be open to all who wish to feed on Christ and profess faith in him. This implies that unbaptized believers may take part, although it would be normal for such persons to undergo baptism without delay. It also means that there should be no barriers of age; what matters is faith and an understanding of what is happening appropriate to the age of the participant.”

Marshall’s views are reflective of the Methodist-Weslyan tradition on this issue. To echo Matt Redman’s repeated and repeatedly unanswered question, what is the exegetical support for the claim that baptism (some would insist here that the mode must be immersion) is an unequivocal prerequisite for the Lord’s Supper but is not similarly prerequisite for all other forms of Christian fellowship and cooperation (cf. Acts 2:41-42)?

Steve,

Please find an example of "Christian fellowship and cooperation" apart from baptized believers. The difficulty of these issues is that the primitive church was substantively uniform in practice - thus many dilemmas faced today are not directly dealt with in proof text manner. You must view the context of the NT community as a whole.

Also, I appreciate Dr. Marshall's scholarly contributions. However, he is inserting his own preferences in the quotation you provided. The early church actually dismissed unbelievers (non-baptized) from the worship service when the time came for the Lord's Supper. They clearly saw it as a communion of the saints in the Lord - and baptism was always the outward mark of the inward reality - the public profession of faith in Christ.

Contra Marshall, I know of absolutely no evidence of an unbaptized catechumen (who was in route to baptism) partaking of the Supper.

Klay,

You said, "The difficulty of these issues is that the primitive church was substantively uniform in practice" Are you sure that this is true? It seems, to me anyways, that the NT addresses a diverse group of people who are addressing very similar issues. Hence, the first church council as recorded in Acts 15. Moreover, most of the doctrines you take as absolute truth were battled over in the first two centuries. What is remarkable about the primitive church is the nonconformity, not the uniformity.

Jeremy

Pastor Klay,

You still did not give a biblical warrant for such a position. I appreciate your passion and clarity but they will not convince without the rock-solid foundation of the Scriptures. Can you please use the Scriptures to show me this as a biblical position and not simply a theological one?

I find myself wondering what is the biblical basis for Piper's position: The ipso facto disqualification of pedo-baptists from church leadership. Why would his arguments in favor of church membership for pedo-baptists not avail to secure church leadership for the same?

Bart,

Piper's repeated answer on this question is that he believes (as do I) that the further and further one moves into the authority and teaching aspects of the church the more and more they must agree with the church's affirmation of faith.

As a result, he believes that the "entrance" to the church should be as wide as possible (thus reflecting as closely as possible Christ's church). However, as one moves into into authority, teaching, eldership, their doctrine must be more and more accurate.

In my mind, this is both wise, and biblical given the characteristics outlined for elders. These requirements (for elders / deacons) are not requirements for all that would enter into the church (i.e. most members) they are requirements for specific roles and functions in the church.

Peace to you,

Jeremy

Jeremy

Jeremy,

The existence of biblical requirements for the office of elder amounts to carte blanche permission for us to author additional requirements for the office of elder?

??

Sorry Bart, I missed the point of your reply.

Sorry, Jeremy. I communicate poorly sometimes.

My point is this: As you and Piper have noted, there are biblical requirements in place already for the office of elder, and baptism is clearly not among them. To add baptism to the qualifications of eldership is arguably a more eggregious innovation beyond the scriptures than it is to require it for membership. In the NT at least we have a connection of some sort between baptism and entry into the Christian communitythe consistent record of people being baptized in conjunction with conversion and admission into the visible body. But the biblical requirements to serve as an elder make no mention anywhere of baptism. According to the Bible, any member of the congregation who meets the biblical qualifications ought to be eligible at least for service in congregational leadership. To say otherwise is to affix new regulations de novo onto the bibilical set of qualifications.

Jeremy & Matt,

I am extremely encouraged by your insistence on Biblical support - because in the end, this is what matters. As brothers in our Lord, we are looking to rightly divide the Word of truth and apply it to life and ministry.

Though my schedule is quite full right now, I think the subject of our discussion is a worthy and timely one. Therefore, I will set aside time to draft a post on my blog further addressing these issues. I hope to make the post by Friday afternoon. I'll leave a link here when it is ready.

Until then ... Grace & Peace!

As promised:

http://ruanole2.blogspot.com/2007/08/close-communion.html

A beginning sketch in support of "Close Communion".

I am a little late to the dance on this, but my question is if Ligon is a repetitive unrepentant sinner in regards to taking the Lord's supper then why has not the Lord disciplined him for eating the bread and drinking His cup in an unworthy manner ie I Corinthians 11:27-32? It seems as if the Lord would have done this already, especially to someone who is a pastor, evangelical leader, and therefore is held to a higher standard.

If this is that egregious of a sin so that they should not be allowed to partake of the Lord's table then not only should they not be allowed to preach in that church, but they should be treated as an unbeliever and not be associated with at all. If this is the way Mark feels/believes then he is guilty of unrepentant sin for continuing to associate with Lig and letting him preach to his flock. The Scripture does not let us have it both ways.

Morris