IMB Trustee Meeting

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

 

Dear Mark,

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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:

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

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

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

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

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.