SBC and Closed Comunion

Tom also writes:
" "The Baptists of America are almost universally strict communists, that is, they admit none to a participation with them in the Lord's Supper, who have not been baptized or immersed." (page 462) This report was published only nine years before the Southern Baptist Convention was organized in 1845."

Closed communion as defined in #3 above? Not necessarily.
It doesn't say they had to be Baptists; it says that they had to be baptized or immersed.

 

Hey, this sounds familiar.

Oh yeah, I think I said those things.

Here's another way of saying it. Open Communion was advocated by a minority of a minority of a minority of Southern Baptists.

I do think the point is well made that unanimous is too strong a term, since Baptists are rarely unanimous about anything.

There's plenty of documentation out there that the Lord's table was restricted, and that Open Communion was an aberration.

 

Actually, open communion to some means that the table is open to anyone, close communion is for any believer, and closed communion is for only members of that particular church.

It should bear out that nowhere is it stated that ALL messengers at the SBC went and had communion at FBC Augusta.

It should also be stated that there is no official SBC anything, nor does the SBC do Lord's Supper. The SBC is just what it says: The Southern Baptist Convention. The SBC technically only exists a couple of days per year. To try to make the SBC monolithic in almost any fashion is virtually a fools errand.

 

I don't know that those definitions are such by consensus. And you seemed to imply that all messengers attended the FBC Augusta communion.

 

Our Southern Baptist Church observed the Lord's Supper Resurrection Sunday Morning. I am sure there were some there who were not members of a Baptist Church and know for a fact that there were some there who were not members of our congregation.

 

So, how did your church handle it? Closed, close or open?

If you invited all to participate, what was your rationale for doing so?

 

I guess you would call it open plus. Everyone there participated as far as I could tell.

I'm just a member btw.

 

I understand, it's just your church's policy.

Do you agree with it?

This is a question not only for you but other BBers: Should the Lord's Supper be restricted to baptized believers? Or does it matter if one is baptized.

Now, you have to define baptism. Does sprinkling count? Would immersion by a Mormon count? How about a baptism by Jimmy Swaggart? Does being baptized as an infant count?

What about baptism by a Free-Will or General Baptist?

 

Our SBC church invites all baptized believers to participate in communion. We have nothing in the bylaws about it but it began sometime in the 1980’s and has continued through three pastors since then. As a deacon I have personally passed the communion elements to persons I knew to be independent Baptists, Disciples of Christ, Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, Pentecostals and nondenominational. I’m sure there have been others as well, although this is not a common occurrence—we don’t have all that many visitors.

I agree with this practice, as do most of our members, because we recognize “the church” as being larger than an individual congregation. See, e.g., Acts 9:31. We do, however, have a few members with landmark leanings who don’t approve, and this has been a continuing concern of mine. I have discussed the matter with them, and even offered to support them if they want to get this practice reversed. Not that I agree but I do think we owe our members more deference than we owe our visitors. However, they are too nice to want to make an issue of it.

We have never had Mormons or Witnesses as visitors to a regular service, at least none that we recognized. If they were recognized, it is safe to assume that they would not be passed the communion elements.

 

I'm ok with any visitor who is what I consider a Christian being able to partake in our congregation.

As stated above Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses etc. I would not be ok with.

 

So, do I understand correctly that you consider sprinkling or pouring scriptural baptism? And that you hold that regenerative baptism (baptism for salvation) is okay?

Or do I understand that baptism in whatever mode is unimportant to your church?

You cited Acts 9:31 as your proof-text that the church is larger than individual congregations. I understand that some versions say the "church," but the King James says "churches" of Judea and Samaria. Do you favor the "church" versions because they support what you believe? It's okay of you do, since I favor the KJV version because it supports my bias.

As we can see, restrictions to the Lord's table, or the lack of them, require more than just a personal preference. Those restrictions are closely related to baptism and one's view of what a church is, as well as church discipline.

I'm just curious, do open communion churches exercise much or any church discipline? Before you get upset, I don't know if closed communion churches do much, either.

 

Our church does not hold to these understandings.

We only accept members who have been fully immersed in believer’s baptism. However, we don’t regard those churches who observe other practices as being invalidly constituted.

The version I normally use is the NASB. Our pastor uses the NASB in church. The pew bibles are RSV’s. I use the NASB because I like it, and have been told that it is a true translation more so than some of the others (NIV, HCSB, e.g.) which tilt toward paraphrasing. I have enormous respect for the KJV but I don’t choose or reject my bible based on what Acts 9:31 says.

I suppose an open communion church would be regarded as a liberal church in closed communion circles. We have a policy in place for expelling members but it hasn’t been used for well over 60 years. I don’t know if that is unusual. I don’t recall ever hearing of a church in our association expelling a member.

 

Seems to me after considering I Corinthians 11 that Communion is a personal responsibility. If you partake of it in an unworthy manner it is not to the church's judgment but your own. We plainly remind those in attendance of this. Participation is for Christians only who have been bought and paid for by Jesus. Afterwards the responsibility shifts to the participant.