Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Some Dudes

Sam Storms' response to the whole baptism and the Lord's Supper thing that has been buzzing around online: "Piper, Grudem, Dever, et al, on Baptism, the Lord's Table, and Church Membership (just how "Together for the Gospel" are we?)"

I read the article this morning but with no direct link available (and some grocery shopping to do) I left it alone.  In the mean time Glenn Lucke wrote a great post and Abraham Piper quoted some Storms.

You need to read the whole Storm's article for context, but I agree with him and loved this paragraph...

My question...is this: How can we claim to be "together" or "united" for the sake of the gospel and turn away a brother or sister from the very expression and proclamation of that gospel that is so central to the life and testimony of the church? What does this prohibition say to the world around us? What must they think of our professed "togetherness" or "unity" when the elements of the Eucharist would be withheld from a brother such as Ligon Duncan?

Comments

[Michael Foster]

Though I'm thoroughly credo, I could never bring myself to exclude Calvin from my church membership.

[Thom B]

Its called fencing the table right? Even at Redeemer (Keller's church) the table is 'fenced' for only those that are baptised members of a church.

For a baptist how would you deal with this if you didn't agree with the PCA practice of baptising infants? Would you still commune if you didn't agree? Just food for thought.

I was a PCA convert who's now an LC-MS Lutheran and initally I had a problem with the idea of fencing the table. Ultimately, our salvation is not contigent on taking communing, so denying communion to our brothers and sisters with whom we have differing theological opinons is not a matter of salvation nor is it a slap in the face. If I attend a Catholic church I don't take communion because I don't believe what they believe about it and they wouldn't want me to partake. Does that make me less of a Christian? No. If my family members who are non-LCMS Lutherans come to visit my church and don't commune with me it doesn't make them any less Christian either, but it does highlight that we don't believe the same thing.

For us LCMS'ers this closed communion underscores is the importance of taking Jesus at his word as it relates to the supper , and it sounds this contrevsy you're mentioning is b/c baptism is central to baptists (by defintion).

I would agrue that the uproar about fencing is because it makes us 'feel' uncomfortable vs. it being a rational problem. My .02.

Again - I would encourage you confessing baptists to think about my Redeemer PCA case study (vis a vis fencing for baptised church members) as it relates to your own views on baptism and the centrailty of holding those views to your theolgical framework.

[Ted]

Thom mentioned "...the importance of taking Jesus at his word as it relates to the supper,...". Can you amplify that a bit?

Thanks.

[Lloyd]

I am a credobaptist who is also a member of a PCA church. The reason Keller limits communion to members of churches comes straight out of the PCA Book of Church Order(BCO). I feel the force of wanting to "fence the table", but I am not persuaded that church membership should be a controlling factor.

I believe the criteria should be grateful obedience to Christ. The problem with using membership is that it can focus on a previous personal act vs. a present devotion.

I fully concur that a different understanding of baptism should not be a bar to communion. I also concur that baptism should be required for membership. Interestingly enough, I have become more sympathetic to Grudem due to my time in a PCA church. Ultimately, the divisions don't concern baptism -- they revolve around the definition of the church and whether children of believers are "united to Christ" in baptism. Now PCA teachers will insist that the sprinkled children are not saved through baptism but the liturgy of the BCO as well as the defintion of baptism in the Westminster Confession has the subject united to Christ. Its at this point that my good Presbyterian friends lose me.

[Paul Miki]

Some things to think about?
Jesus was presented at the Temple on His eighth day where He was circumcized. The bris was required to be considered a good and faithful Jew. His parents, Joseph and Mary presented Him. He did not present himself. Their is no mention in the New Testament of re-baptizing a person at a later date. Their is now mention of an age reqirement for Baptism. Steven and Lydia are mentioned as Baptizing their whole family.

[Paul Miki]

Some things to think about with regards to Lord's Table.

Does not Jesus have the power to make Himself a real presence in the bread?

The Apostles were baptized and their were no un-baptized persons present at the Last Supper.

From the Gospel of John 6: 53-54

Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

Can we not take Jesus at His word? Can we not make an arguement that a Christian progresses and advances in holyness, hence this leads to eternity in heaven?

And as they were eating,
He took bread, and blessed, and broke it,
and gave it to them, and said,
'Take; this is my body.'
(Mark 14:22)

And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks
he gave it to them, and they all drank of it.
And he said to them,
'This is my blood of the covenant,
which is poured out for many.'

(Mark 14:23-24)

Maybe we should start citing the Gospels instead of bloggers with regards to the Lords Supper and Baptism.