I am fully aware of the logic of the closed communion position. It has a certain force of moral clarity to it. If we believe that baptism is only the immersion of believers, then let’s act like it! However, in this matter I choose to give clear expression to catholicity. If I believe that my Presbyterian friends are my brothers, united to the same Lord with me, than I ought to act like it.

I would probably be a happier, healthier Baptist if I just kept my nose out of the ongoing kerfuffledebate over at Reformation21 over the question of closed communion among Baptists. I just wanted to say that right up front so that you would all realize that I recognize the fact.

However, having been critical of some of the Presbyterian brethren there in the past when their treatment of Baptists – and particularly of Reformed Baptists – left just a bit to be desired, and having once written that both sides should “reign in the bullies,” I don’t know that I have a choice. So here are my thoughts in what is so far an unfinished discussion. I’ll try to keep them brief.

Some History

Obviously “Baptists” are those who believe that true baptism is the immersion of those who have professed faith in Christ. Other baptism, whether of infants who can make no profession or by some other mode than immersion, is not regarded as pure baptism in the New Testament sense. That this is what it means to be “Baptist” is scarcely controversial.

Furthermore, Christians of every stripe have always taught that baptism is to precede participation in the Lord’s Supper. Presbyterians of the most catholic attitude would not admit to the Table anyone who had never been baptized in any sense. This clearly creates a unique challenge to Baptists, however. Presbyterian opinion holds baptism to be legitimate whether it is received by a professed believer or by the child of a believer, and whether it is by immersion or by sprinkling. The Presbyterian, therefore, has no difficulty admitting to the Table one baptized by Baptist baptism. For the Baptist, the question is naturally more complex, since he cannot regard Presbyterian baptism as baptism at all. Can he admit a non-Baptist to the Table?

This question was raised during the earliest days of the Particular Baptist movement in England, and it was not easily settled. Most churches held a closed-communion position: only those who were baptized by immersion upon the profession of faith could come to the Table. However, some early churches held an open-communion position: while they would not call Presbyterian baptism “baptism,” they believed the Table should be open to all Christians.

No Particular Baptists of either stripe denied that Presbyterians were Christians. The majority of the 1689 churches were in fact closed-communion churches, yet they fashioned their confession after Westminster, stating:

…this we did the more abundantly to manifest our consent with both in all the fundamental articles of the Christian religion, as also with many others whose orthodox Confessions have been published to the world on the behalf of the Protestant in diverse nations and cities. (Second London Confession of Faith, Introduction)

So their catholicity was scarcely in question.

Interestingly, the 1689 Confession does not resolve the matter of open vs. closed communion. As a consensus document among Particular Baptists, this was left off the table to such a degree that the connection between baptism and membership was never explicitly made. The explanation of this was found in the appendix:

We are not insensible that as to the order of Gods house, and entire communion therein there are some things wherein we (as well as others) are not at a full accord among ourselves, as for instance; the known principle, and state of the consciences of diverse of us, that have agreed in this Confession is such; that we cannot hold Church-communion, with any other then Baptized-believers, and Churches constituted of such; yet some others of us have a greater liberty and freedom in our spirits that way; and therefore we have purposely omitted the mention of things of that nature, that we might concur, in giving this evidence of our agreement, both among ourselves, and with other good Christians, in those important articles of the Christian Religion, mainly insisted on by us: and this notwithstanding we all esteem it our chief concern, both among ourselves, and all others that in every place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours, and love him in sincerity, to endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit, in the bond of peace; and in order thereunto, to exercise all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love. (Second London Confession of Faith, Appendix)

And so the question has remained unresolved throughout Particular and Reformed Baptist history.

Open Communion

To put my cards on the table (so to speak), I have always been and remain today on the open communion side of this question. While the closed communion position was dominant in the 17^th century, I suspect (though I cannot prove) that the open communion position was near-universal in the early days of the modern American Reformed Baptist movement in which I grew up.

Read More