On other blogs and some of the comments on Wes Kenney’s recent post, there seems to be some confusion concerning what Southern Baptists have adopted as our confession of beliefs regarding baptism and the Lord’s supper. Wes dealt with this subject of baptism and the Lord’s table two years ago. The post and comments are interesting needless to say. Recently, the term, “Landmark” and “neo-Landmark” has been thrown around by some. In this post, I will show how “closed,” “strict,” and “close” communionists fit well withing the framework of the Baptist Faith and Message (BF&M), but those that practice open communion, practice opposite of the beliefs stated in the confession of faith adopted by Southern Baptists.
Before I go any further, our confession is not infallible nor is it equal to scripture. Our confession is is exactly what it is, a confession to others of what we as Southern Baptists believe the scriptures state on an array of doctrines. If a contradiction exists between a confession and the inspired Word of God, then the confession must submit to scripture and change to conform to God’s will as stated in scripture. As the Baptist Faith & Message states:
Baptists are a people of deep beliefs and cherished doctrines. Throughout our history we have been a confessional people, adopting statements of faith as a witness to our beliefs and a pledge of our faithfulness to the doctrines revealed in Holy Scripture.
So, in an effort to “Restore Unity Through Biblical Discipleship and Baptist Identity,” I give you this commentary on the Baptist Faith and Message Article VII that was adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention on June 14th, 2000.
Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Three things we note from this sentence. First, the mode of baptism is “immersion.” Therefore pouring or sprinkling do not qualify as biblical baptism. Second, the one being baptized must be a believer. This then disqualifies infants from the ordinance of baptism. Finally, it must be done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is necessary to represent the entire Godhead’s work in salvation.
It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead.
This statement begins that baptism is only symbolic of the believers faith and disqualifies any ritual performed with the understanding that the ordinance is done for regenerative effects. It symbolizes the candidates belief in these essentials: First, Jesus was crucified, buried, and rose from the dead as Savior. Second, the candidate believes he/she has died to sin, the old life which was controlled by sin no longer has control over the believer, and that the new life the believer has is protected in Christ Jesus. This new life will result in the believer following Jesus as his/her disciple. Finally, by participating in baptism, the candidate professes his/her belief in an event where all people of all ages will be resurrected.
Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.
Here, Article VII recognizes that when one identifies with Christ in baptism, they also identify with the visible local body. This is why baptism is a church ordinance. “To identify with Christ is to identify with his people. Our union with Christ also brings our union with his body the church. A believer cannot be united with the Head of the body without simultaneously being united with the body.” (Norman, 134) Before one should be able to join a local body of believers, they must have identified with the body of believers in the symbolic action of baptism as previously described in the confession. Since it is a “prerequisite to the privileges of church membership” a local church must be able to testify to the biblical symbolic credibility of the baptismal ordinance performed on the believer.
The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.
The Lord’s supper is also defined as a symbolic act. The one who has been biblically baptized participates in obedience to Christ’s command to partake of the Lord’s supper in “remembrance of me.” Baptism, as biblically defined, is mandatory to any participation in the memorial of the Lord’s supper. Therefore, Those who partake of the Lord’s supper MUST BE biblically baptized. By participating in this church ordinance, the body testifies to the death of Jesus and looks forward to His second coming.
APPLICATION
Now the big question, is baptism linked to the Lord’s Supper? “In the New Testament baptism is the prerequisite of the Lord’s Supper” (Hobbs, What Baptists Believe, 84). Hobbs states that nearly all Christan groups believe that baptism precedes participation in the Lord’s Supper, but in particular to Baptists, the question relates to “… What constitutes New Testament baptism?” (Hobbs, The Baptist Faith and Message, 77) John Hammett believes the Baptist Faith and Message, “… sees proper baptism as ‘prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s supper.’” (Hammett, 78) Hammett also states, “There is widespread agreement that of the two ordinances, baptism should come first and then the Lord’s Supper. The disagreement comes with the question of participation by believers who, according to Baptist thought, have not been properly baptized. Such believers may have been “baptized” as infants, or they may have been baptized by sprinkling or pouring. Baptists, however, do not regard such practices as proper and valid baptisms. (Hammett, 78) Stan Norman further emphasizes the practice of Baptists by stating “As Baptists, we tend to restrict participation in the Lord’s Supper to those Christians who have been biblically baptized and are in right fellowship with their local churches. Since the profession of faith in Christ occurs in believer’s baptism, we believe that a person has not embarked on the life of a disciple until he has professed his faith in believer’s baptism by immersion. Those who come to the Lord’s Table must therefore have professed their faith through the rite of baptism.” (Norman, 151)
The Baptist Faith and Message holds that baptism performed outside the biblical parameters as stated in the confession is not biblical baptism. Sprinkling, pouring, having regenerative effects, or being administered outside of the context of the local church do not fit the confessional definition of biblical baptism. Anyone baptized under those conditions should seek a biblical baptism in obedience to the Word of God before they are allowed to join a local church or participate in the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper.
Article VII leaves open the possibility for a church to engage in three practices of communion. Closed communionists (only church members of that local church may participate) can agree with our confession because it does not contradict the local church emphasis they desire. Strict communionists (church members and transient believers in good standing from churches of like “faith and order”) can agree because it does not restrict participants from other churches of like “faith and order,” nor narrow it to only local church membership. Close communionists (church members and those who are believers in good standing with their local church who have received biblical baptism) can also agree because it does not restrict believers who have received biblical baptism, but it also does not narrow it to church members only or believers from churches of “like faith and order.” But, Article VII does not leave possible the option for open communion (all believers regardless of baptism may participate). The Baptist Faith and Message has defined what Southern Baptists confess as biblical baptism. Any definition of baptism that includes the participation of infants, sprinkling/pouring, regenerative effects, or outside of the local church’s authority falls outside of the accepted confession of Southern Baptists and must be rejected. If it is to be rejected, it is not to be considered baptism and does not meet the prerequisite for church membership or participation in the Lord’s Supper.
So, for those of us who have been labeled as “Landmark” or “Neo Landmark,” I give you the Baptist Faith and Message that sets parameters concerning the Lord’s Supper and baptism. To work outside of those parameters stated in our confession leaves one outside of the stated beliefs of Southern Baptists. Closed, strict, or close communionists can all work well within the framework of the Message and be considered Southern Baptist, not Landmark. But, the confession leaves no allowance for those who practice open communion. Therefore, the pertinent question for those practicing closed, strict, or close communion is not: “Landmark or BF&M confessional?” The answer for that question is a definite Southern Baptist “BF&M confessional.” No, the pertinent question for those who practice open communion is, “ecuminist or BF&M confessional?” The answer to that question is a definite non-Southern Baptist, “ecuminist.”
WORKS CITED
Hammett, John. “Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.” In Baptist Faith and Message 2000, ed. Douglas K. Blount and Joseph D. Wooddell, 71-81. Rowman and Littlefield: Lanham, 2007.
Hobbs, Hershel. The Baptist Faith and Message. Convention Press, Nashville, 1996. Revised Addition.
Hobbs, Hershel. What Baptists Believe. Broadman Press, Nashville, 1964.
Norman, Stanton, The Baptist Way. Broadman and Holman, Nashville, 2005.
It seems to me a valid point that the BF&M teaches closed communion. It should be changed on that issue to a neutral position so that it reflects the practices of current Southern Baptist life.
It’s pretty apparent that calling the many SBC churches that practice open communion “non-Southern Baptist, ‘ecuminist’” is over the top. The neo-landmark label comes not because of your position on closed communion, but because of this kind of language and attitude.
Brent,
You say, “It should be changed on that issue to a neutral position so that it reflects the practices of current Southern Baptist life.”
Just wondering: Would you advocate a change in the article on the family to allow for divorce as an option, since this would reflect the “practices of current Southern Baptist life” more accurately? Obviously not.
Our confession should certainly be changeable, but only to bring it more in line with biblical teaching where it can be shown that it is out of line. Restricted communion does not qualify on that basis.
The difference in the two cases is that no one is arguing that divorce is right or acceptable. Those practicing open communion believe it doesn’t violate Scripture. Just because you don’t agree with that view doesn’t really matter here. I large portion of our convention does.
It is the same with millennial views. Pre-trib pre-mil guys can argue all day that they are right, but in the end, the BF&M needs to have a generic statement on eschatology (ie. not advocating any single view) BECAUSE of our diversity on the issue.
Same with communion. There are differing views, each trying to be faithful to biblical teaching and principles. And BECAUSE of that fact, the BF&M should accommodate both views.
Robin,
You got to love it when those who have died, rotted, and disintegrated on the hill of the BF&M being a maximal document by which to judge cooperative matters, appeal elsewhere when the BF&M speaks clearly and directly to a specific practice about which they have, shall we say, “caveats.”
With that, I am…
Peter
Brent
You wrote, “It seems to me a valid point that the BF&M teaches closed communion.”
I may have done a poor job articulating what I said, but you can see from my explanation that the BF&M does not teach closed communion, nor does it teach strict or close. All three of these beliefs can agree with what is written while still holding on to their particular nuances.
But what is definitely out of bounds for the BF&M is open communion that denigrates what the SBC defines as or altogether obliterates baptism, as a prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper.
Brother Robin,
Good article …..
How does “closed communion” identify with scripture? It appears that the BF&M may allow for such, yet how can those of like faith and biblical tradition be shut out of what the Lord commands without grieving the Holy Spirit?
Does the policy of men in manipulating a “closed communion” trump the scriptural record?
Blessings,
Chris
Chris
You asked, “How does “closed communion” identify with scripture?” The point of my post is not to argue the biblical premises for closed, close, or strict. It is to show what the BF&M testifies to about baptism and communion. Southern Baptists have adopted this statement as their belief of what the Bible states. This biblical confession allows for those three views, but it denies open communion.
I don’t quite get what you are asking on your second question. On your third, “Does the policy of men in manipulating a “closed communion” trump the scriptural record?” I don’t see where the policy of the people who formed and revised the BF&M have “manipulated” anything. The confession is just that, a confession of what we believe the Bible teaches. In the SBC there are varying points of understanding with the Lord’s Table. In the efforts of cooperation, the BF&M allows for three views, yet denies open communion as acceptable. There is no manipulation, only agreement on what is, “essential.”
Brother Chris,
It seems that each article in the BF&M has Scriptural references for each. Below is the article in question along with the various scripture that under girds the article.
VII. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper
Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.
The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.
Matthew 3:13-17; 26:26-30; 28:19-20; Mark 1:9-11; 14:22-26; Luke 3:21-22; 22:19-20; John 3:23; Acts 2:41-42; 8:35-39; 16:30-33; 20:7; Romans 6:3-5; 1 Corinthians 10:16,21; 11:23-29; Colossians 2:12.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Robin,
I guess it is time for a slight change then. Closed Communion as you have briefly outlined does not follow biblical principle and excludes believers of like faith and biblical tradition from partaking of the Lord’s command with fellow believers. That appears to be anti-Christian and sponsoring disunity among the church.
Close and Strict seem to be biblical, and I can see where Open may tend to create the same problems as Closed.
Close and Strict would certainly bring more unity and harmony among the SBC and bring back the Pauline principles outlined in his letters.
Blessings,
Chris
Thanks Tim,
I am very familiar with the section.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris
Concerning closed communion, I have only outlined what has been followed by those who believe in it. I myself am not closed.
Concerning what you said about closed communion, “That appears to be anti-Christian and sponsoring disunity among the church.” I will let you take that up with those who support it. I for one would not label their belief as brazenly as you have.
Robin, or whoever,
I’m having a hard time understanding the difference between strict and close communion. I’m not familiar with strict communion at all. I had heard of only closed, close, and open up until now. So, please help educate me about strict communion.
David
Brother Robin,
I think I see the purpose of your post….and you have outlined very well what the SBC seems to think is proper.
I hope it does sound brazen to what “Closed Communionist’s” teach. It should alarm any believer that is about the business of edifying his or her brothers and sisters in Christ. It is remarkable that “Closed Communion” error has survived this long in the political arena of the SBC. It is brazenly against the spirit of the Word and evidence of its demeaning principles come in direct opposition to the tenets of what Christ followers are called to do. I don’t think Paul was just kidding around when he told those called out in Christ in Rome….
Romans 16:1-2 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; (2) that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well.
If the Lord’s Table does not qualify “in a manner worthy of the saints”, then help us all as we parse up the scriptures to our own liking.
Blessings,
Chris
“If the Lord’s Table does not qualify “in a manner worthy of the saints”, then help us all as we parse up the scriptures to our own liking.”
And with that, Chris, I will let those who believe in closed communion take that up with you.
God Bless
Robin,
You state that the BFM simply expresses an “agreement on what is, ‘essential.’” Now, I’m not a pollster, so I have no idea what the prevailing practice regarding communion is in the SBC, but it does seem to me that there are a large number of Southern Baptists who practice open communion which means that the BFM statement, if it does exclude open communion as you have stated, is neither agreed upon nor is this particular part of it viewed by a good number of Southern Baptists as being essential to what it means to be Baptist or Southern Baptist.
As an example, the church where I pastor has practiced open communion since its founding (saying that so that you’ll know that they did not come to that position because I led them to it). In fact, while I have not been a member of a great number of Baptist churches in my lifetime, I’m trying to think of a church where I have been a member that practiced close(d) communion outside of the church in which I grew up. Again, that is no more than anecdotal, which means it may not mean much, but I do think the ongoing discussion about this is a good indicator that there are a significant number of Southern Baptists who’s practice is varied, including the practice of open communion.
Doesn’t that present a problem with this article in our confession? If a significant number of our churches have found biblical justification for practicing open communion then shouldn’t this article be broadened? After all, the BF&M is not a statement of what we should believe, but of what we do believe, is it not? It is a confession and not a creed, right?
Chris,
If Robin permits, I would like to take a moment to interact with your question. The basis that is before us is not simply one of whether or not a church should take open communion or closed communion, rather it is one of a biblical ecclesiology. The vast majority of the biblical witness is one of various local churches over and against a universal church. For a congregation to participate in the Supper together is for them to have affirmed a covenant together, a covenant of which there is an admonition toward sanctification which has as one of its encouragements the possibility of discipline. The reason the Table is reserved for a local church is because only the local church is able to serve discipline, which would entail restriction from the Table of Fellowship (1 Cor. 5:11). In other words, the Supper is reserved for members of local congregations because only local congregations are sanctioned to serve discipline (unless of course you desire to be Catholic).
On an open communion scheme, there is no one to test the confession of the one desiring fellowship of the Table, thus, a congregation may be partaking with a person who is living in open and grave sin, thus tainting the witness of the local church, something a closed communion would avoid.
Paul
If there is a significant number of churches that practice open communion, then the SBC could look at that and make any possible adjustments if it so desired. That is how we work. It would need to be revised after careful consideration and a vote in the affirmative at an annual SBC meeting. But, allow me to offer this to you, it would be against a wide variety of Baptist confessions that have stated the opposite. Those who practice open communion do so in violation of what our confession has already stated. They themselves have removed themselves from what Southern Baptists believe, not the other way around.
I take this from Hammett’s research I have already sited on the confessions limiting the Lord’s supper to baptized church members.
“Orthodox Creed of 1679, the New Hampshire Confession of Faith, The articles of Faith of the Sandy Creek Association, the Abstract of Principles” (a change would cause a conflict with Southern and Southeastern), “and all three editions of the Baptist Faith and Message.” Hammet believes it is “implied in the first London Confession and not addressed in the second London/Philadelphia confession.”
Since the NH confession (1833) greatly influenced the BF&M 1925. It seems to be pretty standard practice of denying open communion.
To all,
My duties take me away until later tonight.
God Bless
Robin,
I wasn’t disputing your history. Just making a point about where we are. Of course, my opinion is that those sort of things should cause us to give very careful consideration before making a change. Nevertheless, we Southern Baptists have been wrong about certain aspects of our historical theology before and have, in fact, made changes to correct that.
I know you are away, so I’m not expecting a quick answer, but do you see the landscape changing in the near future taking us back to a more historically Baptist position on this subject? If not, how would you suggest our churches address this issue? Do you advocate restricting denominational service to churches that only practice some form of restricted communion? Would you advocate allowing those who come from open communion churches to serve in denominational capacities?
Hello Brother John,
As you have outlined, there is no doubt some logic as to why a “Closed Communion” may be instigated, yet it is not principally biblical as compared to the Apostles teaching as the saints proclaim Christ at His Table. There is not one shred of evidence to keep the Apostle Paul, and those traveling with him or have traveled with him, or any of those he has commended from other fellowships, or his helpers from partaking and proclaiming the Lord at His Table.
I believe Bart brought us this same scripture to build a potential case for Closed in an earlier post. (Texan’s sticking together…grin) The Corinthian section known as chapter 5 brings into play a specific problem, quite different than what the Apostle commends to his fellow believers in many of his closing statements throughout his letters where he increasing calls for sharing in the proclamation of Christ.
(9) I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; (10) I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. (11) But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler–not even to eat with such a one. (12) For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? (13) But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.
The Apostle Paul, Pheobe, and the like were not immoral people. A true biblical ecclesiology has never disassociated with other believers, in fact it encourages those of the opposite character. During my last 30 years in ministry, I cannot name one instance that an immoral, covetous, swindling drunkard came from out of town or from another fellowship wanting to proclaim the Lord at His Table. Those types of folks are typically in a church that have built up a closed community of like kind and have never seen the value of discipline (Matthew 18) and probably partake of the Lord’s Table once a year, just to keep it in the mix.
Like I said earlier,….Closed Communion is fraught with the same baggage as Open Communion (willy nilly). The Apostle Paul’s teaching seems to work away from either of those positions.
Blessings,
Chris
Peter,
In comment #4 You have come very close to revealing the kind of memory that gets guys like us in serious trouble when we mention past positions, activities and events of which promoters of a new agenda do not want remembered.
Paul and all,
Paul said:
\”Do you advocate restricting denominational service to churches that only practice some form of restricted communion? Would you advocate allowing those who come from open communion churches to serve in denominational capacities?\”
If the SBC ever begins to ask such a question for denominational we will be \”birthing\” a rationalization to lie that will top Watergate.
I do hope such a pointed questioning on the Lord\’s Supper never comes to be part of the selection process for SBC positions.
In truth, if such is asked; Some will have to say \”I simply don\’t know what you mean by the question.\” And in that they will not be lying.
In most cases only theology readin\’, debate lovin\’, argumentative, thick skinned, jungle fightin\’, resolution writin\’, motion fixin\’ convention riggin\’ veterans of many SBC wars will even understand the question well enough to answer it properly to pass muster according to who it is that is asking the question.
And everybody in Blogtown knows that to be the truth no matter on which side of this we presently stand.
But, I sure love this particular form of Baptist fellowship. It is far better than gettin\’ stuck in the eye with a sharp stick.
:-)
cb
Robin,
What did you do to my comment to make it look like Mack-the-Knife got hold of it?
:-)
cb
Paul
Real quick from my iPhone. I was not meaning to say you were disputing my history. You are one of the best debators I lock up with so it is best I am thorough. I will get to the rest later.
Geez, you guys and your iPhones. I might as well be typing this on a typewriter.
CB,
I don’t suspect it would be asked quite the way I’ve presented here. It would be more along the lines of: “Do you completely affirm the BF&M?” Now, if someone who practiced open communion were to answer “yes” to that question would the nominating committee start chanting, “Liar, liar, pants on fire?” Or is their only option to either affirm some form of restricted communion or say that they do not affirm the BF&M in it’s entirety? The practical consequences seem to eliminate anyone who practices open communion from denominational service. Is that what we’re after?
Paul,
I think if the question were to be asked as you have stated it, it would mean the questioners would be not of the veteran group I described above in comment #20 so a yes answer would not constitute a lie.
I think it would, in fact, constitute something both of us desire.
A question asked as you state it would mean “newbies” asking and answering the questions.
That would mean that guys like us are not involved in the “play.”
That might every well be a good thing if you know what I mean and I know you do.:-)
cb
C.B.
Do I know you? What comment? Where am I?
With…LDgjupsoe;hgl ,’a;df.sc
CB,
I can think of a number of folks your second-to-last sentence might apply to, if you know what I mean, and I know you do. Including us, of course.
Are you guys speaking in tongues?
Paul
I am back. Concerning your question, “do you see the landscape changing in the near future taking us back to a more historically Baptist position on this subject.”
What do you consider the more historical position?
Robin,
Well, for the sake of this conversation I’m happy to go with what you’ve described here from Hobbs, Hammett and Norman, but I’m talking specifically about a view other than open communion.
If the historic Baptist position is one of restricted communion of some sort, yet many current Southern Baptists practice a form of open communion, do you see the open communion crowd returning to a position of some form of restricted communion in the future of the SBC?
And to clarify, I don’t suppose the “If not…” part of the question matters. I’m still interested in your position “If so,” or “If not.” If that makes sense.
Paul
Thanks for clarification. I am naturally a pessimist on some things. Do I see open communion folks returning to some sort of restricted communion? Maybe a few, but for the large part, no. Do I think many will leave? No. I might add that this has never been an issue in the SBC. Even when the revisions came out in 2000, some of my professors who would not sign the new document didn’t mention anything about article VII. Even those men did not see an issue with how it was worded. I know my experience from you is different, but I have not been in a church that has been open. This is why I don’t believe the number of churches that are open like I have described are as plentiful as you might think. Again, like you, I wouldn’t publish that as scientifically sound research.
I believe things will go on as is. Will there be some die hard open folks who will be rejected for missionary service? Yes. Will it be a rally cry for great change? Possibly, but I don’t see change anytime soon. There is a greater chance of change in about 20-25 years. New leaders will come on the horizon. These are the guys who will be in seminary in about five years. Guys like you and me will be facing retirement. The younger crowd will learn the weaknesses from the “in your face tactics” of the past, wisely and patiently seek change behind the scenes, and gain credibility with a following.
Am I happy about what I just described? No. Am I 100% sure things will turn out like this? No. Jesus may return before any of it happens. Am I a prophet or a son of a prophet? No, so this might all be bunk!
:-)
Am I a prophet or a son of a prophet? No, so this might all be bunk!
Can I quote you on that? :)
I’m just kidding. You know I have a sarcastic sense of humor and I couldn’t resist. Of course, by “all” you may well be including my comments as well, and in that case maybe I’m not joking. :D
So, am I to take your comment to mean that you are not interested in restricting denominational service for those who practice and/or advocate open communion? You didn’t explicitly say as much, but I gathered that by implication. Am I right about that, or did I read too much into your comment?
Paul
Quote away. A little humbleness never hurts.
Concerning your question, I am sure you will not be suprised that we are on opposite ends of this matter. I always think that you and I should have more in common than not in common. We just seem to discuss our differences more than our agreements.
You may have read too much into my comment. I oppose the appointment of anyone in service of the SBC who cannot, at a minimum, whole heartily affirm the BF&M.
Now my question to you. Would you oppose someone from denominational service who believes the BF&M should be whole heartily affirmed for any candidate under consideration?
At peter’s #4:
I’ve never argued for the BF&M being a maximal document, so charging me with inconsistency (as you seem to be implying) isn’t going to work. You might actually have to deal with the point I made if you want to make a meaningful response.
At Robin’s #5:
Fine, to satisfy the specificity police, let me amend my statement to “It seems to me a valid point that the BF&M teaches closed/close/strict communion.” My point was that it doesn’t currently include open communion.
Neither one of you addressed the point I was making. When there are interpretive differences on an issue, and large groups of Southern Baptists stand on either side of the issue, then that diversity should be reflected in our confession. And if it isn’t, then our confession should be changed.
Robin,
I apologize, but I’m not sure I understand your question. Are you asking if I would object to someone serving as a trustee to an entity, or as an employee of an agency who believes that all other trustees or all other employees should affirm the BFM in its entirety?
If that’s your question then I would say it depends. I think there would be a number of people who could be nominated for service who might be asked, “Do you affirm the BFM in its entirety,” who would respond, “Yes” and who may also believe in open communion. I don’t believe they would think of themselves as being dishonest as I believe there are those who would not have as strict an interpretation of the BFM as you reflect in this post.
This is what I’m trying to get at in my questions for you. Are you advocating that those nominees be examined to see if they specifically believe in some form of restricted communion at that point? If the nominator or the nominating committee knows that this person comes from a church that practices open communion are you saying that they should be eliminated from consideration on that basis even if they affirm the BFM in its entirety (though they obviously don’t view Article VII the same way you do here)?
Now, CB seems to think that this scenario will never come about, but I’m asking if that is the scenario you would prefer.
Paul
I don’t feel that what I have said is too strict concerning the BF&M. Wade has said that some believe it to mean closed communion only. I have shown a less strict understanding of what Article VII could mean.
Before I would answer your question, I would like to see how someone could honestly look at Article VII and believe it allows for open communion (Baptism not required or mode not important for admission to the Lord’s Table). I have not found a sound argument from the BF&M allowing for that. Frankly the way Article VII is worded is that if baptism is required for the LS, then it is required for membership. Argue for no requirement in the LS, then one would have to say there is no requirement for baptism. If I could be convinced that this was a possibility, then I see no problem with someone serving if they can affirm the BF&M in its entirety.
The whole premise of this post is that those who hold to closed communion are closer to the spirit of Article VII than those who hold to open communion. Those who hold to closed have been unfairly labeled as “Landmark.” That is a strawman built up in desperation.
Me thinks you have a name up your sleeve that if I said I would oppose someone from serving because of open communion, then you would present that name and possibly put me in a pickle. If this is not true, I apologize for this thought. Nothing dishonest on your part, just good debate tactics and my hat is off to you if that is so.
I believe that anyone who would serve in the SBC should be able to minimally affirm the BF&M. I believe, as does Hammett and Norman that Article VII states that one, at a very minimum, must be baptized by immersion to either be a local church member or be allowed to participate in the LS.
Brent
As I may have mentioned to Paul earlier, I don’t know if open communionists are as large as may be thought.
Thanks
Robin,
I’m not interested in putting you in a pickle and I really didn’t have in mind someone with which to challenge you. I do know that there have been / are open communionists who have served / do serve in various capacities within the SBC. Apparently our past practices have not prohibited their service. This has not been a dividing issue in the past. I, for one, would hate to see it become one now.
I was thinking earlier today about the theological issues that Baptists have historically divided over. Baptism obviously comes to mind. Another has been the Calvinism/Arminian issue (General vs. Particular Baptists). The latter particularly makes sense to me because that issue involves the nature of the gospel itself, which in my mind is of primary importance. Open vs. restricted communion, on the other hand, while it is important, doesn’t seem to be of that nature. The current situation in the SBC seems to indicate that Nominating Committees and agencies have not viewed it as a divisive issue. I think it would be a shame if it became one.
I meant to add that if we can have Calvinists and Arminians (“modified Calvinists” or whatever you want to call them) existing side-by-side in the SBC then surely we can have open and restricted communionists existing side-by-side as well. It would just seem backwards to me that we would maintain unity on the Calvinism/Arminianism issue but not on open/close communion.
Paul,
Quack quack.
David
David,
Baaah!
Paul
David,
By the way, what bowl will Tennessee be playing in this year? I keep looking and I just can’t find them. I figured you’d know since you’re such a big fan.
No bowl this year. But, next year….the BCS championship.
David
Vol,
Dream on.
Paul,
Dream on also. It will be Gators as #1 this year.
Next year. ITS ALL SABANATION, BABY!!!!
cb
CB,
With the hiring of Gene Chizik Alabama can count on beating Auburn next year, and for years to come, but they’re going to have to beat a team that knows how to play offense to win a National Championship.
The Gators are bait in January.
David,
Lane Kiffin will bring the Vols about as much success as Chizik will bring Auburn. All of a sudden the SEC is looking a lot like the Big 10. Big names, but little else.
Paul,
I must admit you are right about much of what you say about the SEC beginning to look a lot like the Big 10. My sons were discussing that at breakfast right after we all bowed toward Bear’s Grave just over the hill from our home.
The one thing you are mistaken in is your failing to understand that in this present age Alabama stands alone as the superior football nation in the world.
We will play the Gators (Tebow) again next year for the SEC title. We will win. We will then go on to win the National Championship.
BTW, it will take Auburn fans four years to learn to say Chizik. By that time they will have fired him.:-)
cb
Paul,
The SEC is the premiere league in the nation in football…always has been…always will be. All other football conferences are ugly stepsisters compared to the beauty of the SEC.
No need to cry about it….just accept it. When the two teams play in the SEC championship game….really…in all reality….they’re playing the national championship game. When Alabama LOST due to the Gators, then the Gators won the national championship. Next year, with Lane Kiffin, the Vols will once again shower Atlanta with that beautiful orange color that should drape the homes of everyone in the USA. Orange will rule next year. True orange that is…not the sick orange of Texas castrated longhorns…not the putrid orange of Okkie St. Cowpokes…but the Vol nation Orange…beautiful, beautiful orange….
David
Vol,
You are right. The Gator-BAMA game was the national championship.
cb
Console yourselves all you want, fellas. Only in the SEC could you have a football game end in a score of 3-2. I mean, we’re talking about an Alabama team that barely beat a six loss Kentucky at home, barely beat a four loss Mississippi team at home, had to go to overtime against a mediocre five loss LSU and lost by eleven to the only decent team it played. And Tennessee? Are you kidding me? They lost to a very bad UCLA team, for cryin’ out loud. Pasted by Florida. Lost to a bad Auburn team. 5-7 and watching Vanderbilt play in a bowl game while they sit at home.
Only Bama fans think the SEC championship was the national championship, but I can tell you they’ll be handing out no national championship rings for that game. And if OU proves that reality is that the SEC can’t play offense, not that the Big XII can’t play defense, then you SEC fans will have to wake up to the reality that the rest of America has already awoken to and that is that the Big XII is the strongest football conference in America and the Big XII South is the strongest division in college football.
Paul,
You have blasphemed.
You will now forever more and never get free tickets to the Super Bowl or the World Series or whatever it is they call the top event in the inferior sports like hockey, basketball or, even soccer, whatever that is.
cb
Great offenses win games…great defenses win championships.
1 to 12…there is no better conference in the NCAA than the SEC. This is proven every year…without exception.
The SEC Championship game is the National Championship game.
And, Paul, what you said about the Vols was last year. I’m talking about the coming year. I dont live in the past.
David
David,
I’m so sorry. You see, for many of us, yea, for 68 college football teams, “last year” means the 2007 season as “this year” is still going on and there are games yet to be played. I simply wasn’t thinking that for Tennessee the most recent football season is already “last year.” But please remember that for the Oklahoma Sooners and more than half of all the colleges that play Division I football Tennessee is still a very bad team in the present, not just the past.
As for conference strength, the Big XII has five teams in the BCS top 25 (4 of those 5 in the top 13), while the SEC has four in the top 25 and only 2 in the top 13, Mississippi coming in dead last at #25. The overall win/loss record of the Big XII is 87-59. The overall win/loss record of the SEC is 86-60. You certainly can’t claim that as being “better top to bottom” than the Big XII.
By the way, if Tennessee is still playing football in 2014 and 2015 they will have two back-to-back very unfortunate run-ins with the Sooners of Oklahoma. I will feel very bad for your losses – for about 23 seconds. :D
CB,
I’m not worried about free tickets to those things you mentioned. You see, in Oklahoma there are only two sports: college football and spring practice. We’re considering adding a third: making fun of the SEC. :)
By the way, did you boys see Superman win the Heisman Trophy tonight? Did you notice that he is a Sooner? Florida better bring all the kryptonite they can find come January 8th.
Pingback: Abandoning Doctrinal Fidelity for the Lowest Common Denominator :: SBC Today
Pingback: A Humble Response to the GCR Document and a Dialog with Dr. Reid :: SBC Today