In his sermon on close communion in the 1890 book Baptist Doctrines, R. M. Dudley listed four common objections to the practice of close rather than open communion.1 We have already dealt with the first three objections, and today I will respond to the last and offer some concluding thoughts about who should be invited to the supper.
Objection #1. “It is the Lord’s Table; you have no right to prevent the Lord’s people from approaching it.”
Objection #2. “The Scriptures say: ‘Let a man examine himself;’ from which it is inferred that, if he is satisfied with his own fitness and right to the Supper, we have no right to interpose a barrier.”
Objection #3. “I do not believe that it is right to separate Christian people. I think they ought to meet together at the Lord’s Table.”
Objection #4. “It is objected that Baptists make too much of baptism. It is not a saving ordinance; why make such an ado about it?”
Now it might not be immediately obvious why baptism is suddenly the issue, when we were talking about who may take communion. The reason this is objected is that Baptists hold that one must be Scripturally baptized before he may partake in the supper, and this forces us to refuse those who were merely sprinkled or baptized as infants in unbelief. So the thrust of this objection is that by holding to such a standard, we Baptists are making too much of baptism as a prerequisite for the Lord’s supper.
There is a certain irony in this view, because the practices of sprinkling and pouring for baptism came about because of the belief in the early church that baptism was indeed a saving ordinance. Once it is accepted that baptism has some role in actually washing away one’s sins, then what must be done for an unbaptized person who is sick and about to die, or who is living in some circumstance where immersion is impractical? If they die without baptism, so it is supposed, they would remain in their sins and be forever lost. In response the church changed the ordinance to include sprinkling or pouring as substitutes out of necessity.
It is not the Baptists who make too much of baptism, but those churches which embrace this pragmatic compromise. If anyone agrees that baptism is not a saving ordinance, then there is all the more reason to practice it exactly as our Lord has told us. No one will be cast into hell having not been immersed, so long as he is trusting in the saving work of Jesus Christ.
And this same attitude extends to the supper. Dudley explains, “Baptists have neither unduly exalted nor debased the ordinance of baptism. They keep it just where the Master put it. The same with the Supper.” The question of who may partake in the Lord’s supper is just as important as who ought to be baptized and how it should be done. Jesus gave clear commands about both, and “No one has the right to run over one ordinance, baptism, to get to the other, the Table.” Do we love Jesus? Then we ought to obey him in everything.
No one will be cast into hell having not been immersed, so long as he is trusting in the saving work of Jesus Christ.
This objection brings up an underlying question about the headship of Christ over the church. “If Christ ordained immersion,” asks Dudley, “have we any right to change it?” The Roman Catholic church, he notes, claims the right to do so. Their view of the Pope and the magisterium as authorities on par with Scripture itself makes anything Christ said about the supper little more than a suggestion.
But the same thing is true with those who embrace infant baptism or other forms beside immersion, even if they oppose the Roman church. Consider these words from the Protestant Reformer John Calvin: “Here we see the rite used among the men of old time in baptism; for they put all the body into the water. Now the use is this, that the minister doth sprinkle the body or the head….Wherefore the church did grant liberty to herself since the beginning to change the rites somewhat excepting the substance.”
Dudley asks a pertinent question on this point, “if we claim the right to change what Christ has ordained, where will the matter end?” We can see just how far the Catholic church has come from the true gospel, should we really risk the same result by functionally denying Christ’s headship over the church? This is precisely what we do if we change either of the ordinances he has given to the church; we claim authority which belongs to our Lord alone.
We do not practice close communion because we are prejudiced or bigoted but because we are convinced from Scripture that these principles are true. If someone can show we are wrong to do so, then by all means, let them prove their case; we will acknowledge our error and make an immediate correction. But in the absence of compelling biblical evidence in favor of a different position, there is nothing to gain from compromise and much to lose.
Dudley concludes with an important reminder that I will share in its entirety: “Our [Baptist] fathers suffered imprisonment, stripes, banishment, death, that they might bequeath to us the rich legacy which we enjoy. Shall we barter that legacy for popular applause? The early Christians were the ‘sect everywhere spoken against.’ Our Master bore suffering and shame for us. If our principles bring reproach upon us, let us bear that reproach. Let us be careful to avoid bitterness and unholy strife. Let our lives abound in patience, forbearance, gentleness, goodness and truth, while we commit ourselves, not to men, but to God, who judgeth righteously.”
1 Close communion is the practice of inviting only those who are born again Christians and members of the local church or another church of like faith and practice to share in the Lord’s supper. Open communion advocates say that we should simply give everyone the supper without trying to discern if they are qualified to partake.