If someone wants to visit an historic Southern Baptist church then they need to visit Fellowship Community Church in Buford, Ga. The best around ! Ha Ha ! Come check us out sometime. We are Baptistic Calvinists: Closed Communion, Serve wine and one loaf, Read our confession each service(1689), Catechism reading(Question and answer with verses), Sing the old Particular Baptist Hymns(Gadsby Hymnal) and Psalms, expository preaching, Elder government, serve the Lord’s Supper the third Sunday of each month, and share a meal after church twice a month and yes, knock on doors to share the gospel. Kidding about being the best around. We just want to be faithful to the Scriptures. BTW, we are Gill men and not Fullerites ! Ha Ha !

re: Scott’s comment:

Scott, I’ve already recommended your church to several people who live up in that area, and I will continue to do so! I just wished you guys weren’t so far away! May the Lord continue to bless the ministry you guys have up there; thanks for the comment.

Sorry, It has taken so long to respond to your question about the Gill and Fullerite joke to Nathan. Nathan knows how much I love Gill and talk about his sermons and theology. It was a joke and it was not. I believe John Gill was the best Baptist theologian we have ever had. Hands down! The Philadelphia Baptist Association, Charleston, and Jesse Mercer thought so as well. The minutes and statements from Mercer are clear about their love for Gill. Cathcart is very clear on Gill and Spurgeon said ” Who excells Gill ?”
You hardly hear Calvinistic Baptist talk about him today. What a shame ! I hear more Presbyterian theologians being talked about than Gill. How can this be ??? Gill is the best on the Nature of a Gospel Church . We have too many Baptists today riding the fence on the Lord’s Supper issue. Scripture clearly teaches and historic Baptist have believed that the Lord’s Supper is not to be served to the unbaptized( Presbyterians are unbaptized). Gill and the old Baptists and Southern Baptist believed that a Presbyterian church cannot be a visible church because there are two things according to Scripture that put one into the visible church: 1. Conversion 2. Baptism ( According to Acts 2: 40-…….). Notice the order of Scripture in this passage: Conversion, Baptism , and then it said they were added to the church and then notice how the Lord’s Supper comes after that. Gill and the early Particular Baptist were strong on this and so were the early Southern Baptist. We have got Founders men serving the Lord’s Supper to the unbaptized and this is not right and it is not ” Historic Baptist” . Any Baptists should have been taught that unless a man is converted and baptized he cannot enter the local visible church. This is 101 among the historic Baptists but not today even among some Calvinistic Baptist. Presbyterians are not baptized and should not be served the Lord’s Supper( This includes Sproul and the rest……). I believe he is converted but the Lord’s Supper is for those who have been placed in the visible church. So, Gill was strong on this. That’s why I joked with Nathan about Fuller. I like Fuller in many areas but not in all just like Gill but Gill was the soundest Baptist ( I could be wrong). The Lord’s Supper is a Visible Church Ordinance ! Read WW Gardner’s book Church Communion or PH Mell or John T Christian’s book Close Communion or James P Boyce’s Catechism under the Lord’s Supper : Is there any established order in which these ordinancesare to be observed ? Answer: Yes, the believer must be baptized before he partakes of the Lord’s Supper. Gill was very strong on this and so should Baptist today however we think because we share the five points with the Presbyterians we can over look this. I wrote all this to help you understand why I was joking with Nathan about Gill over Fuller. Gill was stronger than Fuller on the Atonement and the Nature of a Gospel Church. Just having fun with Nathan. Would you serve the Lord’s Supper to the unbaptized ? Would you put unconverted infants into membership of the visible church ? Love to hear what you would say. I would love to hear what James White would say about serving the Lord’s Supper to Sproul or Lig Duncan or any unbaptized Christian.

My only concern was that your comment might have indicated an anti-missions sentiment.
Re: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper issues, I’m basically in agreement with the position of Dr. Greg Wills as I wrote about on Strange BaptistFire.com .
I certainly agree with your critique of Fuller’s position concerning the extent of the atonement.

In Christ,
-Andrew

I am not anti-missions ! Not at all ! Thanks for asking. Would you serve the Lord’s Supper to the unbaptized ? Are Sproul and Duncan walkingt disorderly because they are unbaptized ? How did Sproul and Duncan get put into the visible church when Scripture teaches that one must be converted and baptized to be added to the visible church according to Acts 2 and this was the position of the early Baptists and early Southern Baptist. Since you write at StrangeBaptist Fire I think it’s important that you and the others represent Historic Baptist on this issue because Mark Dever and Al Mohler are doing conferences on the visible church with men that would not be acknowledged as being in a visible church based on the early Southern Baptist writers and early Particular Baptist. I’m seeing more and more guys from Southern on Blogs that are very loose on this issue when this was clearly taught from some of the giants from the early days of Southern. What say You ??????

Let me be clear on something: I enjoy your writings ! Please don’t take my words as being hateful of Mohler or Dever but it really makes no sense for them doing conferences on the local church together. If someone really thinks it out they will see my point. For Dever and Mohler to come out strong on this it would probably strain some relationships. Also, I bought a commentary by Sproul today on Luke so I’m not saying that these men are not strong on many things but Subject/Mode affect so much ( Visible Church memberhip and Lord’s Supper). Are we commanded by Christ to be Baptized ? Yes, so are these men baptized ? No ! Do they think they are ? Yes ! Either correct Subject and Mode matter for churchmembership or they don’t. If you watch Dever you hardly ever hear him quote Particular Baptist but he loves the Puritans. So do I but to a point ! The Jerry Vines, Johnny Hunts, Caners, and etc…. can have a field day with alot of our Baptist Calvinist because of the love for the Presbyterian theologians. There are plenty of Particular Baptist and Southern Baptist theologians to keep us reading . I hate to admit it but even BOB and Charles can nail some of our buddies on these issues and they should ! Putting unregenerate babies into membership and serving the children the Lord’s Supper before conversion is major stuff. Again, I would love to find out where James White is on this. This would be the only thing I would debate him on if he thought we can serve the Lord’s Supper to the unbaptized. Keep studying at School and serving the Lord . It’s exciting to see men like you and Nathan in Baptist life.

Scott, I think this is an interesting topic, but it’s one that:
A) Isn’t the topic of this post.
B) One where you and I disagree.

Thus, let Andrew and myself off the hook, please, and you and James White (and a whole lot of people who probably disagree with you) can duke it out.

I’ll still refer people to your church…as long as they’re well-versed in the doctrine of baptism and don’t mind being left out of the Lord’s Supper!

SDG

I receive your words with love and I respect your ” Stay on Topic” rules. This will be my last post to you on this. This should not be ” Blown off ” as a topic. You and others have the right to disagree. Really you do however, this issue affects two major things that I want you to think about : I believe it is Scriptural and this is the Baptist position( Historic and present day) though most have been ” Left in the dark” because it has not been taught. Please read James P Boyce Catechism, John Broadus Catechism, Charleston Association Catechism, Philadelphia Association and Southern Baptist.
Many of the Calvinistic Baptist of the Southern Baptist Convention are blind to this because they choose to be. This is a basic Baptist distinctive. Basic ! All Baptists should know it! I have been watching the ” Younger Bloggers” for the last two years that are Southern Baptist and they scream ” We are Reformed” , ” We are Reformed”. No your not unless you are a Padeobaptist and serve the Lord’s Supper to unregenerate children and put unregenerate children into membership into the local church. You rarely see today that the ” Younger Bloggers” talk about the Old Particular Baptist but they keep going to the Presbyterian theologans and we have become ” Blind” to this very important issue because ” It’s just not about the five points”. I say this very carefully ” You are not a Baptist if you serve the Lord’s Supper to the unbaptized and thank it’s OK to put unregenerate infants into the visible church”. It’s not just the five Points ! Spurgeon even said in John T Christian’s book on Closed Communion ” The best Baptist in the world are those of America and the best Baptist in America are those of the South and If I were to come to America I would join a closed Communion church in the South”. I do not have confidence in what I’m seeing concerning Southern Baptist Calvinist which I am. I personally believe that many Calvinistic Baptist of the SBC today would join together with the Presbyterians and form a new denomination just because of the ” Five Points”. You might as well! I’m fearful that the true Historic Southern Baptist theology is not being fought for yet there are some saying that it is. Please show me in Scripture where one unbaptized person ever took the Lord’s Supper and yet we have Acts 2 , Matthew 28 that show us clear order. I love you and I think very highly of you and your quick Scriptural growth but I must say ” You are in error ” on this and it’s a major position. I hope you will let me ” Stay on topic” on your blog in the future. Please talk to Dr. Tom Nettles on this issue !

Though we disagree I was too rough on you. Please forgive me ! Please ! Yes, I’m a Strict Baptist ! Your a godly man and I just blasted you and Andrew . I was off topic because this issue has been gnawing at me for sometime and I took it out on you guys. I’m thankful for you both on your zeal for truth. I’m going to take the advice of a man I so greatly respect( Gene Bridges) on let this one rest for a while. Thanks Gene ! I will go and get some exercise.

Scott Morgan

I have had a telephone conversation with Brother Scott this evening, and he is at this time emailing Brother Nathan to apologize for “hijacking” the thread and coming on a bit too strong.

He and I had a good and profitable conversation, and he sincerely desires to repair any rift that his comments may have, in his zeal, caused.

I’d like to take the opportunity to lay out some basic issues concerning the Lord’s Supper in Particular Baptistery.

Insofar as the rule of tradition is concerned, Baptists prior to the 19th century historically practiced close or closed communion (there is a slight difference). In the writing theologians of the 19th century, two things can be stated:

1. Even the highest Calvinist of the SBC, Dr. Dagg, recognized ministers of Paedobaptist communions as true gospel ministers. He leaves the question of “rebaptism,” therefore to each local church. While he believed in closed communion, there is a tension in his ecclesiology here that may, in a different age, have led him to come to a similar conclusion regarding the Supper as he did “rebaptism.”

2. Our writing theologians do have foils among the Baptists who practiced open communion. Therefore, Baptist tradition is divided over this issue. Open communion, until the last century, was a minority position.

In terms of Scripture, as I told Scott, I think arguing for closed communion from Acts 2 is not a good idea. Acts 2 is descriptive in that regard. I stronger argument may come from Matt. 28. The exegetical question to answer is: “Is Jesus laying out a restrictive/prescriptive order in Mt. 28?’

Then you have the narrative sweep of Acts itself. At first, baptism is closely connected to a profession of faith in Christ and conversion. Then there is a separation between conversion and baptism and the giving of the Holy Spirit that begins in the next section on Samaria and then carries over into the Gentile mission. So, we know they began separating baptism from conversion very early.

There was no such thing as an unbaptized / paedobaptized believer in Scripture. Our next prescriptive text on the Supper in in 1 Cor., where Paul is addressing the disruption and dishonoring of the ordinance in their church. It had become an occasion for drunkenness and the hoarding of food, not worship and fellowship.

The problem arises today because we live in an age where Christians making a credible profession of faith to each other differ over the placement of baptism. Both parties agree that baptism is given as a sign of the covenant. We Reformed Baptistsagree it is one of the doors to church membership (as opposed to the Landmark Baptist position and the Romanist/Lutheran/ and non-Baptist positions that make it THE door).

Presbyterians are somewhat schizophrenic on baptism and the Supper. Those following the Dutch Reformed tradition would presume their children regenerate and tend toward infant communion. The Old Princeton tradition would presume the child unregenerate and withhold it. On the other hand, Presby’s DO practice believer’s baptism for new converts who were never baptized. They would vary from church to church on the way they offer them the Supper. If they knew their baptism was pending, they would likely offer it to them. If they were uncertain, they may withhold it. So, “open communion” is really for those making a credible profession of faith, and the index to baptism is somewhat variable.

As Scott and I discussed, we Baptists are living in an age where unregenerate people line our pews. What’s more they’re baptized. So, in arguing for closed communion or close communion as in the BFM, we’re really not any different than our Presby and Dutch Reformed brethren. In fact, we’re worse. This is due to the declension in our general understanding of the gospel. So, which is worse: the Presbyterians who w/hold the Supper from any who cannot give a credible profession or the Baptists who give the elements out to unregenerate, yet baptized people. In this regard, we Baptists are more like the Dutch Reformed who practice infant communion or, worse yet, Rome!

I suggest that we have this intramural discussion in the background ourselves. Personally, I see the merits of both positions, and I think leaving it to the local church is the best option. We should do this because it is of first importance that we recover the gospel and proper discipline in the churches. Further, we should remember that there are places in the world where our Paedobaptist brothers who are evangelicals are also in churches as dead inside as our own. They need a place for now where they can come to the Lord’s Table. Given our historical situation, and the fact that Christians have historically divided over practices, we should let this be an intramural, brotherly discussion and perhaps be a bit more flexible than our brothers of times past, until we are all in a better position regarding those things of first importance. Let us not divide among ourselves as Reformed and Sov. Grace Baptists except by the local church. If we differ, then let us not consign each other to the dustbin of “no true Baptist.”

I hope this has helped.

God Bless,
Gene

Scott,

You keep mentioning the ‘Baptist tradition’ and stuff as if I’m supposed to really care. No offense, brother, but I’d rather read a Puritan than Gill any day (though I do really like Gill). I’m more inclined to join ranks with the Presby’s of this age than what has become of the Southern Baptist denomination. I would consider myself a Baptist, but I wouldn’t align myself as some kind of ‘historical’ Baptist or what not; -I see a lot of tradition in what you are writing, but very little scripture. Closed communion, for example, is completely absent from scripture, and I find the concept very troubling to the faith, love, ‘hopes all things’ that believers are called to.

Furthermore, I am completely unaffected by you saying that ‘I’m not a baptist’ if I do (fill in the blank). If ‘truly baptist’ is closed communion and not recognizing Presby’s as part of the ‘visible church’ (enough to practice open church discipline on them by withholding the elements!), then I don’t want or care to be called a Baptist, plain and simple. I freely admit that I would firmly distance myself from this kind of thinking. The thought of declaring that RC Sproul is under church discipline for his views on baptism, is, well, ridiculous and shameful. Church discipline and closed communion is for unbelievers or believers sinning to the point where there is a question whether they are really true believers.

Lastly, like I said before, I neither wrote on this issue nor have I challenged (up to now) any of the many disagreements I have with what you have repeatedly mentioned here. If I had written a post defending such and such a view, than I welcome this discussion. But right now it’s just not an issue with me, so let’s just drop it until a better time. Let’s head the wise words of Gene. I might write on this issue one day, and when I can fully present my position (with scriptural argumentation), then we can work out our disagreements.

I’m not trying to be harsh; I respect your apology above and your zeal! I commend you for standing up for what you believe. However, because you have said so much here, I had to respond so my readers can see how firmly I disagree.

SDG

My apology is sincere as to my frustration with you on this point. Yes, we disagree ! Yes, I believe that close and closed communion can be supported in Scripture and yes I can use many more Scriptures however, I have agreed not to talk with you on this point anymore. I will honor that ! I do think the ” World of You”. I hope you believe that. I talk to Gene ” Here and there” and after I first responded to you with ” Your not a Baptist” I did feel upset with myself. I want to be clear on that. As far as your comment ” I see very little scripture” I disagree however, I will not proceed because of my word to you that I will end conversation on this subject. Yes, you have the right to say you would rather read the Puritans or attend a Presbyterian church than the modern day SBC church . Your comment can come across to some that I thank the modern SBC church is OK. For the record I believe the Modern SBC church is in trouble but so is the Presbyterian( PCA or OPC) for valid reasons that I have agreed not to talk about with you anymore. Love you brother and look forward to talking with you soon !

You troublemaker:) i saw this coming at your question and Nathan’s silent “uh oh”. What has been written here is why i appreciate these blogs so much: zeal for the truth (although sometimes sidetracked) and love for the brethren. Though maybe off topic, in God’s Providence, all of this was written and obviously it has impacted many readers here. The Lord will surely use the posts here in helping us either repent or leading us deeper into His Word, which ultimately will drive us unto Him. SDG

Gene wrote this,

“Insofar as the rule of tradition is concerned, Baptists prior to the 19th century historically practiced close or closed communion (there is a slight difference).”

Now Gene may have been referring to the USA situation, but if he is referring to “worldwide particular or calvinistic baptists i.e. mostly British Particular Baptists I think there was less consensus on this subject as is generally supposed. There was a great deal of debate on this subject in the 17th century, most famously between William Kiffin and J.C .Ryland but many others were involved, not just Bunyan which is the one everyone knows about.

However the important point is that even though there were many on both sides of the argument they both fully accepted each others’ credentials as true brethren and as sister churches and would not allow this to be a cause of broken fellowship, to the extent that not only did representatives of all parties formulate and sign up to the 1689 Confession of Faith, all parties also agreed to include an appendix to the Confession which included these words,

“We are not insenible 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 our selves, 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 concurre, in giving this evidence of our agreement, both among our selves, 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 our selves, 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 endeavour 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.”

My point is that given this documentary evidence, this has been a much debated subjected much earlier than the 19th century. This is not a criticism of Gene’s excellent comment but merely I trust just a additional point that I believe actually further strengthens Gene’s argument, with which I fully concur.

JP