64 Joseph Kinghorn
B. H. Carroll
76
churches with more open tables act inconsistently when they exercise church discipline for any reason, because they do not know that someone worse than those they disciplined may be communing with them on any given week.
248Intercommunion “subverts the divine constitution of the church of Christ,” because the visiting Christian and the church claim authority that Christ has not granted.
249With Christ’s authority dismissed through intercommunion, the “independency of each local church” is “destroyed,” because churches cannot rightly fence the table or discipline the participants.
250Practically speaking, Graves charges that intercommunion stirs up strife between local churches and
“renders abortive the discipline of the excluding church” in a case of church discipline.
251Again, intercommunion weakens church membership, by providing former church
members with the ability not to join a new church and yet still exercise the privileges of
membership.
25277
We believe the Scriptures teach that Christian baptism is the immersion in water, of a believer, by a qualified administrator, to show forth in a solemn and beautiful emblem our faith in the crucified, buried and risen Savior, with its effect in our death to sin, burial from the world and resurrection to newness of life; that this baptism is a prerequisite to the privileges of a church relation, among which is the Lord’s Supper, in which the members of the church, by the sacred use of bread and wine are to commemorate together the dying love of Christ; always preceded by solemn, self-examination.
254This definition highlights that the group which may participate in the meal is the
“members of the church.”
255Presenting Carroll’s case for closed communion requires a brief examination of his ecclesiology, his arguments for why baptism must precede the Lord’s Supper,
256and his answers to objections.
Similar to J. R. Graves, B. H. Carroll emphasizes the particular and local nature of the church in the New Testament. Because the vast majority of New Testament uses of term ekklesia (“church”) refer to a local, visible company of baptized spiritual saints, Carroll rejects the notion of an invisible church. Instead, wherever a generic sense of the term is used, its use “is prospective and not actual.”
257On this logic, the universal,
(Nashville: Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1927).
254 B. H. Carroll, “A Discussion of the Lord’s Supper,” in Christ and His Church: Containing Great Sermons Concerning the Church of Christ, Elaborate Discussions of the Baptist View of the Lord’s Supper and a Heart-Searching Analysis of the Church Covenant, ed. J. B. Cranfill (Dallas: Helms Printing Company, 1940), 143.
255 Interestingly, Garrett cites the following source for the claim that B. H. Carroll practiced close communion, allowing baptized members of other Baptist churches to commune. James Spivey,
“Benajah Harvey Carroll,” in Baptist Theologians, ed. Timothy. George and David S. Dockery (Nashville:
Broadman Press, 1990), 319. See Garrett Jr., Baptist Theology, 235–36n111. Spivey cites Carroll’s sermon,
“The Meaning of the Lord’s Supper,” as evidence for Carroll’s affirmation of close communion among Baptists (328n122). Upon inspection however, no such reference may be found. Carroll’s most descriptive answer to who may participate in the Lord’s Supper comes in the sermon, “Some Observations on the Lord’s Supper.” B. H. Carroll, The Supper and Suffering of Our Lord, ed. J. W. Crowder (Fort Worth, TX:
Seminary Hill Press, 1947), 7-26. However, Carroll never affirms or implies his approval of close communion in the book. Sampler’s dissertation does not acknowledge any debate over the issue. See Sampler, “Whosoever Is ‘Qualified’ May Come,” 81–87.
256 For a helpful synthesis of Carroll’s view on who is qualified for both church membership specifically and the Lord’s Supper more generally, see Sampler, “Whosoever Is ‘Qualified’ May Come,”
81–87. Sampler describes Carroll’s qualifications for church as regeneration and baptism. Carroll presents the qualifications for the Lord’s Supper as regeneration, believer’s baptism, church membership, and rightly discerning the body.
257 B. H. Carroll, Baptists and Their Doctrines: Sermons on Distinctive Baptist Principles (New York: Revell, 1913), 43. He cites Heb 12:23 for example.
78
invisible church does not exist in this redemptive era. Furthermore, it has no ordinances, no officers, and does not assemble in this age.
258Similarly, because the church “is a particular congregation and not an organized denomination,”
259Carroll’s limitation of the Lord’s Supper to disciplinable local church members is understandable.
260Whereas open communion among Baptists in Carroll’s day stressed denominational unity, Carroll stressed “obedience to Christ.”
261To the question of why baptism is prerequisite to communion, Carroll responds with several arguments. First, baptism was appointed and practiced before communion (John 3:22-23, 4:1; Matt 26:26). Second, the commission commands making disciples, baptizing them, and teaching them to commune (Matt 28:18-20), “For
communion is one of the things He had commanded them to observe.”
262Third, “the apostles so understood this order by their practice” because Acts presents Peter calling for repentance, baptism, church fellowship, and breaking bread.
263Fourth, while Paul’s requirement for self-examination may appear sufficient, Carroll argues that Paul was addressing a congregation that Acts 18:1-11 reports had believed and been baptized.
Fifth, “The Scriptures make baptism an initiatory ordinance . . . the emblem of the beginning of spiritual life.”
264Sixth, the “analogy between the Lord’s Supper and Jewish Passover; and some analogy between circumcision and baptism” shows that “no
unbaptized man must eat of the Lord’s Supper.”
265Carroll concludes by appealing to the
258 Carroll, Baptists and Their Doctrines, 40–51.
259 Carroll, Baptists and Their Doctrines, 25.
260 Summarizing paedobaptist Timothy Dwight approvingly, Carroll explains that communion and church discipline are co-extensive. Carroll, “A Discussion of the Lord’s Supper,” 140.
261 Carroll, “A Discussion of the Lord’s Supper,” 149.
262 Carroll, “A Discussion of the Lord’s Supper,” 151.
263 Carroll, “A Discussion of the Lord’s Supper."
264 Carroll, “A Discussion of the Lord’s Supper,” 152.
265 Carroll,“A Discussion of the Lord’s Supper.” Carroll is quick to point out that “baptism did
79
universality of the principle that “baptism must precede communion” across “all denominations.”
266This universal principle reveals that the argument over restricted communion is an argument over what counts as baptism.
267Carroll next answers objections. Whereas Robert Hall was willing to open communion to Christians who remained unbaptized on account of their weakness of conscience, Carroll urges Hall’s allies to also accept Hall’s grounds in order to affirm his conclusion.
268Whereas some argue that the future communion in heaven justifies
communion on earth, Carroll answers that the communion of heaven is spiritual rather than of bread and wine.
269Whereas some claim that closed communion bars Christian union, Carroll cites Charles Spurgeon’s lack of union with the British Evangelical
Alliance despite Spurgeon’s open communion views.
270Some urge that open communion tends to “perpetuate Baptist churches.”
271However, the pastor cites the history of
Bunyan’s Bedford church as evidencing a tendency for open communion churches to lose Baptist identity all together. Contra the open communion advocates, Carroll argues that open communion “is the entering wedge of death to our churches.” Practicing open communion is so significant and sinful for Carroll that he urges Baptist churches to admonish members who participate in open communion, withdrawing fellowship from them if they persist, and to remove any Baptist pastor who leads his congregation in the practice.
272not come in the place of circumcision.”
266 Carroll, “A Discussion of the Lord’s Supper,” 153.
267 Carroll, “A Discussion of the Lord’s Supper,” 154.
268 Carroll, “A Discussion of the Lord’s Supper,” 156.
269 Carroll, “A Discussion of the Lord’s Supper,” 159.
270 Carroll, “A Discussion of the Lord’s Supper,” 161.
271 Carroll, “A Discussion of the Lord’s Supper,” 163.
272 Carroll, “A Discussion of the Lord’s Supper,” 165. In the end, Carroll indeed argues that open communion is sin. He lists eight reasons: “(1) It violates the law of God making it a church ordinance.