31
32
of Christians without a clear biblical principle. Fourth, strict Baptists practically imply that paedobaptists are still in their sins.
58Hall also offers several critiques of the strict Baptist position. First, Hall argues that “no man or set of men, are entitled to prescribe as an indispensable condition of communion what the New Testament has not enjoined as a condition of salvation.”
59For Hall, this statement entails that the only prerequisite for participation in the Lord’s Supper is believing in Christ, baptism having no bearing on one’s institutional connection to the local church.
60Second, Hall claims that the order of institution of the ordinances is a moot point, because John the Baptist’s baptism did not occur in the Christian
dispensation, which entails that even Jesus’ disciples came to the Last Supper
unbaptized.
61Third, the ordinances are “independently obligatory.”
62Jesus’ command to baptize and teach cannot entail a requirement to baptize before teaching disciples
anything else. Fourth, the apostolic pattern should not be applied to the question of strict
58 Robert Hall Jr., A Reply to the Rev. Joseph Kinghorn: Being a Further Vindication of the Practice of Free Communion, 2nd ed. (London: Button and Son, 1818), 192–93.
59 Hall Jr., Terms of Communion, iv. In his 1818 Reply to Kinghorn, Hall makes the startling admission that he believes baptism was essential for salvation during apostolic times but ceased being so when error crept into the church’s doctrine. If Kinghorn wishes to maintain the connection between baptism and communion from apostolic practice, Hall challenges him to prove why baptism should be viewed in the same manner presently as it was during the apostolic period, as a regenerating ordinance! See Hall Jr., Reply, 45-46.
60 Hall Jr., Reply, 120–2. Kinghorn had accused Hall of dissenting from the establishment to avoid participating in rites and ceremonies for which he found no biblical basis and, at the same time, allowing the neglect of baptism, about which no one doubts its basis in Scripture.
61 Hall Jr., Terms of Communion, 16–23. Hall cites several reasons for denying that John’s Baptism belongs to the Gospel age: (1) the command to baptize the nations came afterward; (2) John’s baptism was for repentance rather than explicit faith in Christ; (3) Christian baptism is necessarily in the name of Jesus; (4) Christian baptism is associated with the baptism of the Holy Spirit, while John’s is not;
and (5) Paul baptized John’s disciples at Ephesus in Acts 19 after John had already baptized them. Oliver claims this a “novel argument” designed to “cut the Gordian knot,” but it would not go unchallenged. See the section on Joseph Kinghorn below. Oliver, History of the English Calvinistic Baptists, 242.
62 Hall Jr., Terms of Communion, 36. On this third point, Hall takes aim at the thesis of this dissertation. He explains, although a connection existed between circumcision and Passover, “all we demand of the advocates of strict communion is, that instead of amusing us with fanciful analogies drawn from an antiquated law, they would point us to some clause in the New Testament which asserts a similar relation betwixt baptism and the Lord’s Supper.”
33
communion, due to the introduction of paedobaptist error since apostolic times.
63Fifth, the ordinances do not require connectivity due to their meanings.
64Sixth, the argument for strict communion from universal pattern of baptism preceding the Lord’s Supper throughout church history overlooks the possibility of universal error. Unless the strict Baptist want to similarly associate baptism and regeneration, the argument from history proves nothing.
65Throughout On Terms of Communion, Hall consistently presents the
ordinances as independently binding on Christians. While he appeals to the necessity of exercising brotherly love (cf. Rom 14:1),
66he explicitly disallows the applicability of Christ’s legislation for his church and of the apostolic pattern to the question of who is authorized to participate in the Lord’s Supper. Although Hall never states it directly, he always implies that the local church is the context in which the Lord’s Supper should be celebrated. Despite the local church context, the unity exhibited in the Lord’s Supper seems to be primarily predicated of the universal body of Christ.
67The only way for the
63 Hall Jr., Terms of Communion, 39–41. Tyler’s argument is similar in principle. He compares the idea of baptism in the NT to the ideal of marriage as designed at creation. Given life in a fallen world, God allows divorce. So also, Christ allows the church to accommodate baptism that is less than ideal. See John R. Tyler, Baptism: We’ve Got It Right and Wrong (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2003), 138–39.
64 Hall dismisses the notion that baptism is the “sacrament of regeneration” and initiation while the Lord’s Supper is the “sacrament of nutrition.” Hall Jr., Terms of Communion, 43. For Hall, arguing from metaphors is liable to serious error. In a subsequent work, Hall explains, “Since positive duties arise (to human apprehension at least) from the mere will of the legislator, and not from immutable relations, their nature forbids the attempt to establish their inherent and essential connection.” Hall Jr., Reply, 62.
Interestingly, from the opposite perspective, Andrew Fuller grounds strict communion in the view that Christ instituted baptism and the Lord’s Supper as positive institutions in connection. See below in the section on Fuller.
65 Hall Jr., Terms of Communion, 52. Alternatively, Hall contends that because infant baptism was prominent by the fourth century and no records exist of churches withdrawing over believer’s baptism, then mixed communion must have been the standard. Hall Jr., Reply, 219.
66 For more on Romans 14, see Hall Jr., Reply, 144–78.
67 Similarly, see Naylor, Calvinism, Communion, and the Baptists, 135. Oliver also recognizes the centrality of Hall’s doctrine of the church to his argument. On Oliver’s reading, Hall accepted the Baptist emphasis on the local church, but he was unwilling to allow the doctrine of the local church to override the unity of the universal church. Oliver, History of the English Calvinistic Baptists, 238. In Hall’s Reply, he articulates his double standard of needing to dissent from the Church of England and yet allowing them to commune with him. Yet, Hall argues for transient or occasional communion rather than mixed membership for paedobaptists. See Hall Jr., Reply, 192-93. Therefore, Hilburn misreads Hall when he
34
local church to reflect the unity of the universal body of Christ is by separating the
ordinances and thereby defining the constitution of the local church in a way that includes paedobaptists—those deemed by the Baptists as unbaptized.
68Stanley Fowler
In More Than a Symbol (2002) Stanley Fowler argues that the New
Testament,
69mainstream seventeenth-century Baptists, and several significant twentieth- century Baptists view baptism as being sacramental.
70As Fowler surveys history and exegetes the New Testament, he presents an argument for open communion premised on the sacramental nature of baptism. This section surveys his discussion of baptism as a sacrament, followed by his argument for open communion.
The combination of open communion and sacramental baptism is surprising, Fowler admits, because a sacramental view of baptism “seem[s] to demand that Baptists churches practice closed membership.”
71However, most Baptist sacramentalists have
claims that Hall advocated for mixed membership. See Hilburn, “The Lord’s Supper,” 158.
68 William Brackney writes, “Hall’s thinking called for a new view of the church and society:
more open, accepting, and inclusive. For him, the church was redefined as an association of people with a common intention to pursue a particular work. Being Baptist, Hall’s ecclesiastic perspective favored individuals rather than churches.” While Brackney is correct that Hall’s view of the local church is more open, Hall does not frame his ecclesiology by privileging the individual over the corporate. Rather, he privileges the universal church over the local, which results in an emphasis on the individual Christian’s conscience. See Brackney, Genetic History, 2004, 143.
69 Stanley Fowler (b. 1946) is the long-time Professor of Theology at Heritage Theological Seminary in Cambridge, Ontario. He completed his ThD degree at Wycliffe College, University of Toronto, where he studied initially with John B. Webster and completed the dissertation under William H.
Brackney. Fowler’s doctoral studies concerned the doctrine of baptism and baptism’s place in Baptist history. Thus, his subsequent publications have largely developed his doctoral work. See Stanley K.
Fowler, More Than a Symbol: The British Baptist Recovery of the Baptismal Sacramentalism, Studies in Baptist History and Thought 2 (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2002), xv. Some of Fowler’s publications include Rethinking Baptism: Some Baptist Reflections (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015); Stanley K.
Fowler, “Baptists and the Churches of Christ in Search of a Common Theology of Baptism,” in Baptist Sacramentalism 2, ed. Anthony R. Cross and Philip E. Thompson, Studies in Baptist History and Thought 25 (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009), 254–69; Fowler was recently honored with a festschrift. See Michael A. G Haykin, Barry H. Howson, and David G. Barker, eds., Ecclesia Semper Reformanda Est: The Church Is Always Reforming: A Festschrift on Ecclesiology in Honour of Stanley K. Fowler on His
Seventieth Birthday (Kitchener, Ontario: Joshua Press, 2016).
70 Fowler, More Than a Symbol, 4.
71 Fowler, More Than a Symbol, 105.
35
practiced at least open, if not ecumenical communion. By referring to baptism as a sacrament and means of grace, Fowler intends the following:
According to the apostolic witness God has connected various divine gifts (e.g., forgiveness, adoption, the Holy Spirit) to baptism, which amounts to a pledge by God that he will be active in the baptismal event, conveying these gifts to penitent sinners who seal their turning to Christ in confessional baptism. Ultimately, then, it is not that baptism conveys any benefits through any power inherent in itself, but that God, by the Holy Spirit, affects a genuine encounter with the baptizand and in which he unites the baptized believer with Christ and thus with the benefits of Christ.
72Rather than viewing baptism mechanistically, Fowler describes his sacramental view as connecting faith, baptism, and grace. This combination makes baptism the “normal venue for the introduction of the individual into the sphere of redemption, although this is neither invariably, nor automatically true.”
73Fowler also demurs from a paedobaptist, Protestant sacramental view of baptism, describing the latter as “a sacrament of anticipation” and his view as a “sacrament of fulfillment.”
74Baptist sacramentalism then places “the significance of the rite [of baptism] into the
soteriological realm,” rather than merely speaking of the necessity of baptism in terms of church order.
75Justifying open communion requires some explanation on a sacramental view. Churches have two options: (1) receive persons who “are not validly baptized” on the basis of a profession of faith or (2) “to accept infant baptism as valid, although irregular.”
76Fowler rejects both options and proposes another possibility for allowing open communion.
77He writes,
72 Fowler,More Than a Symbol, 210.
73 Fowler,More Than a Symbol.
74 Fowler,More Than a Symbol, 221.
75 Fowler, More Than a Symbol, 226.
76 Fowler,More Than a Symbol.
77 He rejects the first option because it is a “functional denial of a sacramental view of
36
In terms of the inner logic, the Baptist practice is more understandable if there is a relative necessity for the occurrence of confessional baptism. If the baptism of confessing believers is the normal means by which God seals the individual’s personal, saving union with Christ, then to neglect it is cause for serious concern. If conversion is consciously completed apart from baptism, and baptism is reduced to sheer obedience and pure symbolism, then the narrow Baptist practice is indeed mystifying, especially in its close communion form.
78He affirms the legitimacy of Baptist churches requiring “rebaptism of those not baptized as believers, on the basis of its sealing the conversion which is already apparent in other ways.”
79Then, he argues, “Perhaps, it is possible to construct an argument for open membership which is based on giving a higher priority to the biblical principle of the visible unity of Christians than to the biblical principle of baptism as the normative means of union with Christ and the Church.”
80Thus, for Fowler, when a church is faced with the decision of whether the visible unity of Christians or the normative sacramental function of baptism is more important, they may determine to give greater weight to visible unity and allow open communion.
Other Notable Contributions
While Charles Spurgeon did not develop a defense of open communion, he certainly espoused it in his sermons and displayed the logical entailments of the position by his life. Candidus and Pacificus, who wrote just before Abraham Booth’s standard,
baptism” and it fails to connect the ritual act of baptism with faith in any meaningful sense. Fowler, More Than a Symbol, 227. The second view recognizes that baptism and faith are “essential conditions of church membership,” which have occurred in an irregular order. Nevertheless, the infant baptism is considered valid because baptism is a once for all time event and paedobaptists churches are valid churches. Fowler rejects the notion that infant baptism is a once for all event because Romans 6 “assumes that baptism is the point at which the work of Christ becomes effective in the individual, not that baptism merely proclaims what may happen to the individual” (229). On the valid church argument, Fowler demurs again, citing the logic of the Second London Confession. Although the document affirms believer’s baptism by immersion under the section on ordinances, “this assertion is not used as a litmus test to determine the validity of a church” (230). Thus, paedobaptists churches are true churches not because of their irregular baptism practice, but due to the presence of the Holy Spirit. .
78 Fowler, More Than a Symbol, 57.
79 Fowler, More Than a Symbol, 232.
80 Fowler, More Than a Symbol.
37
Apology for the Baptists, are also notable for contributing an argument based on covenantal signs to the already existing defenses of open communion.
Charles Spurgeon. Because he did not offer any further arguments for his practice than those already surveyed, the discussion of Spurgeon is intentionally brief.
81Spurgeon is important to include under open communion however, because of the way he followed the open communion principles to their logical conclusion and due to his
influence as a pastor. Spurgeon was known to have led the Metropolitan Tabernacle of London to practice open communion and closed membership.
82Thus, he upheld the necessity of believer’s baptism for membership but not for participation in the Lord’s Supper.
In a sermon entitled, “The Holy Spirit and the One Church,” the preacher states positively, “At the Lord’s table I always invite all Churches to come and sit down
81 Charles Spurgeon was born to a family of dissenters at Kelvedon in Essex. Although converted in a paedobaptist context at sixteen years old, he soon converted to Baptist principles and joined the Saint Andrews Street Baptist Church. He was called to pastor for the first time in 1851 and transitioned to the New Park Street chapel before he turned twenty. In 1861, the Metropolitan Tabernacle was built to accommodate the large crowds of London who came to see him. Spurgeon is highly praised for his oratory gifts as a prince among preachers. The preacher cared much for practical ministry to the poor and education for children. His theology is largely shaped by the Puritan emphases on Calvinistic doctrine, evangelism, and experiential knowledge of God. Spurgeon held tenaciously to the inspiration and truthfulness of Scripture during what became known as the downgrade controversy (1887 ff.) among the Baptist Union of Britain. In another controversy, he denied the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. He promoted an open communion but closed membership ministry, believing that the Lord’s Supper was given to every Christian but that local church membership required a measure of agreement and obedience about baptism that simple participation in the ordinance did not require. Historians often appeal to Spurgeon in contemporary historiography for his spiritual presence view of the Lord’s Supper. For biographical information and a survey of the controversies, see Underwood, History of English Baptists, 216–32; William H. Brackney, A Genetic History of Baptist Thought: With Special Reference to Baptists in Britain and North America (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2004), 150–56; Garrett Jr., Baptist Theology, 264–78. For more on Spurgeon’s Puritan spirituality, see Lewis A. Drummond, “Charles Haddon Spurgeon,” in Baptist
Theologians, ed. Timothy George and David S. Dockery (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1990), 267–88. For a full-sketch of Spurgeon’s life and ministry, see Tom J. Nettles, Living by Revealed Truth: The Life and Pastoral Theology of Charles Haddon Spurgeon (Fearn, Scotland: Mentor, 2013); Peter J. Morden,
“Communion with Christ and His People”: The Spirituality of C. H. Spurgeon (Oxford: Regent’s Park College, 2010).
82 Open communion does not necessarily entail open membership. The relationship between who may receive the Lord’s Supper, who may become a member, and how the Lord’s Supper relates to membership will be explored in chapter 7. At this point, it is important to note that Baptists have at times espoused seemingly contradictory views on communion and membership. For more on the historical relationship of church membership to the open communion debate, see Hilburn, “The Lord’s Supper,” 70–
71; Sampler, “Whosoever Is ‘Qualified’ May Come,” 184–86.
38
and commune with us. . . . I think it sin to refuse to commune with anyone who is a member of the church of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
83He describes the role of baptism as
“Christ’s own way of entering the visible church and . . . the mark of distinction between the Church and the world.”
84Nevertheless, he viewed the Lord’s Supper as a symbol of the spiritual unity of all Christians.
85As a result of these views, Spurgeon admitted all professing believers to communion at the church he pastored and participated in communion outside the auspices of a local church.
86Peter Morden writes,
When Spurgeon was at Mentone he would hold regular Sunday afternoon
Communion services in his sitting room at the Hotel Beau Rivage. These informal meetings were in addition to the communion services at the Presbyterian church in Mentone which Spurgeon would, when well enough, also attend, occasionally preaching or even taking the whole service.
8783 This sermon, “The Holy Spirit and the One Church,” was preached on December 13, 1857.
See C. H. Spurgeon, The New Park Street Pulpit (n.p.: Osnova, 2012), sec. 3. para. 2, Kindle.
84 See Morden, “Communion with Christ and His People,” 103. Fowler leaves open the possibility that Spurgeon held to a view of baptism as more than a mere symbol. See Fowler, More Than a Symbol, 82–83. However, Morden claims that Spurgeon could not be more clear in his rejection of sacramental views. Morden, “Communion with Christ and His People,” 89.
85 Gregory Wills claims that Spurgeon espoused a broad evangelical unity based upon the common experience of the new birth. Although Spurgeon sought to maintain a regenerate church through believer’s baptism, he did not believe participation in the Lord’s Supper should be limited beyond the new birth. See Gregory A. Wills, “The Ecclesiology of Charles H. Spurgeon: Unity, Orthodoxy, and
Denominational Identity,” Baptist History and Heritage 34, no. 3 (1999): 67. For more on Spurgeon’s theology of the Lord’s Supper, see Walker, Baptists at the Table, 165–81. Interestingly, while Spurgeon strongly denied any sacramental efficacy to baptism, he understood the Lord’s Supper as a stronger link between the material and spiritual. On this point, see Morden, “Communion with Christ and His People,”
181. Others have noted Spurgeon’s strong affirmation of Christ’s presence at the Lord’s Supper. See Tim Grass and Ian Randall, “C. H. Spurgeon on the Sacraments,” in Baptist Sacramentalism, ed. Anthony R.
Cross and Philip E. Thompson, Studies in Baptist History and Thought 5 (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2007), 55–75.
86 Morden is unaware of an occasion where Spurgeon celebrated communion with Roman Catholics. This observation is not surprising given Spurgeon's emphasis on the new birth as the basis for unity. See Peter Morden, “The Spirituality of C. H. Spurgeon 2 Maintaining Communion: The Lord’s Supper,” Baptistic Theologies 4, no. 1 (2012): 33.
87 Morden, “Communion with Christ and His People,” 166. Morden cites C. H. Spurgeon, The Autobiography of Charles H. Spurgeon, ed. Susannah Thompson Spurgeon and W. J. Harrald (Chicago:
Revell, 1900), 4:216. Commenting on Spurgeon’s practice later, Morden describes Spurgeon as holding an
“ecumenical” and “catholic” (little “c”) approach to the Lord’s Supper. See Morden, “The Spirituality of C.
H. Spurgeon 2 Maintaining Communion,” 172. This dissertation classifies Spurgeon as an open communionist because Spurgeon has in mind evangelical believers in Jesus from a variety of
denominations rather than those who might claim to be Christian but not evangelical. Another reason to classify Spurgeon with the open communion advocates is his identification with and approval of John Bunyan on this point. In an intriguing illustration from the sermon, “The Wicked Man’s Life, Funeral, and Epitaph,” preached June 13, 1858, the Spurgeon states, “And there lies that loving hand that was ever ready to receive into communion all them that loved the Lord Jesus Christ: I love the hand that wrote the book