Do you support open communion?

Discussion in 'Theology and Doctrine' started by Dallas Rivera, Oct 29, 2017.

  1. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    If you're an adult then you don't have godparents. You are the one who answers. I'm sure you've been at baptism services before, right? If a baby is getting baptized, it isn't the baby who actually responds with "I do". Even the parents don't make that response. Only the godparents; they are already Christians, they're already baptized themselves, and yet if the baby is asked if it wishes to be baptized, the godparents jump in and say, "I do".

    With baptism for babies, someone else says the "I do" for you. With baptism for adults, they just say it for themselves. That's why you don't hold children accountable, but you do hold adults accountable.
     
  2. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    2,488
    I've been a part of wife's and 2 children's baptisms into the Anglican faith. I know how they work. And you bring up another issue which makes it even more anachronistic to support paedobaptism but not paedocommunion. With baptism as it is practiced in the Anglican faith, there is a covenant that must be assented to. But in communion there is no such requirement. Covenants are like contracts, which as a contract lawyer, I know a lot about. One key element of a valid contract is legal capacity (the ability to make informed decisions for one's self) by all parties. Infancy is a barrier to capacity, but one that can be overcome by parents or guardians signing on the child's behalf. But even then, the contract remains voidable. Meaning that when the child reaches the age of majority, he can still choose repudiate or ratify the contract entered into by his parents in his infancy. You can see an obvious analogy here to confirmation. But in communion, there is no covenant made, only simple reception of the consecrated elements. The question of accountability is not involved at all in paedocommunion. So, if paedobaptism, which is fraught with all the complications of direct assent vs. assent by proxy to the covenant, is still an acceptable practice in the Western church, then why not paedocommunion, especially considering it was the practice of the whole church until well into the middle ages?
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2020
  3. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    3,323
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    I don't think you are entirely right about this. The Holy Ghost is with every baptised infant from birth, in fact from conception, since only the infants of a believing parent are deemed 'Holy' by The Lord. The gifts and fruit of the Spirit can be observed in children from infancy onward. Luke 1:80. Luke 2:40. We grow in wisdom and when the time is right in God's eyes, he will impart greater measures of the Holy Spirit upon the individual, as God sees fit for His purposes.

    I think the notion that the infants and children of believers do not have The Holy Spirit, to be profoundly mistaken.
    .
     
  4. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Baptism is a sign of the covenanted relationship with God in new life. Baptism is not a contract. We are not equal partners with God in our relationship with him. We are the beneficiaries of grace.

    And yes, I realise that Anselm in Cur Deus Home did indeed outline something of a transactional view of salvation, however that was anchored in the death and resurrection of Jesus.
     
  5. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    As Botolph had said, the sacrament of holy Baptism is most definitely not a contract. It is a gift, a one-directional gift, where something is done unto you. It is not a quid pro quo. The regeneration that takes place is not conditional but effectual. I note that even an adult will still have to be Confirmed, after they’re Baptized. That’s the moment of owning your faith, truly. Baptism is not that, regardless of what the hordes of televangelists would tell us, with their baths on the stage.

    Here is where the secular models break down. Baptism is not like a secular contract which is entered presumptively and can be voided in the future. It is literally a permanent engrafting of the child into the Body of Christ; and should the apostasy happen, it is the dead husk of the tree-branch, falling away.

    The question of accountability is always involved in communion; of any kind, of any type. That’s why we want to minimize the danger to the little ones.

    But conversely, with baptism, there is no question of accountability. You passively receive the grace of God. Just as the Hebrews passed through the Sea and were saved by water (our liturgy says), so the child is saved by the laver of regeneration. The Hebrews did not enter into a quid pro quo “contract” with God. They were passive recipients of his might and mercy. That’s what baptism is.
     
  6. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    Yes, well, in the case of this Baptist church, I talked with the pastor and learned that the "preventing people from receiving unworthily" was their cover story. But when it came right down to it, even if I were spiritually worthy and even if I attended their church for the next forty years, I wasn't going to be welcome at their communion until I also let them re-baptize me; that was the only solid evidence they'd accept that I was a true brother in the Lord. Um, no thanks, I've been sprinkle baptized as an infant (RC) and immersed as an adult (A/G), so a third baptism just to receive the Baptists' communion seemed a bit overkill. :laugh:

    BTW (as a side note), in the RCC the priest holds the wafer in front of the recipient and says, "The body of Christ," to which the recipient is supposed to respond "Amen." The significance of the "Amen" is, to them, an affirmation that the recipient believes it to be the transubstantiated flesh of Jesus and verbally assents to the doctrine (this was specifically taught to the new communicants). The thing is, if the prospective recipient fails to say "Amen," the priest is supposed to withhold and refuse to give that person the sacrament; they are to assume that the person either is not RC or does not assent to the doctrine of transubstantiation. I no longer assent to it, so for this reason I will never go forward for communion in a RCC (at a wedding or funeral, for example) because, as I was taught therein, it would be disrespectful and dishonest of me to even attempt to receive their eucharist and I cannot do that in good conscience.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2020
    Tiffy likes this.
  7. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    I like my rector's explanation about infant baptism: that it's a sign of the infant being welcomed into the 'local church' family and a prayer to God (by the local church and the parents) that He will do all He can (without violating the child's eventual free will when he is of age) to bring that babe safely into His eternal kingdom.
     
    Tiffy likes this.
  8. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    2,488
    I never said Baptism was a contract. I said "covenants are like contracts," which they are. In fact, in every contract there is at least one mutual covenant (ie, a promise or pledge to do or not do a certain thing) or it is a meaningless contract. I used the analogy to point out how in the Baptismal covenant, promises are made in order to receive the thing being sought (in this case, baptism). In the Western Church, when those promises are made on behalf of an infant, the infant later has an opportunity to ratify those promises personally through his Confirmation. Its an imperfect analogy I admit but analogies are tools for highlighting certain attributes by comparing something with something it is not... if you think about it, what value is an analogy that compares apples to apples?

    This is new to me. What is your scriptural basis for that? Do we ever really own are faith? St. Paul says it is not from ourselves but is a gift from God, and calls Jesus its author and perfecter. How much ownership can we really claim? But I digress...

    This thought confuses me. What danger exists in communion that is not in baptism? Doesn't Article XXV say of all sacraments, including Baptism, that receiving unworthily will purchase damnation for one's self?

    Let us consider the historic Catechism as it relates to baptism
    "Question. What is required of persons to be baptized?
    Answer. Repentance, whereby they forsake sin; and Faith, whereby they stedfastly believe the promises of God made to them in that Sacrament.
    Question. Why then are Infants baptized, when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform them?
    Answer. Because they promise them both by their Sureties; which promise, when they come to age, themselves are bound to perform."​

    And here in the BCP 1928's Offices of Instruction:
    "WHEN were you made a member of the Church?
    Answer. I was made a member of the Church when I was baptized.
    Question. What is the Church?
    Answer. The Church is the Body of which Jesus Christ is the Head, and all baptized people are the members....
    Question. What is your bounden duty as a member of the Church?
    Answer. My bounden duty is to follow Christ, to worship God every Sunday in his Church; and to work and pray and give for the spread of his kingdom.
    Question. What special means does the Church provide to help you to do all these things?
    Answer. The Church provides the Laying on of Hands, or Confirmation, wherein, after renewing the promises and vows of my Baptism, and declaring my loyalty and devotion to Christ as my Master, I receive the strengthening gifts of the Holy Spirit."​

    Read in both sections that promises are required to receive baptism. There are conditions precedent in the form of promises that must be made before a person can receive baptism. And these are not empty promises but bounden duties to be performed when the person is of age...notice it did not say "when the person owns his faith at confirmation". Confirmation was not mentioned at all as it relates to the assignment of duties, which are a function of church membership, which is conferred at Baptism. The duty becomes the burden of the person baptized when they reach the age that they can perform them, which is clearly before confirmation since in the offices of instruction, the young person already says of the duty that it is "My bounden duty..." prior to confirmation.. Comfirmation is an aid, a special means, by which the Church helps the person better perform his duties with the strengthening gifts of the Holy Spirit.

    My earlier point is if the child is not bound to or accountable for the promises he made through his sureties in Baptism, duties which include the duty to "believe all the Articles of the Christian Faith", until he is of age to perform them and yet is nevertheless allowed to receive baptism; why not go the whole way, as they used to in the ancient Church up until the middle ages and let children take communion, recognizing that the same rule regarding personal accountability applies?

    We read in scripture how Jesus rebuked the Apostles for keeping children away from his presence and said "Suffer the little children to come unto me and hinder them not" and then, as a Church, we repeat the Apostles' same mistake by keeping children away from the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Sacrament.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2020
    Tiffy likes this.
  9. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    It's possible to take the Christian line; and be of entirely two faces about it: one person takes the same line and does it, practices it, believes it, says it, because he is a humble servant of the Lord and a conscientious brother in the Kingdom of God; while another person takes the exact same line, does it, practices and believes it as a cover for his sins and a justification for his wickedness.

    You can apply this to any number of Christian things:

    Christianity offers you to be regenerate and born again. Some take it as a clean heart and a peaceful mind to go and sin no more; others take it as a canny pretext that now they cannot sin no matter what they do.

    Christianity offers a worldview of unbreakable morality and completely solid ethical underpinning. Some take it as a grateful escape from the worldly moral relativism; others use this solidity to tower over others and preen sanctimoniously.

    Christianity preaches about the triumph of the poor. Some take it to become gracious and kind; others take it as an endorsement for communism/marxism.

    Both the right way, and the error, are possible to us, and it is simply impossible to stop people from twisting the "Christian line" to their own ends, especially if church discipline is absent. In fact, this twisting of Christianity is so impactful in tainting our witness to the world, that you can expect that the Enemy will make people twist it this way or that way, so that people lose sight of it altogether.

    I beg you, please take your eye off those who practice the Christian line sinfully, and look at it from its intended (and truly valid) vantage point.


    From the context (they should not be lifted up, raised, or carried about), and from the citation (St. Paul), it is clear that the Article talks about the Sacrament of the Body and Blood. It is not talking about the Sacrament of Baptism, because there has never, in the Church up to that point, been a discussion of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism unworthily. It has been considered impossible, by the combined mass of thousands of years of pious Christian reflection, to receive the Sacrament of Baptism unworthily.

    For example, how could the Hebrews receive the salvation by the sea in Exodus "unworthily"? That's not even a part of the consideration. The salvation of Exodus just happened; it was a passive gift. While we know that most Hebrews thus saved were later also rejected by God, and found unworthy to enter the Promised Land, that doesn't mean that they were 'baptized by the water unworthily. No, the traditional interpretation never uses that language. They were saved first. Full stop. And then they turned their backs on God secondarily.

    If you look at St Cyril's Catechetical Lectures where he describes Baptism, it is discussed as a passive gift; you can violate God's generosity that is poured out to you, but it is not seen that the Baptism is this give-and-take which you can undertake under false pretenses. So I would say it is impossible to receive the Baptism unworthily.

    But it is possible to receive the Sacrament of the Body and Blood unworthily. St. Paul never warns us against baptizing unworthily; but he does warn us against receiving the Body and Blood unworthily. It's a simple open-and-shut case.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2020
  10. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    2,488
    I would have never pegged you for a proponent of Ex Opera Operato, @Stalwart. You never cease to surprise, my friend!
     
  11. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    I have no idea where you're coming from with this, since I was merely relating a story of what happened to me and why I responded as I did to the circumstance. It's their (the Baptists' church) and they can do as they see fit. That said, in my opinion it's better to have open communion because a closed communion will make some people feel unwelcome. YMMV.
     
    Stalwart likes this.
  12. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    Yeah, I didn't even know Stalwart attended the opera! :hmm: (I couldn't resist picking up on that little misspelling.) :halo:
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  13. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    3,323
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    I disagree with your statement but mostly because of the words impossible and unworthily that it contains.

    Adults are perefctly capable of coming to baptism illegitimately. i.e. submitting to the rite for all sorts of other reasons than a pure intention of future obedience to God out of gratitude for God's Grace. God knows if a baptism is legitimate, but will nonetheless hold the recipient to the vows made. This may prove to be an extremely uncomfortable experience for them in later life. Heb.12:6-10.

    Infants can also be illegitimately baptised if neither parent is a believing servant of the Lord, and also none of their grandparents are or were. 2 Tim.1:5 Infants can only be legitimately baptised into The New Covenant if they are, by virtue of their parentage, already declared 'Holy' by God.

    Not all infants are declared 'Holy' by God. 1 Cor.7:14. However the same obligations would be placed upon all of them by God if they have been baptised, so the baptism is not strictly speaking unworthily performed, since none of us receive baptism worthily, but purely by God's Grace.
    .
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  14. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I know. What I’m saying is, let’s assume you’re right that they did it out of prideful self-enclosed reasons. But it doesn’t mean the exact same policy couldnt have been done out of Christian reasons. Same exact policy, but comes out of sin in one case, and out of virtue in another. We can’t look at their prideful exclusion of others, and say that therefore exclusion as such is wrong. Maybe exclusion could be done out of loving, pious, and virtuous reasons (which is how Closed Communion has been done historically).


    Er, I’m not. Ex opere operato is a medieval mistake on something which previously had been clean and worthwhile.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2020
  15. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    2,488
    Now you want to talk context?? From the plain language of Article XXV the authors were clearly talking about more than only the the Lord's Supper: "The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith."
    Are these just 455 year old typos?

    And from the context, such as the authors' choice to place the clause in an Article which speaks about all sacraments generally and is titled "The Sacraments" rather in the more specific article titled "The Lord's Supper" (Article XXVIII), we know this statement applies to more than just the Lord's Supper.

    Furthermore, we know that the Anglican reformers believed this applied specifically to the Sacrament of Baptism because they reiterated the theme in Article XXVII unworthiness.

    "Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God."​

    Here, the authors do not teach that the benefits of Baptism are given to ALL who receive it, but rather only to those who receive it "rightly". Thus, we can infer that the Anglican reformers did indeed believe it was possible to receive Baptism unworthily.
     
    Tiffy likes this.
  16. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    2,488
    :clap:
     
  17. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    You’re not reading the word “rightly” correctly here. We are looking at a five-hundred year old text, which was written literally before Shakespeare himself. Let’s be a little cautious here. Have you ever wrestled with Shakespeare? especially in the “original”, ie. before any 19/20th century interpolations adapting it to modern times? Same with the Articles. Don’t let it being “in English” seduce you into thinking it’s all just obvious and on the surface. For example take a look at Article X:

    ... we have no Power to do Good Works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the Grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a Good Will...

    What does the word “preventing” mean here?

    When you see how the language of the Articles works, you’ll see that the word “rightly”in Article 27 could mean a number of different things. Rightly as in correctly, sure. But also rightly as in by right. I have free speech rightly, by right, in the language of the Articles. I don’t have free speech correctly, but I do have it rightly. It’s legal natural law language. We should understand “rightly” in that more antiquated meaning of the word, rather in the super-fresh 21st century usage.

    To test what I’m saying, let’s look for another instance of the word rightly being used in the Articles; the very next paragraph, Article 28:

    The Supper of the Lord ... is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s Death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with Faith ...

    There the article lists the various preconditions for taking the Eucharist: you must have a right to it first, then you must take it properly (worthily); and then you must have the Faith. If your reading was correct, the Article would be repeating itself: “worthily, worthily, and by Faith”

    Instead, with the Eucharist the Articles consider the possibility that it could’ve been taken unworthily and also without a right; but with Baptism, it could only be taken without a right. Taking it unworthily isn’t entertained as a possibility.

    Just see any of the contemporary commentaries on the Articles, and you won’t find them even considering or mentioning the possibility of Baptism being taken unworthily:

    https://www.anglican.net/works/john-ellis-defensio-fidei-defence-thirty-nine-articles/#p2-27
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2020
  18. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    3,323
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    No one is 'worthy' of salvation, all are 'unworthy' of it, because all have sinned and fall short. We are 'unworthy' servants, even after baptism. So quite apart from unworthyness not being mentioned in connection with baptism, it is quite obvious that everyone is unworthy of it. i.e. they do not in themselves merit salvation or God's Grace, it is a gift. Nevertheless it is freely offered and 'received' by the called and chosen.
    .
     
  19. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    2,488
    My Shakespeare is flawless!
     
  20. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,722
    Likes Received:
    2,488
    In all seriousness, you make a sound point here @Stalwart. The meanings of words change over time, especially in English where words often pull double and triple duty. You believe "rightly," as it is used in Article XXVII, to not mean correctly but to mean "by right".

    Let's consider this. According to my count, the word "rightly" is used 5 times in the articles in the following places:

    • Article XXVI: "either is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men."
    • Article XXVII: "Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God."
    • Article XXVIII: "The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ."
    • Article XXXIII: "That person which by open denunciation of the Church is rightly cut off from the unity of the Church, and excommunicated, ought to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful, as an Heathen and Publican, until he be openly reconciled by penance, and received into the Church by a Judge that hath authority thereunto."
    • Article XXXVI: "And therefore whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the Rites of that Book, since the second year of the forenamed King Edward unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same Rites; we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered."
    Reading them, it's appears to me in every case where its use relates to the sacraments, using "rightly" to mean "of right" or "by right" or to mean that someone has a right to them, is a very strained reading. And even in the last two instances, I don't think "rightly" is used as you have interpreted it.

    I think the solution is to go to the original language of the 1563 Articles, which is more precise and much less subject to change: Latin.



    In the attached, "rightly" is the translation used for the latin word "rite" in all the above referenced articles except Article XXVII, where word translated as "rightly" is "recte".

    Now I freely admit I am out of my depth when translating latin, so I am relying on the accuracy of an online Latin-English Dictionary I found and any bigger brains on this forum than mine that can keep us honest.

    According to the site "Rite" means "duly, according to religious usage, with due observance: solemnly" whereas "Recte" means "rightly, correctly, properly, well."

    So in the case of the article on baptism, "rightly" does indeed mean "correctly".
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Sep 23, 2020
    Botolph and Tiffy like this.