Over the course of the last eight decades, Baptists in America have made great progress in reclaiming their confessional roots. Along the way they have abandoned the external focus of the Second Great Awakening and sought to pursue a deepened resolve for internal holiness, much like their Puritan forefathers.The days of sanctification being procured by smashing barrels of whiskey are long behind these Reformed Baptists, but could there remain some external forms between them and a right focus on the heart? Could baptism itself be prioritized over love for other members of the body of Christ? This debate has been developing since the earliest days of the Particular Baptist movement, and it is one worth revisiting in the 21st century as efforts are renewed to encourage fellowship between confessional Christians on both sides of this divide.

 

Defining Terms

 

It is important to begin by considering the common terms used in this discussion. Historically, this debate has been framed as Open Communion vs. Close or Strict Communion. There is a third position, Closed Communion, that is rarely practiced, and of little relevance to this discussion, as it carries restrictions well past the level of Close Communion. First, what is communion? Is it simply partaking of the Lord’s Supper? Historically, it has been primarily used to refer to the communion of the saints, or membership in the body of Christ. This is the focus of Chapter 27 of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. In this chapter, Baptists confess that all saints are united to Jesus Christ, and each other. This union in Christ binds them to fellowship and commune with each other. Consider Paragraph 1:

 

All saints that are united to Jesus Christ, their head, by his Spirit, and faith, although they are not made thereby one person with him, have fellowship in his graces, sufferings, death, resurrection, and glory; and, being united to one another in love, they have communion in each others gifts and graces, and are obliged to the performance of such duties, public and private, in an orderly way, as do conduce to their mutual good, both in the inward and outward man.

 

It is worth noting that no exceptions are made, in this paragraph, for disagreements on baptism. It would, consequently, be reasonable to conclude that all visible saints should have communion together. In Chapter 29, Baptists confess that baptism should follow regeneration, but nothing in the latter chapter cancels the confession of the former.

 

Close or Strict Communion is the practice of limiting communion and church membership to those who have been baptized as believers. While the Baptist holding this view may greatly admire Paedobaptist brethren, and even invite them to share pulpits or join in evangelistic outreaches, he cannot allow them to join his church or eat of the Lord’s Table at his services. The Paedobaptist brother rarely shares reciprocal reservations, so he may welcome the Credobaptist to both membership and the communion table. For this reason, Paedobaptists often, and arguably rightly, claim to hold the more charitable position.

 

Open Communion, while far less common, extends greater charity by welcoming visible saints to the table of the Lord, and often membership, even if they have not been baptized as believers. This position was taken and defended by one of the most notable Particular Baptists, John Bunyan. It is Bunyan’s case for Baptist charity that will be examined here.

 

Biblical Bounds for Communion

 

While Bunyan is best known for Pilgrim’s Progress, a review of his other writings reveals countless other gems. One of his shorter works that applies to the subject at hand is given the following title:

 

A Confession of My Faith, And a Reason of My Practice

 

Or

 

With Who, And Who Not, I Can Hold Church Fellowship, Or The Communion Of Saints

 

Shewing, By Diverse Arguments, That Though I Dare Not Communicate with the Openly Profane, Yet I Can with Those Visible Saints That Differ About Water-Baptism. Wherein Is Also Discoursed, Whether That Be the Entering Ordinance into Fellowship, Or No.

 

Here, in the title, Bunyan presents the nature of his argument. It is wrong and dangerous to commune with openly profane, but it is right and safe to commune with visible saints, even if they differ on water-baptism.

 

Whatever the reader may think of Bunyan’s argument, he cannot help being moved by the deep faith of this man of God. In the opening paragraph Bunyan acknowledges that many will think poorly of him, as he writes from prison, having been held for eleven years for the doctrines he confesses:

 

But having not only at my trial asserted them, but also since, even all this tedious tract of time, in cool blood, a thousand times, by the word of God, examined them, and found them good; I cannot, I dare not now revolt or deny the same, on pain of eternal damnation.

 

These are the words of a man who has both labored and suffered greatly for the cause of Christ. Bunyan proceeds to explain his objective is to present his confession defended from the Scriptures. He calls his readers to witness against him if any of the doctrines he proclaims contain heresy or rebellion worthy of bonds or death.

 

The first section of Bunyan’s confession contains twenty-one paragraphs addressing core doctrines of the faith, such as the Trinity, the resurrection, the incarnation, the virgin-birth, the redemptive work of Christ, and the eternal rewards of both the wicked and the righteous. Following this are six paragraphs on justification, seven on election, and sections addressing effectual calling, faith, repentance, love, the Scriptures, and the civil magistrate. In each case, Bunyan ably defends his views from the Scriptures.

 

Having thoroughly confessed and defended his faith, Bunyan moves on to the subject of his practice in worship. He first addresses those with whom he dare not hold communion, and second, those with whom he dares to hold communion.

 

With whom I dare not hold communion

While it might appear simple, Bunyan’s bar for communion is far higher than many churches that restrict communion by baptism. He first excludes those “that profess not faith and holiness.” He does not attempt to include those he supposes could be elect or exclude others who he suspects might be secret hypocrites. Rather he excludes only, “him that is not a visible saint.” But on this point, Bunyan’s standard becomes far clearer:

 

Now he that is visibly or openly profane, cannot be then a visible saint; for he that is a visible saint must profess faith and repentance, and consequently holiness of life: and with none else dare I communicate.

 

Bunyan proceeds to list seven biblical reasons for this requirement for communion. In Genesis 3:15, God placed this divide “between the seed of the woman and the children of the wicked.” In the Levitical codes, as well as the writings of the prophets and apostles, God consistently calls his people to holiness and righteousness that sets them apart from the world. The consistent example of the New Testament churches was that they were made up of visible, identifiable saints. In both Testaments, God calls his people to separate from the world and not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers. Mixed communion with unbelievers often led Israel into compromise and idolatry. In conclusion, communion with the openly profane and ungodly, “polluteth his ordinances: it violateth his law: it profaneth his holiness: it defileth his people; and provoketh the Lord to severe and terrible judgments.”

 

Like any good Puritan, Bunyan breaks away from his main discourse to answer an objection here:

 

But we can prove in all ages [that] there have been the open profane in the church of God.

 

Bunyan acknowledges this but asserts that they had not appeared to be openly profane when they were first received to communion, and they did not remain in communion when their sin was revealed.

 

Whatever one’s views on baptism or communion may be, this section of Bunyan’s discourse will prove valuable to any modern confessional church seeking to navigate welcoming a professing believer into membership. We don’t have perfect knowledge of their spiritual condition, and Bunyan’s wisdom offers comfort on this point. God does not expect us to know every detail of his plan before it comes to pass. But should any visible saint discredit their former profession, sin must be addressed promptly and fully. It is not for us to speculate in the secret things of God, but neither may we delay obedience to his clear commands in matters of maintaining holiness in his church.

 

With Whom I Dare Hold Communion

 

Bunyan begins this section by confessing two “shadowish, or figurative ordinances” Christ has ordained for the church: water baptism and the Lord’s supper. These are:

 

of excellent use to the church in this world; they being to us representations of the death and resurrection of Christ; and are, as God shall make them, helps to our faith therein. But I count them not the fundamentals of our Christianity, nor grounds or rule to communion with saints: servants they are, and our mystical ministers, to teach and instruct us in the most weighty matters of the kingdom of God: I therefore here declare my reverent esteem of them; yet dare not remove them, as some do, from the place and end, where by God they are set and appointed; nor ascribe unto them more than they were ordered to have in their first and primitive institution. It is possible to commit idolatry even with God’s own appointments: but I pass this, and come to the thing propounded.

 

Bunyan provides some essential clarity in this paragraph. Rome and her imitators in the Church of England often ascribed infusions of grace to these and other sacraments. Others in this era of reformation reacted to these errors so radically that they denigrated the real spiritual benefits of the ordinances. Bunyan confesses their great value, yet reaffirms that they must not be idolized, or elevated above their original design.

 

Next Bunyan simply confesses he dares to commune with visible saints. Rather than splitting his attention between testing the credibility of faith and baptism, he simply focuses on faith.He followed this process:

 

I hold it requisite that a faithful relation be made thereof by the party thus to be received; yea, if need be, by witnesses also, for the satisfaction of the church, that she may receive in faith and judgment, such as best shall suit her holy profession.

 

So a professing Christian needed to be able to make a credible profession before witnesses, that would satisfy the church before he could join.

 

It is at this point that Bunyan wades into the waters where many Baptists do not dare to follow. In another series of questions and answers, he responds to the common objections against his standards for membership.

 

Quest. But do you not count that by water baptism, and not otherwise, that being the initiating and entering ordinance; they ought to be received into fellowship?

Ans. No; But tarry, and take my sense with my word. For herein lies the mistake, To think that because in time past baptism was administered upon conversion, that therefore it is the initiating and entering ordinance into church communion: when by the word no such thing is testified of it.

 

This Bunyan follows with a lengthy comparison between entrance to the Old and New Covenants. It is true that the act of circumcision gave Jews membership in the Old Covenant Church, yet, Bunyan argues the same cannot be said of baptism in the New Covenant. Bunyan considers numerous examples of baptism in Acts that did not join a person to a particular church.

Based on the testimony of Scripture he concludes:

 

The person then that is baptized stands by that a member of no church at all, neither of the visible, nor yet of the invisible. A visible saint he is, but not made so by baptism; for he must be a visible saint before, else he ought not to be baptized.

 

So why should one be baptized?

 

That their own faith by that figure might be strengthened in the death and resurrection of Christ. And that themselves might see, that they have professed themselves dead, and buried, and risen with him to newness of life.

 

Confessional Protestants, Credobaptist and Paedobaptist alike, deny baptismal regeneration. Confessional Baptists further hold that baptism serves as an act of obedience that follows regeneration, but many still hold that, while this ordinance does not unite a man to the invisible church, it does unite him to the visible church. Bunyan argues that baptism accomplishes only that role that is expressly granted by the Scriptures, and nothing more. While many may dislike his conclusions, it cannot be denied that they are built on the regulative principle of worship.

 

So, if baptism is not the standard for church membership according to the Scriptures, what is? Bunyan argues it is the very things that demonstrate one to be a visible saint: a credible confession of faith, and a life according to that confession. After all, when Paul is faced with challenges to his communion with Corinth, does he appeal to his baptism? No, but to the testimony of his faith (2 Cor. 7:2). Likewise, when conversion is considered, it is not external, fleshly signs that must be found, but circumcision of the heart (Rom. 2:28-29, Phil. 3:1-4).

 

A Call to Charity

 

While Bunyan offers numerous arguments to support his position, it is his call to charity that is the most compelling:

 

Therefore I am for holding communion thus, because love, which above all things we are commanded to put on, is of much more worth than to break about baptism; Love is also more discovered when it receiveth for the sake of Christ and grace, than when it refuseth for want of water: and observe it, as I have also said before, this exhortation to love is grounded upon the putting on of the new creature; which new creature hath swallowed up all distinctions, that have before been common among the churches.

 

There will be those who contest this statement. Many Baptists will say that it is quite loving to deny membership and the Lord’s Table to those who, while they may clearly be saints, were only baptized as infants. But is it not more loving to commune with them?

 

Some Baptists would label Bunyan a compromiser. This is hardly a fair charge. Bunyan never calls infant baptism, baptism. He uses the term christening instead. Throughout this confession, he refers to those baptized as infants as those who had never been baptized. He never legitimizes ordinances administered outside the regulative principle. Bunyan is as theologically uncompromising as the finest Strict Baptist, but he chose to live by love.

 

So, what can the modern confessional Baptist learn from Bunyan’s example? We may learn that faithful theology and charity need not be mutually exclusive. It is possible to hold firmly to the regulative principle in both doctrine and practice on the subject of baptism, and still lovingly welcome brothers who differ on water-baptism to membership and the Lord’s table. Especially in darker days where true faith may be suppressed, Baptists should more carefully consider the example of John Bunyan that they may commune in good conscience with all visible saints in truth and charity.

May Baptists continue their reforms and revisit their roots. May we remain committed to the regulative principle, and the clarity it brings to these often muddy waters. But as we devote ourselves to theological fidelity, may we not be so zealous for our external signs that we forget a right emphasis on the conversion of hearts. Above all else, may the love of Christ within us, cause our love for Christ and his people to prevail.