A QUESTION ON OLD SCHOOL BAPTISTS ELDER WHO ARE NOT IN THEIR HOME CHURCH THAT PRACTICE CLOSED COMMUNION

We received a comment on our article "Why Strict Communion?"

"Being that Old Baptist ministers preach at different locations every Sunday. I would assume that they believed in the local church taking the Lord's supper exclusively. If they were not a member of the church that was having communion on that Sunday, did they still reside over the ordinance?I would love to read in other articles on this subject that can be found."

This is an answer to an Old School brother concerning what happens when an Old School Baptist Elder is preaching in a different Church Every Sunday. We hope this answers our brother's question.

In the New Testament, the word "mysteries" (Greek: μυστήριον, mystērion) refers not to secret knowledge in the modern sense of “mystery novels” or “puzzles,” but to divine truths that were previously hidden but have now been revealed by God, especially through Christ and the gospel.

Greek Term:

• μυστήριον (mystērion)

  • Singular: mystery

  • Plural: mysteries

  • Root idea: something once hidden but now made known by revelation

Key New Testament Usages and Meanings:

Passage	Context / Meaning of "Mystery"
Mark 4:11	"Unto you, it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God..." — The hidden nature of God's kingdom, now revealed in Christ.
Romans 11:25	"Lest ye be wise... I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery..." — The partial hardening of Israel and the inclusion of Gentiles.
Romans 16:25–26	"According to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began..." — The gospel message, now openly preached.
1 Corinthians 2:7	"We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery..." — The hidden wisdom of God revealed in Christ crucified.
1 Corinthians 15:51	"Behold, I show you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed..." — The transformation at the resurrection.
Ephesians 1:9	"Having made known unto us the mystery of his will..." — God's eternal purpose in Christ is to unite all things.
Ephesians 3:3–6	"How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery... that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs..." — The inclusion of Gentiles as equal members of the body of Christ.
Colossians 1:26–27	"The mystery which hath been hid... now made manifest... Christ in you, the hope of glory." — The indwelling Christ in believers, including Gentiles.
1 Timothy 3:16	"Great is the mystery of godliness..." — The incarnation and redemptive work of Christ.
Revelation 1:20; 17:5,7	The word is used more apocalyptically, often denoting symbolic or hidden meaning, such as the mystery of the woman Babylon or the seven stars.

---

Theological Summary:

• A "mystery" is a truth once hidden in God's eternal counsel, now revealed through Christ and the gospel.

• Mysteries are not known by human reason but by divine revelation.

• They often involve:

  • The incarnation, atonement, and resurrection.

  • The union of Jew and Gentile in one body.

  • The indwelling of Christ.

  • The transformation of the saints at the resurrection.

  • The final consummation of God’s purposes.

There is no explicit statement in the New Testament (NT) that says only ordained ministers (in the modern sense of clergy) are allowed to administer the ordinances—baptism and the Lord’s Supper. However, certain patterns and implications are often used to argue either for or against that position.

---

Summary of NT Evidence on Who Administers Ordinances

1. Baptism

➤ Evidence that non-apostles baptized:

• Acts 8:12–13 – Philip (a deacon/evangelist, not an apostle) baptizes in Samaria.

• Acts 8:36–38 – Philip baptizes the Ethiopian eunuch; no mention of a formal church setting or apostolic authority involved.

• John 3:22 / 4:2 – Jesus' disciples (not Jesus himself) were baptizing.

• Acts 9:18 – Ananias baptizes Paul; Ananias is called a “disciple” (not an apostle or elder).

🡺 These examples suggest that baptism was not restricted to ordained elders or apostles.

---

2. The Lord’s Supper

➤ Evidence from early church practice:

• Acts 2:42, 46 – The early believers "continued steadfastly... in the breaking of bread... from house to house."
  🡺 No administrator is mentioned; the emphasis is on corporate fellowship, not clerical leadership.

• 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 – Paul rebukes the Corinthians for improper observance of the Lord’s Supper.
  🡺 He addresses the whole church, not just ministers. While order is commanded, there's no clear mention of ministerial administration.

---

Arguments Some Make For Ministerial Administration

1. Apostolic example: Baptisms are often performed by apostles (Peter, Paul), implying leadership.

2. Church order: 1 Corinthians 14:40 says, "let all things be done decently and in order," which some interpret as supporting elder-led ordinances.

3. Symbolic representation: Some say the minister represents Christ and the church in administering ordinances, thus requiring ordination.

---

Arguments Against Ministerial Exclusivity

1. Priesthood of all believers – 1 Peter 2:9, Revelation 1:6

   • All believers are priests; therefore, any disciple may participate in ordinances.

2. No NT restriction – Nowhere in Scripture is there a law saying only elders/pastors can baptize or administer the Supper.

3. Early practice – Laypersons like Ananias and Philip clearly baptized.

---

Historical Note (Extra-Biblical)

• By the 2nd and 3rd centuries, church fathers like Ignatius and Tertullian began asserting that only bishops/presbyters should administer ordinances, reflecting a shift toward clerical control.

• But this development is post-apostolic and not directly grounded in NT command.

---

Conclusion:

The New Testament does not explicitly restrict the administration of ordinances to ordained ministers. The practice was likely contextual, flexible, and dependent on local church order and apostolic guidance—but not legally or ceremonially exclusive to clergy.

The English Baptists of the 17th and 18th centuries, particularly the Particular Baptists, held a high view of church order and generally believed that only ordained ministers or officers of a properly constituted local church should administer the ordinances, especially the Lord’s Supper.

However, they did not derive this from a belief in priestly hierarchy, but from principles of congregational order, church authority, and pastoral responsibility.

---

General English Baptist View:

The ordinances (baptism and the Lord's Supper) should be administered only by those authorized by the local church—typically elders (pastors)—as part of orderly church practice.

---

Key Sources & Confessional Standards

1644 Particular Baptist Confession (early Particular Baptists)

• Not explicit on who must administer the ordinances.

• Emphasizes that baptism and the Supper are for believers and that local churches should observe them properly.

• Focus was more on what the ordinances are than on who administers them.

1677/1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith

• More developed ecclesiology.

• Chapter 28, paragraph 2:

  "These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ."

  🔍 This reflects the belief that ordination (or at least church appointment) is required.

• Chapter 26, on the church, implies the pastor/elder has the teaching and sacramental duties.

Benjamin Keach (1640–1704)

• Prominent London Particular Baptist pastor.

• Advocated strict church order and believed only church-appointed elders should administer baptism and the Lord's Supper.

• Defended fenced communion and orderly administration.

• In his polemics (e.g., against Marlow or the General Baptists), he often stressed the importance of ministerial calling and church authorization.

---

Practical Baptist Viewpoints (Summary)

Group	View on Administration of Ordinances
Particular Baptists (Calvinistic)	Typically held that only ordained elders or those commissioned by the church should administer baptism and the Supper.
General Baptists (Arminian)	Sometimes more flexible, but still generally requires church authorization, even if not formal ordination.
Strict Baptists (19th c. successors to Particular Baptists)	Reinforced the view that only church-recognized ministers should administer ordinances.
Some early Baptists (1640s-50s)	In times of necessity or during persecution, lay administration may have occurred, but this was not normative.

---

Key Theological Reasons Behind Their View:

1. Church officers are stewards – Elders are given the task of overseeing worship and ordinances (1 Cor. 4:1).

2. Avoiding disorder – A concern to avoid “private” or “irregular” administration outside the gathered church.

3. Connection to the Great Commission – Many tied baptism to the commission of those sent to preach (Matt. 28:19–20), assuming that this applied primarily to ordained ministers.

4. Rejection of priestly hierarchy – While they restricted the ordinances to ministers, this was based on church polity, not sacramental priesthood as in Roman Catholicism.

---

Example Quote:

From John Gill, an 18th-century Particular Baptist theologian:

"Baptism is to be administered by a proper officer in the church—an elder or one appointed by the church—since it is a public ordinance belonging to the church..."
— Gill, Body of Divinity, under “Of Baptism”

---

Conclusion:

English Baptists, especially the Particular Baptists, believed that the ordinances were not to be administered by just any believer but by those called and authorized by the local church—typically ordained elders. This was not based on clericalism, but on congregational order and fidelity to Scripture.

Some scholars and fringe Christian groups argue that the Lord’s Supper and the Love Feasts were originally the same event, or at least organically connected, especially in the apostolic period. However, this is a minority view both historically and theologically.

---

1. Scholars Who Argue for a Unified Meal

Several modern scholars, particularly in biblical studies and early Christian history, suggest that the Lord’s Supper originally took place as part of a full, communal meal and that the formal separation into a purely symbolic ordinance occurred only later.

Notable Advocates:

Scholar	Position
Joachim Jeremias	Argued that the Last Supper was a full Passover meal and the early Lord’s Supper continued in that form (as a real meal + symbolic meaning).
Gordon Fee (on 1 Corinthians)	Argued that the Lord’s Supper in Corinth was celebrated during a full fellowship meal, i.e., the agape feast. The abuse in 1 Cor. 11 arose from this structure.
Hans Lietzmann	In his book Mass and Lord’s Supper, he argues that early Christian Eucharists were part of full love meals before later becoming separate rites.
Robert Banks (Paul's Idea of Community)	Argued the early church always combined the Lord’s Supper with a shared meal, following Jewish table fellowship patterns.

These scholars emphasize historical development, not theological necessity. They argue the form changed, but not the initial integration.

---

2. Early Church Evidence for Connection

• Acts 2:42, 46 – "They continued steadfastly in... the breaking of bread... and did eat their meat with gladness..."

  • Many argue this refers to a combined practice: communal meal + Eucharistic remembrance.

• 1 Corinthians 11:20–34 – Paul rebukes the Corinthians for eating and drinking selfishly, not discerning the Lord’s body, within what seems to be a fellowship meal.

  • This passage is the strongest NT evidence of the two being connected in practice, if not in theology.

• Jude 12 – “These are spots in your love feasts...”

  • Likely refers to fellowship meals, possibly including the Lord’s Supper.

---

3. Early Church: Gradual Separation

The early church increasingly separated the Lord’s Supper from the full meal due to:

• Abuses (1 Cor. 11)

• Desire for reverence and order

• Influence of liturgical formalism

• Concerns over heretical or unworthy participation

By the late 2nd century, as seen in Justin Martyr's First Apology, the Supper is already described as a distinct ritual, not part of a meal.

---

4. Some Modern Groups That Recombine Them

Group	Practice
Some Brethren assemblies	Celebrate the Lord’s Supper as part of a fellowship meal (breaking of bread + shared meal).
House churches / Organic church movements	Some try to recreate the early church model, combining meal the supper to reflect Acts 2.
Seventh-Day Adventists (early years)	Sometimes included foot washing and meals with communion, echoing the sense of community.
Some Anabaptists / Mennonites	Historically practiced Love Feasts alongside communion, especially in rural or persecuted settings.

---

Theological Caution (from the Reformed/Baptist Tradition):

• Keach, Gill, and the 1689 Confession argued that only what Christ instituted is an ordinance.

• While fellowship meals are good, the Lord’s Supper is not to be reabsorbed into them.

• The symbolic, reverent, and church-centered nature of the Supper may be lost if merged into common eating.

---

Conclusion:

Some argue that the Lord’s Supper and Love Feasts were originally one unified practice—a sacred meal embedded in a fellowship meal. However, most historic Christian and Baptist theology treats them as related but distinct, with the Love Feast eventually discontinued due to confusion, abuse, and lack of divine institution.

Is the Lord's Supper the same as Breaking of Bread?

The phrase “breaking of bread” in the New Testament sometimes refers to the Lord’s Supper, but not always. Context determines whether it means:

1. A common meal, or

2. The ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, or

3. A combination of both, especially in the early church.

---

I. Key Passages and Interpretations

Acts 2:42

“And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.”

• 🔍 Most scholars and Baptists see this as referring to the Lord’s Supper, paired with prayer and doctrine.

• The structured nature of the list implies worship, not ordinary eating.

---

Acts 2:46

“And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness...”

• 🔍 Here, “breaking bread” likely refers to shared meals, i.e., fellowship dining.

• The phrase “did eat their meat” (i.e., food) confirms this is not the Lord’s Supper.

---

Acts 20:7

“And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread…”

• 🔍 Most interpret this as a church assembly for the Lord’s Supper, especially since Paul preaches until midnight.

• Reflects a formal, weekly gathering with spiritual purpose.

---

Luke 24:30, 35

“He took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.”

• 🔍 Jesus “breaks bread” with disciples in Emmaus. This is not the Lord’s Supper, but a miraculous post-resurrection meal.

• However, the language echoes the Supper, creating symbolic parallels.

---

II. Historical Baptist and Reformed Interpretation

Passage	Meaning (per Baptists like Gill & Keach)
Acts 2:42	Lord’s Supper – part of formal worship.
Acts 2:46	Fellowship meal – not the ordinance.
Acts 20:7	Lord’s Supper – formal church assembly.
Luke 24:30	Common meal – not an ordinance, but typological.

---

John Gill on Acts 2:42

“Breaking of bread: not at their own houses, but in the house of God... meaning the Lord’s Supper, distinct from ordinary meals, and attended to with religious seriousness.”

Benjamin Keach

Keach similarly distinguished between sacramental breaking of bread and fellowship meals, guarding the Supper as a Christ-instituted ordinance.

---

Conclusion:

“Breaking of bread” sometimes refers to the Lord’s Supper, and sometimes to ordinary meals. Context and wording determine the meaning. In Acts 2:42 and Acts 20:7, it most likely refers to the ordinance, whereas in Acts 2:46 and Luke 24, it refers to meals of hospitality.