According to William Cathcart's The Baptist Encyclopedia (1883), J. L. Burrows was born in New York in 1814. Educated at Andover, MA, he was ordained to the ministry in 1835 serving as pastor in New York, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania before moving to the historic First Baptist Church, Richmond, VA in 1854, a position which he sustained for twenty years.
Cathcart writes of Burrows, "a graceful and eloquent pulpit orator, an easy, elegant writer, and a man of varied learning and extensive reading, and, best of all, Dr. Burrows has been one of the most useful men in the ministry of our denomination."
The following is taken from a small book Burrows wrote entitled, "Popular Objections to Baptist Principles and Practices." The tenor of this volume addresses an accusation not unlike what we hear from many of our brothers today, concerning the "narrowing of the parameters" of fellowship in the Southern Baptist Convention, embracing a view of the ordinances which is unloving at best and bigoted at worst.
Indeed some Baptists are entertaining the idea that there may be no need to immerse a believer who's quite satisfied with the baptismal experience he or she received as an infant. Others not ready to extend that much line, reel it back in a foot or two, allowing the Table but not the "right hand of fellowship."
I might add as a sideline, the difference between those to whom Burrows wrote and those who issue the "bigoted" arguments today is the difference between Baptist and non-Baptist. In other words, those complaining in Burrows day were non-Baptists, arguing Baptists were bigoted, unloving and arrogant because they refused the Table to non-Baptists.
Today, it's not non-Baptists who whine Baptists are unloving, unkind, and arrogant for insisting on baptism as prerequisite to church membership, and therefore, the Table. Instead it's Baptists!
Burrows is a great read. Enjoy...
"Allow me to say at the outset, that I do not intend to assail or denounce Christians of any name or sect...[affirming Dr. Carson]...'Nothing can be farther from [my] intention than to widen the breach between churches of different denominations...There are two extremes which I wish to avoid... a spirit of liberalism that supposes the Christian his own master...and that sort of dogmatism that finds all excellence in its own party, and is reluctant to acknowledge the people of the Lord in any denomination but its own...
"[As for] Close Communion, I deny this charge, too. I, for one, am no close communionist. I repudiate the phrase, and the idea which it ordinarily conveys...The word Communion, in its proper signification in New Testament usage, is equivalent to agreement, fellowship. So far as I agree with another, I commune with him in the expression of that agreement... When I join...in a hymn...or in a prayer...I am in communion with him.
When I listen to a sermon...my spirit is in communion with the spirit of the preacher...This is Christian communion, agreement in faith, in feeling, and in labor...And so far as this agreement goes, does the communion extend. Further it cannot go.
Where we do not agree it is impossible to commune. There can no more be communion in differences, than agreement in disagreements, or harmony in discords. Communion in differences is a contradiction of terms...I can commune with a Quaker, a Unitarian, or an Atheist [or Presbyterian or Methodist]...so far as we agree, but no farther....just where the disagreement begins the communion ends; not because he wishes, or I wish it to end, but necessarily, because there is a point upon which we no longer think or feel alike.
We may love each other tenderly, have faith in the conscientious honesty of each other's convictions, but communion...is simply an absurd impossibility. This, then, is Christian communion...
We do hold communion with all Christians just so far as we have common faith, experience, worship, and duty. So far as these go, Baptists have always sought a common participation and fellowship.
[Yet] the main objection is not yet touched. It is this. You will not invite us, for whom you profess such communion, to participate with you in the LORD'S SUPPER... "You refuse us recognition and fellowship by declining to partake with us the Supper of the Lord."
My first answer to this is, that the Lord's Supper was not instituted or intended to express the fellowship or love of Christians for one another...Do Christians come to the Lord's table to commune with each other? Is taking the Lord's Supper a communion of the saints? Is this a ceremony intended to express, as Christians, mutual remembrance, fellowship, and affection for one another? Emphatically, No!
The notion that Christians go to the Lord's table for such purpose, is a bald fallacy. It has no warrant in God's word, nor in the spiritual intent and experience of the Lord's disciples. The Lord's Supper is not, according to its institution or nature, an ordinance expressive of mutual communion or fellowship.
When Jesus instituted this ordinance, he uttered not one word indicating that he meant it as a test of mutual fellowship, or an observance in which Christians might show their love for one another. He said, "This do in remembrance" not of each other, but "of me." "As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show forth" what? Communion with one another? No, verily! "the Lord's death"...This, then, is the design of the Lord's Supper, "to show his death" "to do this in remembrance of him"...
When you piously partake of the Lord's Supper is your brother in your thought and heart, or is your Lord? Are you meditating on their excellencies, or on his sufferings? Is it esteem for them, or love for him that you cherish?
If the heart is in harmony with the solemn service, it is full of Christ, not of Christians. We forget, or strive to forget, feel it duty to forget, the dearest friend of earth, though sitting beside us, and concentrate our thoughts and love on Jesus.
Should a brother lean toward you to assure you of his love and fellowship while the bread was in your hand, or the cup at your lip, you would shrink from him as expressing a sentiment utterly out of place and season...You do not come to that table to commune with your brother, but to commune with your Redeemer alone. "This do in remembrance of me." "Ye do show the Lord's death."
Is this view of the essential design of the Lord's Supper and of Christian experience in partaking of it true? Then it follows, that if I wish to commune with a Christian, I must go away from the Lord's table to do it. I do not show my love or my fellowship for him there. That is not the place for interchanges of mutual affection.
If any disciple, then, asks me to commune with him, I answer, certainly; we will pray together, praise together, talk of the Lord's goodness and grace, rehearse our experiences of his mercy and love, and labor together in all measures to edify Christians and to win souls to Jesus. This is communion...
If that disciple says to me farther, "Let us express our communion with one another by sitting together at the supper of the Lord," I will answer, "My brother, to that table I go to commune with my Saviour, not with you or any mortal man or holy angel. If you go there in a right spirit you will forget me, as I shall certainly strive to forget you.
There our thoughts and hearts are to be so full of Christ as to leave no room for memories of one another. I have nothing to do with man at the table of the Lord. My intercourse and fellowship there are solely with Jesus."
Does not this view prove, then, that Christian communion and fellowship does not at all depend upon mutual participation of the Lord's Supper? There is Christian communion without it; and there is strictly nothing of what is popularly called communion in it. Whatever is essential to the communion of the saints is to be sought for elsewhere than at the supper of the Lord, and if not found elsewhere, will not be found there.
[Some ask] "If then there is no Christian intercommunion in a mutual participation of the Lord's Supper, why not invite us to partake with you?" I answer, We have no right to change the terms or conditions which our Lord has established in relation to this ordinance. "We decline to legislate for Christ's church. If he requires that his disciples shall first be baptized, and thus be initiated into his church, and then partake of the supper, we are not warranted in changing or consenting to a change of this order.
Certainly some qualifications or conditions are prerequisite to a right approach to the Lord's Supper. Surely it is not a feast to be thrown open indiscriminately to all comers. Ministers may not fling out invitations to this solemn festival as freely as merrymakers to a picnic, or politicians to a barbecue...What does Jesus, our only lawgiver, require as qualifications and conditions?
Ten thousand sophistries are swept away by simple adherence to a sound principle. If we are close, it is only because we wish to be close to Christ's commands. We will strain after no liberty or liberality beyond the bounds which our Master and Redeemer has fixed.
What, then, according to the gospel, ought the Christian to be and to do in order to come rightly to the supper of the Lord? I answer: first, converted; second, baptized.
Our Lord's final and definite instructions to his apostles, and through them to his church in all ages, are these: "Go ye therefore and teach (disciple) all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." This commission involves the whole method of Christian organization and order.
The plain order, then, is for the minister, first, to disciple that is, so to present the claims and motives of the gospel as to win souls to Christ; for thus only can they be discipled; second, to baptize those thus taught or discipled; third, to instruct them to observe whatsoever Christ has commanded.
The order for those addressed by Christ's ministers is: first, to become disciples; second, to be baptized; third, to observe whatsoever Christ has commanded. Is it possible, to convey in human language instructions plainer than these?
Now, where in this distinct line of sequences comes in the Lord's Supper? Before the discipleship? Before baptism? Who dare thus interchange the order which Jesus has prescribed, and affirm that the baptism may come before the discipleship, or the Lord's Supper before the baptism? Who will venture to use his shallow wisdom to amend the order which our Lord has appointed?
The whole and sole question, then, between us and other evangelical churches, so far as the ordinances are concerned, is this, What is baptism?...We are convinced that when Jesus commanded us to be baptized he meant that we should be immersed in water, and that nothing else than this is baptism at all.
To us our brethren of other churches are beloved Christians, but they are unbaptized Christians, and we hold that they ought to be baptized before coming to the Lord's table. "It is the Lord's table" Yes! And therefore the invitations to it are to be governed by the Lord's instructions. To our own tables we may invite whom we will. But servants may not give out invitations to their Master's table, except according to their Master's instructions...
The guests there are to be only such as he describes and invites. We will go as far to promote Christian union and to express Christian fellowship with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, as any Christian people will go as far as truth and conscience will permit. We will strive to take what dear brethren we exhort you all to take the revealed word of God as the only law for Christians.
There can be no true union except upon that platform. So far as we adopt its teachings and practise them, we are one. Whoever diverges from these is responsible just so far for disunion from those who conscientiously cling to them...
With that, I am...
Peter
Oh no, Peter. A "Landmarker" educated at Andover? This cannot be. :)
Posted by: Chris Poe | 2009.04.01 at 09:05 AM
Here is the money quote:
"Ten thousand sophistries are swept away by simple adherence to a sound principle."
Perhaps this exposes our real lord on this matter so openly debated today, our mind, intellecualism.
God forbid! Let God be God and everyman a liar! I strive for the plain teaching.
Thanks for this very invigorating essay!
Posted by: Chris Gilliam | 2009.04.01 at 10:16 AM
Hey Peter,
I know this post is directed to that dreaded subspecies of SBCville which might go by the name of say, the "Burlesonites," :^), but my comment is not so much tied to that debate, so I hope it does not get too tangled up in that mess.
I cannot help but note the audacious assertions of Dr. Burrows with regard to the intent of the Lord's Supper, e.g. "that the Lord's Supper was not instituted or intended to express the fellowship or love of Christians for one another...Do Christians come to the Lord's table to commune with each other? Is taking the Lord's Supper a communion of the saints? Is this a ceremony intended to express, as Christians, mutual remembrance, fellowship, and affection for one another? Emphatically, No!"
That Jesus desired to sit at the Table with His disciples in communion with them, and that this communion - though surely originating with, and focusing upon, the Lord of the Table - was also directly, pointedly to portray the unity of His nascent body (which decidedly IS the communion of the saints in the household of God) is made abundantly clear by a careful reading of I Corinthians 10 & 11 (to mention only one example).
When Paul chastised the Corinthians for their "progressive" sexuality (chapter 5), part of his judgment towards the unrepentant was that the rest of the fellowship was not even to eat with them, contextually very likely a reference to their fellowship at the Lord's Table.
Dr. Burrows' emphatic "No!" above suffers (or should suffer, in my opinion) violence on the shoals of a less sectarian - and certainly a more attentive - interpretation.
Timotheos
Posted by: Timotheos | 2009.04.02 at 07:49 AM
Peter,
This is a good post, however, the picture is hillarious. Thanks, it made my day.
Posted by: joe white | 2009.04.02 at 08:55 AM
Peter,
As a "Baptistic Calvinist" I agree fully with this post !!! I get frustrated on one hand that I see (some) fellow Baptistic Calvinist get looser and looser on this issue of the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. At times I see a "Free Pass" to padeobaptist because we line up on the five points of the doctrines of grace which no free pass should be given sine we have no authority to do so. Also, I see non Baptistic Calvinist in the SBC erve the Lord's Supper too loosely also. The SBC church I pastor is a closed communion church. We are Baptistic in our church doctrine because we see the Scripture teaching this.
Last, I get frustrated with some of the Baptist Identity guys because of their view of alcohol. We serve wine for communion because that is what Christ ordained to represent His blood. No one has ever had any authority to change from wine to grape juice !!! I do not social drink because I do fear my wicked heart but it is never an issue taking the wine at communion. Both sides need to get more scriptural. I get charged because I'm a calvinist that I'm too loose on the wine issue because we serve it only at the Lord's Table. It amazes me that Paul never rebuked Corinth for the element of wine but he did rebuke them because they were drunk which is a sin !! Thanks for the post and you and I have talked by phone before. I'm a GA boy !!!
Posted by: Scott Morgan | 2009.04.02 at 11:47 AM
Question:
So, from Matthew 28:19-20, he is saying that people should first become disciples of Christ, then be baptized, then take communion, right?
"The order for those addressed by Christ's ministers is: first, to become disciples; second, to be baptized; third, to observe whatsoever Christ has commanded. Is it possible, to convey in human language instructions plainer than these?"
Is he equating becoming a disciple with being converted? If so, then why do we "disciple" people and have discipleship? How do you become a disciple before you obey what Christ has commanded?
The point of what I am saying is that he seems to be joining together being a disciple of Christ with being converted - something that our modern churches do not do. I think that our problem could be much bigger than who takes communion. Unless we are just arguing semantics, it appears that the very nature of conversion and discipleship is also up for discussion.
Many who have been baptized by immersion in Baptist churches are not disciples, or students, or followers of Christ. They were possibly converted, then baptized, then they partake of the Lord's Supper. THEN, they begin the process of discipleship, if at all. Either he is just using different language than we use today (which is an important clarification to make) or he has a different understanding of conversion, which would also be helpful to note.
Posted by: Alan Cross | 2009.04.02 at 03:47 PM
Chris & Chris,Joe
Always a pleasure for you guys to comment. And I'm glad Joe got a kick from the pic. It is a good one :^)
Grace to all.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2009.04.03 at 07:29 AM
Scott,
Yes I remember! I trust things are well on your side of town. As for the BI's supposed "view of alcohol" I cannot make the same assumption as do you. I haven't the faintest idea what "their" view of alcohol is. Where did you get they had an official view? I have a view, which, for the record, will be explained in more detail come June 1st.
As for your use of alcoholic wine in your church--since you are an autonomous church--I'm not getting why anyone would make a fuss out of that. Perhaps an association, etc. may not agree. Therefore their autonomy allows them to pull away from your church. But then again, you should have no problem with that, since your embrace Baptist ecclesiology.
As for your assumptions concerning the change from "wine to grape juice" and "Both sides need to get more scriptural," I can only say, I question both. There is sufficient evidence to upset the first. As for the second, --"both sides need to get more scriptural"--I'm confused how "your"side is supposed to get "more scriptural" when you think you're following Scripture by using alcoholic wine and those on the "other" side are not.
Grace, Scott. With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2009.04.03 at 07:44 AM
Timotheos,
Hope you are doing well. Your question is a good one. Unfortunately when one is pulling snippets from a long sermon, tract, etc. it's hard to know what to quote and what to expunge. Burrows dealt with 1Cor.10.
Allow me to quote his words and then you can follow up if you like:
Such may give a fuller perspective.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2009.04.03 at 08:07 AM
Alan,
Thanks for your comment. I don't think you've given Burrows the clarity he deserves. While you quote him well enough, your question avoids what he says elsewhere. You wondered, "Is he equating becoming a disciple with being converted?" Note the words right before your quote:
Thus, while "becoming a disciple" begins conversion it is not "equated with" conversion. Burrows speaks clearly. I'm therefore confused why you inject confusion into his words, Alan.
As for "it appears that the very nature of conversion and discipleship is also up for discussion" I am at a loss for words.
Now, Alan, Burrows had a question which you failed to answer: "Now, where in this distinct line of sequences comes in the Lord's Supper? Before the discipleship? Before baptism?"
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2009.04.03 at 08:26 AM
Peter,
I was not trying to inject confusion into Burrows' words. I noticed what he said about conversion and then he used the term disciple to describe the same thing. He himself interchanged the terms as descriptive of the initial state of the believer before baptism. I actually do not have a problem with that and was not trying to make a value judgment on what he was saying. I said that it is not consistent with what our modern churches teach, which is not necessarily a bad thing. I was not criticizing Burrows or trying to make him say something different from what he was saying. I was wondering if he was trying to make a larger point that to come to Christ initially required a commitment to discipleship, something lacking in modern churches. Faith AND repentance would seem to suggest that. We talk about faith but not repentance. I was wondering if there was even a larger insight that we could extrapolate from Burrows' teachings that would give us insight into what Baptists of the mid-19th century thought about the conversion-discipleship process, which would then help us understand better his view on Communion.
It was a question that made sense to me. Sorry if it did not to anyone else. Peter, I am not trying to be your enemy nor am I attempting to disagree with everything you say. Your post sent my thinking in a different direction so I thought I would ask you about it as I have recently become interested in this topic and I am trying to understand it better.
Posted by: Alan Cross | 2009.04.03 at 09:49 AM
Alan,
"Peter, I am not trying to be your enemy nor am I attempting to disagree with everything you say." I reread my comment. How you may have gained such an impression, Alan, I do not know.
As for Burrows' larger point, I personally don't see one but it could be there. I tend to take the purpose as he states it--"the main objection...'You refuse us recognition and fellowship by declining to partake with us the Supper of the Lord.' My first answer to this is, that the Lord's Supper was not instituted or intended to express the fellowship or love of Christians for one another..."
The accusation was, Baptists are bigots because they do not receive at the Table those who've not been baptized (paedo-baptists): "To us our brethren of other churches are beloved Christians, but they are unbaptized Christians, and we hold that they ought to be baptized before coming to the Lord's table." By deduction, he's of course, arguing that no one may partake, even if he or she has made faith's profession or in his terms, "become disciples via conversion" in a Baptist church.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2009.04.03 at 10:19 AM
You seemed to suggest that I was deliberately injecting confusion in Burrows' words. Also, you statement that "you were at a loss for words" in response to my comment also seemed to suggest that you thought I was intentionally trying to be combative. I am just trying to assure you that my question was legitimate and that I was not trying to be oppositional.
Back to the point - I don't necessarily disagree with Burrows in what he is saying. He makes some strong points. But, 1 Cor. 11 does seem to point to a horizontal and relational aspect to the Lord's Supper in that it matters how we treat one another when approaching the Table. Of course, that can be easily dismissed as simply being an outworking of our relationship with Christ and that the vertical relationship with Jesus is all that is in view here. Fair enough. But, I would caution against an individualized, privatized faith that is just "me and Jesus." Loving our neighbor is a direct result of loving God. John 17:20-23 tells us that our in our communion with Christ we are also joined together with one another. I am not saying that that is what the Lord Supper directly represents so I am not missing Burrows' point here. We are to take it in remembrance of Jesus. But, does the work of Christ not bring all of those who believe in Him into God's family? Is it right to say that when I approach the Lord's Table "I shall certainly strive to forget you." And, "There our thoughts and hearts are to be so full of Christ as to leave no room for memories of one another. I have nothing to do with man at the table of the Lord. My intercourse and fellowship there are solely with Jesus." If that is the case, then why not just take the Lord's Supper at home and forget about the Body of Christ altogether? What is the purpose of coming to the Table together? Is this why Baptists traditionally sit in their seats while individual little cups of juice and individual wafers are passed out to the them and they take it by themselves? If so, that would make sense.
Just for clarification, I am asking questions regarding the individual nature of Burrows' take on the Lord's Supper. I am not disputing his assertion of the conversion-baptism-commuion sequence that he puts forward from Matthew 28:19-20.
Posted by: Alan Cross | 2009.04.03 at 10:41 AM
Yes, the further quotes help allay my concerns abit, though not completely. The perspective Dr. Burrows seems to espouse tends towards a "me-and-Jesus-only" understanding, both of salvation and the ordinances. In the light of rereading Scripture, I've had to rethink some of my own rather individualist ideas on these topics, and rethink how I should relate to other brethren who might be quite different than me in theology and hermeneutic. Thanks.
Timotheos
Posted by: Timotheos | 2009.04.03 at 11:48 AM
Peter,
Just a question, and I'm not necessarily trying to assume my usual "loyal opposition" role, as it were. ;)
Were any of the apostles baptized at Christ's Supper? Of course, Jesus was baptized, but I keep thinking of John 3:10 and John 15:3 concerning His apostles. So, if I am not mistaken, why were they not baptized?
I believe that immediately after true conversion a Christian must be fully baptized by immersion in order to be obedient. Personally, though I have argued for it in the past, I am not even comfortable with unbaptized Christians partaking of the Lord's Supper (really, I am not comfortable with them remaining unbaptized). I've been rethinking some of my theology on this recently. So the question I have is not a challenge, but one of curiosity.
Posted by: Byroniac | 2009.04.03 at 08:10 PM
Byroniac,
Something else to ponder, as you ponder. Why would they not get baptised, if they're truly converted? Why would a Believer not get baptised? Maybe that should shed some light on taking the Lord's Supper as an unbaptised person.
David
Posted by: volfan007 | 2009.04.04 at 12:49 PM
David, those are excellent questions. And that is what caused my current theology to crack. I must submit to the authority of Scripture on the matter, and I am trying to understand it better.
Posted by: Byroniac | 2009.04.04 at 01:30 PM
And what of new Christians who have not gotten to the step of baptism yet. Some do not fully understand, or have not taken the step. My own father was a Christian, belonged to a Baptist church and had not realized he needed to be immersed(he was baptized in another denomination before salvation). Should he have been denied the Lord's supper?
Posted by: Debbie Kaufman | 2009.04.06 at 12:36 AM
Debbie,
From an historic Baptist standpoint, the Lord's Supper possesses no sacramental efficacy and therefore the illustrations do not count against Burrows' view. On the other hand, if a believer wants to partake the Supper, no better time exists than the present to properly instruct them in the gospel order: faith > baptism > supper.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2009.04.06 at 05:28 AM
Well I don't guess my question will ever get any response. So be it.
Posted by: Byroniac | 2009.04.06 at 08:51 AM
Byron,
Having just seen your question, I'll take a stab at it. The night of their taking the Lord's Supper with Jesus, their baptism was probably already completed. I take that from the fact that they were baptizing with Jesus. Some of the disciples had been with John and were probably helping in John's baptism. So, concerning explicit text that the disciples were baptized, I am not so sure that I can point to any that answer your question directly. But since Jesus was so against hypocrisy, I find it untenable that His disciples themselves would baptize having not been baptized themselves.
Luke
Posted by: Luke | 2009.04.07 at 03:50 PM
Luke,
Sounds reasonable to me. The Apostle Paul was baptized I read, and I think I can safely assume that Andrew and the other disciple who previously followed John the Baptist were baptized (from John 1). But then I read that some who were baptized under John the Baptist were re-baptized (Acts 19:3-5). I just thought it was interesting question, and one that I was curious about. BTW, I agree. I just wish Scripture stated it explicitly.
Posted by: Byroniac | 2009.04.07 at 06:31 PM
Byron,
I too wonder if they were "anna"-baptized like the Acts passage. Also, Byron, I think that John's baptism had a different picture than what we practice. It is quite possible then that Jesus baptized them during the 40 days after His resurrection though from the Biblical text, it would be next to argue that this is what took place. In fact, a majority of what took place after the resurrection is unrecorded. However, I think in the grand scheme, that the formula is, repent, believe and be baptized. And I don't think that it takes a 6 weeks class to arrive at the point that baptism is important for the new convert. I make it a point when I share the Gospel to tell them that baptism is the first step of obedience after salvation. Your Acts 19 passage would be what I would use for support.
Posted by: Luke | 2009.04.07 at 08:14 PM
Luke, I agree. I didn't realize it before, but you could back up to Acts 9 and use the example of Paul the Apostle. I think that is the proper order, and good timing (immediately after conversion).
Posted by: Byroniac | 2009.04.08 at 12:02 AM