[@] Baptism and Fellowship (2)

We've had quite a little tussle here in the comments about baptism and membership and what the "real Baptists" would do or not do. Before we go any farther, this discussion so far is really only useful for thinking about this matter -- not for resolving any dispute. I say that because I haven't heard anything new that resolves the matter in such a way that one side is being foolish or intransigent by sticking to its guns instead of allowing reason and humility to provoke a concession.

Some of the dialog so far has been about being a "real Baptist" (whatever that means), and the essential nature of demanding credobaptism in an uncompromising way relating to that "real" thing. I'm a little challenged by the rhetoric because I am not sure that the distinction is valid in the context we are trying to view this question.

Let me give the example which is in my head right now, and we can pick up the discussion from there. Once a month at our church we have the Lord's Supper. Crackers and juice like all good baptists, solemnly delivered by the leaders of the church under the charge "do this in memory of me". In that, I feel 100% at ease if I am out of town on Sunday and attending another baptist church to take the Lord's Supper with them without any qualifications. They ought to question me to make sure I am "in communion with [Jesus]", as the LBCF says, but outside of that qualification I think I'm in safe company taking the bread and the cup in a Baptist church.

FWIW, I would feel 100% comfortable accepting the Lord's Supper in a Presbyterian church -- in spite of the paedobaptizers administering the ordinance. The theology of the Lord's supper outlined in the WCF is 100% compatible with the LBCF as far as I can see, and in that there should be no conflict. Any Presbyterians reading this who have a different opinion about this should speak up as I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this; any hard-core RB's out there who think I have missed the boat by theoretically breading bread with the paedos (I have never done it in fact) should also speak up at this point.

Now, for me, what is at issue in the debate of what to do with those who were infant baptized when we confess that such a thing is not the proper administration of the ordinance is in fact the matter of the Lord's table. I think it is a place where the spare-tire talk of fellowship and accepting others a Christian brothers has the rubber hitting the road. To be blunt, if we will not (or should not) share the Lord's Supper with the paedobaptized, we have to admit we do not accept them as part of the universal church.

So let me end this post with a couple of brain-benders for you:

(1) Should Baptists allow Presbyterians in their celebration of the Lord's Supper?

(2a) If not, in what way are we able to confess that we "pledge our communion with [Christ], and with each other" in respect to those we otherwise call brothers in Christ and members of the church universal?

(2b) If yes, in what way are we then saying that we ought not to allow them membership in our churches? If the Table is not the boundary, what is?