# Invite Arminians to the Lord's Table?



## non dignus (Jun 8, 2007)

A member of your Reformed, Presbyterian, or Particular Baptist church suddenly 'sees the light' and is 'wonderfully' transformed by his discovery of Pietistic doctrine and methodology. 

Along with that he now believes that the Synod of Dort was misguided in their hasty condemnation of the Remonstrants. He is utterly convinced of this, and there is no turning him back. 

Do you allow him to the table?


----------



## larryjf (Jun 8, 2007)

If they repent of their sins, believe in Christ for salvation, and love their fellow man.

If, however, they were causing division in the church, i would have to say no.


----------



## brymaes (Jun 8, 2007)

Depending on the exigencies of the situation, they would be disallowed from the table after the due process of discipline.


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 8, 2007)

No. I posted this in the other thread, but Owen is spot on here.



> "One church cannot wrap in her communion Austin and Pelagius, Calvin and Arminius. I have here only given you a taste, whereby you may judge of the rest of their fruit,—“mors in olla, mors in olla;” their doctrine of the final apostasy of the elect, of true believers, of a wavering hesitancy concerning our present grace and future glory, with divers others, I have wholly omitted: those I have produced are enough to make their abettors incapable of our church-communion. The sacred bond of peace compasseth only the unity of that Spirit; which leadeth into all truth. *We must not offer the right hand of fellowship, but rather proclaim iJero<n po>lemon,*http://www.puritanboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=276961#_edn1_*[4] “a holy war,” to such enemies of God’s providence, Christ’s merit, and the powerful operation of the Holy Spirit. *Neither let any object, that all the Arminians do not openly profess all these errors I have recounted. Let ours, then, show wherein they differ from their masters.[ii][5] We see their own confessions; we know their arts, ba>qh kai< meqodei>av tou~ Santana~,—“the depths and crafts of Satan;” we know the several ways they have to introduce and insinuate their heterodoxies into the minds of men. With some they appear only to dislike our doctrine of reprobation; with others, to claim an allowable liberty of the will: but yet, for the most part,—like the serpent, wherever she gets in her head, she will wriggle in her whole body, sting and all,—give but the least admission, and the whole poison must be swallowed."
> John Owen (The Epistle Dedicatory, A Display of Arminianism)
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## non dignus (Jun 8, 2007)

larryjf said:


> ...If, however, they were causing division in the church, i would have to say no.




No, they are not causing outward division per se. He has only confessed to the elders his new belief.


----------



## Herald (Jun 8, 2007)

A very interesting thread, indeed. In our particular situation we are a church in transition. We were founded seven years ago as an Arminian Baptist church. The pastor and elders are now Calvinists, but the flock is a mixed bag. We are morphing (theologically speaking), but it is going to take time. 

I'd like to revist this thread in five years.


----------



## non dignus (Jun 8, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> We were founded seven years ago as an Arminian Baptist church. The pastor and elders are now Calvinists, but the flock is a mixed bag. We are morphing (theologically speaking), but it is going to take time.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 9, 2007)

non dignus said:


> A member of your Reformed, Presbyterian, or Particular Baptist church suddenly 'sees the light' and is 'wonderfully' transformed by his discovery of Pietistic doctrine and methodology.
> 
> Along with that he now believes that the Synod of Dort was misguided in their hasty condemnation of the Remonstrants. He is utterly convinced of this, and there is no turning him back.
> 
> Do you allow him to the table?



What do you mean by "Pietistic doctrine and methodology"?


As for the question "Invite Arminians to the Lord's Table?" I answer with a resounding "No!"


----------



## turmeric (Jun 9, 2007)

Yes, Trevor, but maybe these people need to find a church more in agreement with their theology.

I wonder what caused this sudden shift.


----------



## non dignus (Jun 9, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Do you mean Pietists or Arminians?



AV and Trevor,

I meant the sort of Pietism that says the individual has some kind of inherent merit that gives the necessary boost to be saved. All Arminians are Pietists.


----------



## turmeric (Jun 9, 2007)

Sorry Trevor, I didn't mean _you_ shifted. I was asking what made this person suddenly become Arminian. I agree he's still a Christian.


----------



## dannyhyde (Jun 9, 2007)

non dignus said:


> A member of your Reformed, Presbyterian, or Particular Baptist church suddenly 'sees the light' and is 'wonderfully' transformed by his discovery of Pietistic doctrine and methodology.
> 
> Along with that he now believes that the Synod of Dort was misguided in their hasty condemnation of the Remonstrants. He is utterly convinced of this, and there is no turning him back.
> 
> Do you allow him to the table?



Hi Dave,

Thankfully in our churches those who desire to unite with us take sacred, binding vows at the time of their public reception into the church. In our synodically-approved _Public Profession of Faith: Form Number 1_ (_Psalter Hymnal_, p. 132), we all assented to the fourth vow, which says,

"Fourth: Do you promise to submit to the government of the church and also, if you should become deliquent either in doctrine or in life, to submit to its admonition and discipline?"

It is the role of the elders to oversee the spiritual life of the church as a whole as well as its members individually, including the doctrine of the church and its members. Remind him that he also assented to vow 1:

"First: Do you heartily believe the doctrine contained in the Old and the New Testament, and in the articles of the Christian faith [i.e., the Creed], and taught in this Christian church [i.e., our Three Forms of Unity], to be the true and complete doctrine of salvation, and do you promise by the grace of God stedfastly to continue in this profession?"

Obviously he has changed his mind on vow 1, which means you must invoke vow 4, and seek to persuade him lovingly of his error and his need to return in heart and mind to the true faith. If he persists, follow the procedures in _Church Order_ article 55, which begins with 'silent censure,' meaning he would be barred from the Table.

As for the larger question of whom we welcome to the Table, well, that's muddled in these days of broad evangelicalism and its influence even among Reformed-minded people. Our historic practice as Reformed and Presbyterian churches has been to welcome members of Reformed churches, period. In our tradition, one need only read Calvin's _Ecclesiastical Ordinances_ as well as the _Church Order of Dort_:

_None shall be admitted to the Lord’s Supper except those who?according to the usage of the Church to which they unite themselves?have made a confession of the Reformed Religion, besides being reputed to be of a godly walk, without which also those who come from other?Churches shall not be admitted. (art. 61)_


----------



## non dignus (Jun 9, 2007)

dannyhyde said:


> .... In our tradition, one need only read Calvin's _Ecclesiastical Ordinances_ as well as the _Church Order of Dort_:
> 
> _None shall be admitted to the Lord’s Supper except those who?according to the usage of the Church to which they unite themselves?have made a confession of the Reformed Religion, besides being reputed to be of a godly walk, without which also those who come from other?Churches shall not be admitted. (art. 61)_



Danny,
Good stuff. So while Dort may not have used the word 'heretic' in describing the Remonstrants, excommunication sends a clear message regarding their opinion of the eternal destiny of the hardened Arminian.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 10, 2007)

I think as Rev. Hyde pointed out the issue is an issue of Church discipline. This thread title is misleading and a bit unnecessarily inflammatory because it is quite a different case, genetically, when you're talking about a man rejecting his Confession in favor of doctrines his Confession clearly condemns and a man who, in the words of the book of Jonah, doesn't know his right hand from his left.

I thought about this today before Church. As usual we had a new couple visiting and we were all very happy to see them. What did they believe? I don't know. We don't usually grill people theologically when they first enter the door. My hope is that they stay to hear the preaching and stay to be taught in Sunday School and join. If they are immature, I hope they grow in grace.

What I didn't think in my heart is this: "Uggg, I bet they're _Arminians_! Grrrrrrrr!!!!"

Seriously, do any of you who have your occassional visitors in your URC, OPC, PCA, etc Churches immediately look at your visitors and have such unwelcome thoughts in your hearts? Do you not hope that these might be visitors who have an opportunity to hear the Gospel? If already Christians then what a joy that they get to be encouraged and strengthened by the Gospel. If unbelievers (or even those who were impoverished in a Calvary Chapel) perhaps the day is the day that God has prepared for them to hear the Gospel and live!

Weren't most of us once the types that thought the Arminian and Charismatic expressions of Christianity were normative. Were we worthy of derision on a theoretical basis then?

Why can we not attack a doctrine as un-Scriptural and severe error that impoverishes or kills the Gospel without focusing so much on the sheep as if its they're fault that they're being poisoned by their Shepherds? Why do we not pity them and be ready to welcome them to hear the truth instead of thinking of ways that we are going to have to discipline some of them. I'm as hard core as any man on this board when it comes to affirming the need for truth to have unity and I'm not afraid to stand for it.

But when I think of people, I simply have trouble thinking of generic Arminians without thinking of the specific men and women that I would love to see visit my Church for an opportunity to hear Truth. I am uncomfortable talking about them generically because then I'd see one and think: "Hey, we were just talking about you behind your back on the PuritanBoard. In theory, I thought you were a real jerk but, please, stick around for Church and maybe after you're converted I'll like you."


----------



## Peter (Jun 10, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> sudden shift?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The church is definitely broader than any particular church but do we admit anyone who is a member of any church? Should we have common communion with Greek Orthodox or Roman Catholicism?

I tend to think if there is reason enough for two communions to remain separate then they should also take communion separately. But I also think many of the reasons for continued separation are trifling and unworthy of spliting the body of Christ. The denominationalism of the present age is indeed sinful. I think its also a sign that people don't take the importance of the church's unity seriously when they're content to continuously fracture the church and yet they're still willing to share the Lord's Supper together.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jun 10, 2007)

You Reformed are prone to so much melodrama. Ask yourselves what would Jesus Do? Remember the woman at the well.

You can tacitly rebuke in the spirit of 2 Timothy 2:24-25, but they are confessional Christians, and it's asinine for you guys to say such people are barred from fellowship at your house or dinner table, absent provocation or their concerted efforts to bring down the faith of Reformed brethren.


----------



## Peter (Jun 10, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Who said anything about Roman Catholics?
> 
> 
> ...You have already granted my main point when you wrote:
> ...



The question was, do we admit anyone to the table that is in the Universal Church visible, regardless of disagreements in doctrine and practice? If yes then we should allow RCs but this is a conclusion most reformed evangelicals would dispute. If the middle premise is disputed (the RC is a visible church) then you are the person with a denominationally elitist, narrow view of the church.


----------



## thekingsknight (Jun 10, 2007)

Scenario: You profess to have repented of your sins. On the basis of that profession (granted, with some observation as well) you are baptized & become a member of a particular church. Now, you have an obligation to abide by your church constitution, your confession of faith, and the word of God. Which is the greater? I think that we all know the answer.
BTW, error does NOT equal heresy. There's a great divide between RC'S & Armenians.


----------



## non dignus (Jun 10, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I think as Rev. Hyde pointed out the issue is an issue of Church discipline. This thread title is misleading and a bit unnecessarily inflammatory because it is quite a different case, genetically, when you're talking about a man rejecting his Confession in favor of doctrines his Confession clearly condemns and a man who, in the words of the book of Jonah, doesn't know his right hand from his left.
> 
> I thought about this today before Church. As usual we had a new couple visiting and we were all very happy to see them. What did they believe? I don't know. We don't usually grill people theologically when they first enter the door. My hope is that they stay to hear the preaching and stay to be taught in Sunday School and join. If they are immature, I hope they grow in grace.
> 
> ...



brother. Rich,

I'm surprised that you take the thread as a mean-spirited Calvinist witch hunt. I can only point to my lack of ability, and brevity in communicating through print, for your misperception. How did you get the idea that we despise people who are lost? 

My motivation for the thread was to show that Arminianism is not a light error but is and ought to be treated with extreme severity. To be put out of the church is to be put into outer darkness. Does the action of a consistory condemn eternally? No, of course not. But decisions from a God-ordained body holding the office of the keys have grave import since they are acting for and abiding in the very kingdom of God. We are saying, "Unless you repent, we account you as utterly lost." The hope is that they WILL repent and return to the fold. It is for their own good.

You are right, it is a church discipline issue. But a man who does not know his right hand from his left is likewise kept from the table for his own good. Would you allow an inquiring Arminian to the Lord's Table in a Presbyterian Church? (BTW We rent the small chapel of a larger New Age church. I am tickled when one of their stray sheep wander into our service thinking they're going to be hearing the gnostic garbage they came for. I don't direct them away, but receive them and pray that their visit is actually a foreordained appointment with the sovereign God for deliverance.) I don't see where fencing the Table from the serpent's devices is harming sheep who are inquiring the gospel. I say to the contrary! 

My derision is not for the lost sheep who recognize the Shepherd's voice. My derision is only for the hardened Arminian who understands and rejects Calvinism, for then it is manifest he DOES NOT recognize the Shepherd's voice.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 10, 2007)

Fair enough David. I don't have ill thoughts of you. I simply believe we can speak about false doctrine (Arminianism) without theorizing about the lost and the ignorant.

I don't believe that fencing the table is a mean-spirited thing but a protective (and in fact loving) thing to do.

The thread just seemed to come close on the heels of another thread on Arminianism. I simply believe that we spend too much time theorizing about theoretical Arminians and they end up being spoken of in a way that we would not think of them if a man or woman was standing before us. Why? Because we'd be unable to detect one fully if they were initially. We'd want to patiently correct such a one to hope that the man/woman is not obdurate. We'd want to be patient with them to ensure that we are not the stumbling block but the Gospel really is. 

We'd even be praying for and warning the man in the hypothetical situation presented. We'd warn him of the dangers of the doctrine he is embracing. To temporarily fence a man from the Table on the first Sunday he demonstrates a doubt of the Gospel would be a very sad ocassion and give me great reason for concern. When I think of such scenarios, I think of actual men that I grieved over who ended up denying the faith and destroying their families. They were good friends and we prayed for their repentance repeatedly before some were excommunicated.

I guess I would simply prefer that we continue to hate false doctrines with all our might and keep the theoretical "Arminian" discussions to a minimum because it belies the way we would want to really treat a man in our midst.

I'm sorry if I attributed wrong motives to your post. I'm just trying to underline a repeated point and yours was another opportunity to do so.


----------



## thekingsknight (Jun 10, 2007)

non dignus said:


> brother. Rich,
> 
> I'm surprised that you take the thread as a mean-spirited Calvinist witch hunt. I can only point to my lack of ability, and brevity in communicating through print, for your misperception. How did you get the idea that we despise people who are lost?
> 
> ...


Sorry if I'm off target here, but: What does the individual need to repent of, church policy or actual sin commited against God? Arminians not being sheep? Says who, you? Have you read this?
"Do you think we shall see John Wesley in heaven?" an over-aggressive Calvinist had inquired of George Whitefield years earlier (Wesley outlived Whitefield). "I fear not," replied the fellow evangelist, musing about his long-time friend. "No!-he will be so near the throne, and we at such a distance, that we shall hardly get a sight of him." Was George Whitefield being facetious? Our church announces that "Anyone who is a member in good standing of a true church of Jesus Christ may partake".


----------



## turmeric (Jun 10, 2007)

Not that anyone needs it; but here's my  . This is a matter of church discipline - the man subscribed to a confession, he did an about-face, this violates the policy of the congregation he joined - his session has a right to decide what's best to do in that case. However, there's another question that I wish wouldn't keep coming up. Apparently some folks consider Arminianism to be enough of a declension from the Gospel as to make one's Christian profession questionable. I don't agree with that in all cases. In the one presented here, though, I do wonder (in an academic sense) because this guy was knowedgeable enough to question Dort - he's not your average poorly-fed sheep such as Rich encounters. But I don't know, and we can't know.


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 10, 2007)

I agree that it is up to church censures to determine who is and who is not an Arminian, but that being said, historically, the reformed have not allowed those who openly profess Arminianism, without a willingness to be taught, to the table of our Lord. So if one wants to chop this thread up to church discipline, the church has already made her pronouncement in the Canons of Dort:



> T H E S E N T E N C E
> of the Synod concerning
> the Remonstrants.​
> 
> ...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 10, 2007)

I don't know what you mean by "chop it up". Granted, the Canons prescribe that it is an error that needs to be censured. Censure, then, is in the realm of discipline. The point is that you don't immediately label a man a publican but there is a process that includes levels of discipline from instruction to eventual excommunication in the worst cases. Each Church has a discipline process and that process is not cavalier - it is pastoral, it seeks to teach first and reconcile and restore and only resorts to excommunication as a final (and painful) measure.


----------



## non dignus (Jun 10, 2007)

thekingsknight said:


> Sorry if I'm off target here, but: What does the individual need to repent of, church policy or actual sin commited against God?



He needs to repent of his departure from the confession hammered out by the church 'which is the pillar and ground of the truth'. It is vain faith or heresy.


> Arminians not being sheep? Says who, you?


 I assert that the seasoned Arminian who has studied the doctrines of grace (canons of Dort) and understands what is confessed in them, and yet rejects them, does not have Christ as Shepherd but has a figment of his imagination.


----------



## thekingsknight (Jun 11, 2007)

non dignus said:


> He needs to repent of his departure from the confession hammered out by the church 'which is the pillar and ground of the truth'. It is vain faith or heresy. I assert that the seasoned Arminian who has studied the doctrines of grace (canons of Dort) and understands what is confessed in them, and yet rejects them, does not have Christ as Shepherd but has a figment of his imagination.


Really??!! Please do give supporting rationale & make it scriptural. 
1-The "pillar of faith" is NOT your local assembly as an individual entity but the church universal/invisible. If he is in violation of church policy he should resign so as to not sow discord. He shouldn't be denied the Lord's supper. He has NOT sinned against the Lord nor His commandments. 
2-Does he acknowledge and confess that Christ is the way, the truth and the life? Does he acknowledge and confess that there is no other name under heaven given whereby he can be saved? Does he call out to God for the forgiveness of sins and repents (to God!) of them? Then what's the problem? He doesn't in good conscience believe what you believe-that makes him a devil? Read my testimony following this post-and see how the righteous CAN fall, but by God's grace and mercy rise again. Do not confuse the weakest saint for the grossest sinner.


----------



## thekingsknight (Jun 11, 2007)

*Arminians & the Lord's table*

My Testimony of God’s Grace and Mercy.
by
Ted Shipley
I was converted in July of 1974, when a co-worker asked me if I believed in God. Having been forewarned that he was a “religious” man, going about, spreading his religion, I was ready (so I thought) to give him an answer. I responded by saying that I believed in God, but would have nothing to do with religion. “There, that ought to do it! That’ll stop him”, I said to myself. After all, it had worked before with others. To my surprise however, he wasn’t thwarted. Instead, he asked again if I believed in God, and if so, what was it that I believed concerning Him. I rambled something to the effect that God is good and watches over us, that we were to call on him in time of need. After patiently listening, the co-worker asked if I had ever read the Bible. When I told him that I hadn’t, he opened his Bible and told me about the holiness of God, the sinfulness of man, the need for repentance, and salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, showing me many verses. Seeing that I was under conviction, he seized the opportunity to ask me if I would like to go to the mid-week morning service being held the following day. I agreed to go. The following day, while preparing to go to church, I asked myself what in the world was I doing. I hadn’t attended church in years. Even when my wife asked me to accompany her one Easter Sunday, I declined. Yet here I was, preparing to attend this day. At the church, I felt as if I was truly in the house of God and before His presence. I was so awestruck, that I have no recollection as to what the sermon’s topic was. All I could think about was how Holy God is, and the reality of how sinful I was. When the invitation (altar call) was given to come to Jesus, I felt the need to go, and my co-worker went with me. Now I really felt as if I was standing before God. I couldn’t take it anymore. I dropped to my knees, and cried out for forgiveness. Something happened, which at the time I only knew as “having my burden of sin” lifted/removed. I had become a new creature in Christ. Like many new converts, I had a desire to tell the whole world about the Good News of Jesus Christ. All I wanted to do was to live for Christ. 
“…I will lay down my life for your sake.” “…Will you lay down your life for my sake?” –John 13:37, 38. 
Oh, how these verses burn deep in my soul! Never did I imagine that I could, that I would, fall from Grace, but I didn’t know myself as well as I thought. I thought myself to be strong when really I was weak. The measure of my pride, turned out to be the measure of my fall. It didn’t happen suddenly, but rather, slowly, through the lack of discipline in the things pertaining to faith. Later came the awful lies of the Devil, having me believe that surely I had lost my salvation. This was agonizing. I wrestled with the scriptures, trying to arrive at the truth. On the one hand, I knew that God had not abandoned me, but on the other hand, looking at my deeds, surely I had abandoned God. This was the Devil’s laughter. The scriptures warn us to be sober, to be vigilant, because the Devil seeks whom he may devour. Let those that think they stand take heed, less they also fall. It is with sadness, and shame that I mention this time, but it does serve to show both the power of sin, and the power of Satan, as the Hymn says, “…on Earth is not his equal.” Because I wasn’t fulfilling my obligation to my household, God started dealing with my wife. She started attending a nearby church, reading and studying her Bible, and praying. I was cut to the heart. I repented of my sins, and just as I was about to attend the church, my wife mentioned that there was a woman pastor. I said, “Oh, no! Women aren’t to be pastors, I’m not going there.” Well, I had to look for another church. This led me to Trinity Reformed Baptist Church in Baltimore, MD, where God restored the years that the locust and the caterpillar had eaten. 
I currently live in Palmdale, CA and am a member of Free Grace Church (A Reformed Baptist Congregation).


----------



## non dignus (Jun 11, 2007)

thekingsknight said:


> Please do give supporting rationale & make it scriptural.



Hi Ted,

I recommend you get a copy of the 3 Forms of Unity and study the Canons of Dort. It is complete with scripture references. I'd be happy to mail you one if you U2U me.


----------



## non dignus (Jun 11, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> ...Say you are in a country with another religion as dominant (hypothetically say the religion of ROP - short for "Religion of Peace"). Say, that a team is formed and converts are made and baptized. These people know nothing of calvinism or arminianism. But they know that Jesus is Lord and Hehas saved them and they are willing to follow the Lord despite even persecution. Say this group takes the Lord's Supper as an assembled body?
> 
> Would anyone blame me for doing this?
> 
> Do I need to read them the Canons of Dort prior? I think not!



Trevor,

You should at least properly catechize them before they approach the Holy. 

It's no different here in the U.S.. We are surrounded by the ROP, and when new members come in we ask them to read the entire 3 Forms and sign it. They don't have to know the minutae of it. The teacher of the class explains it well enough that if any part of it is odious to the novice he cannot become a member.

brother. Trevor, 
Are you doing 'emergency' communion over there?  Is there such a thing? Surely you give them a little doctrine first?


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 11, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I don't know what you mean by "chop it up". Granted, the Canons prescribe that it is an error that needs to be censured. Censure, then, is in the realm of discipline. The point is that you don't immediately label a man a publican but there is a process that includes levels of discipline from instruction to eventual excommunication in the worst cases. Each Church has a discipline process and that process is not cavalier - it is pastoral, it seeks to teach first and reconcile and restore and only resorts to excommunication as a final (and painful) measure.


 
My wife lovingly corrected my poor grammar. I meant to say "chalk it up". 

I agree Rich. My only point was that this thread is not about any particular person, but a class of persons. I agree that it is up to the church to determine if one meets the criteria of a certain class, weather it be Arminian, Pelagian, denier of the Trinity etc. etc. But I do believe that we are safe to say that a particular class of people is not welcome to the table, not by individual judgment, but by ruling of the courts of the Church.


----------



## historyb (Jun 11, 2007)

non dignus said:


> Trevor,
> 
> You should at least properly catechize them before they approach the Holy.



Is doctrine more important than Christ and the Cross?


----------



## DaveJes1979 (Jun 11, 2007)

David K.,

Greetings from that _other_ URC church pastored by a radical Armenian!

From my understanding, it may be permissible to transfer members (or "release" in good standing at least) who cannot completely agree with the 3 Forms of Unity to another_ true _church. Some may be better in a Presbyterian church that does not require confessional subscription by non-office bearing members. That may be appropriate in the case of someone who cannot affirm infant baptism.

But in this case, where the doctrines touch so close to the heart of the Gospel, you probably should not transfer or release such a man, since the errors of Arminianism put the soul in grave danger.


----------



## non dignus (Jun 11, 2007)

DaveJes1979 said:


> David K.,
> 
> Greetings from that _other_ URC church pastored by a radical Armenian!
> 
> ...



David,
Yes, very good point addition; -and grave danger indeed.


----------



## non dignus (Jun 11, 2007)

historyb said:


> Is doctrine more important than Christ and the Cross?



Hi Doug,

Once you mention Christ and the cross, you are using doctrine. You are doing Theology when you lead someone to Christ.

I wanted to mention to Ted a very serious problem in which the Arminian finds himself. In order to explain away the doctrine of unconditional election, he resorts to the idea that predestination consists in God looking across time to see who would receive Christ as Savior and who would not. And then on that basis He predestines the ones who decided to 'follow Jesus'. This doctrine teaches that God looked across time and _discovered knowledge _of someone's actions. This means that God learns, which means that God does not know everything. 

Thus the Arminian has placed himself outside the category of monotheism. He is believing something that a good Jew or Muslim would disdain. OK, it's understandable for a neophyte to think in these terms but it's unpardonable for an educated minister of the gospel. It's quite simply idolatry.


----------



## elnwood (Jun 11, 2007)

non dignus said:


> Hi Doug,
> 
> Once you mention Christ and the cross, you are using doctrine. You are doing Theology when you lead someone to Christ.
> 
> ...



The Arminian has placed himself outside the category of monotheism. Arminianism is quite simply idolatry. Wow.

Even an Arminian who defines election based on foreknowledge says that, as an eternal decree, this happened before the foundation of the world. Thus, there is no "time" at which God did not know everything. It's like the infralapsarian vs. supralapsarian dispute. The eternal decrees are not separated by time. The question is the order of eternal decrees in the mind of God.


----------



## non dignus (Jun 11, 2007)

But Don,

You and I believe that God created this knowledge. They believe He discovered this knowledge.

_"Even an Arminian who defines election based on foreknowledge says that, as an eternal decree, this happened before the foundation of the world."_ So What?

The Arminian defines _foreknowledge_ as knowledge that God acquired through discovery.


----------



## jenney (Jun 11, 2007)

Puritanhead said:


> You Reformed are prone to so much melodrama.


"You" reformed? If you hold to the confession required for membership here, then oughtn't it be "we" reformed? This seems to be somewhat divisive. A joke, perhaps, but divisive just the same.



> Ask yourselves what would Jesus Do? Remember the woman at the well.


Okay...remembering...and what about her? Are you saying Jesus talking to her was akin to offering her the Lord's Supper?

I'm confused about your point. Why bring her up?



> You can tacitly rebuke in the spirit of 2 Timothy 2:24-25, but they are confessional Christians


Define "confessional". Do you mean they confess Christ?



> and it's asinine for you guys


It's hard for me to see someone calling anyone asinine as asking _himself_ what Jesus would do, yet you have asked the participants here to ask that of themselves.



> to say such people are barred from fellowship at your house or dinner table, absent provocation or their concerted efforts to bring down the faith of Reformed brethren.


No one has barred from fellowship at their homes or dinner table. No one has suggested that as far as I can tell. Please tell me what you are talking about.

This is an issue of the Lord's Supper/Table/Communion, not fellowship in general and not a meal shared among brethren. They are different _inherently_.

As to my opinion, I'd leave it to my elders! I don't think it is an excommunication issue in itself. It would be hard to understand why such a one would want to remain joined to us, but if he did, I would at least expect him to pipe down about it. There are a million non-calvinistic churches out there, why not go to one of _them_? Surely he would be offended at every single sermon, since God's sovereignty permeates them all. I agree it is serious error, but there is indeed a difference between the new convert who just knows he's a sinner who needs the forgiveness found in the blood of Christ and the seasoned Bible student who has studied both sides and rejected reformed soteriology for a sycretistic arminian one. Between the two lie a multitude of different possibilities, many requiring greater discernment than seems reasonable for an entire local body to wade through. Which is why I think the elders should make the decision.


----------



## turmeric (Jun 11, 2007)

Jenney, sometimes you gotta take Ryan with a grain of salt. Of course he's Reformed, he's also sarcastic at times.


----------



## thekingsknight (Jun 11, 2007)

I'll bow out of this one folks. Smacks too much of what Paul says in 1 Co. 1:10-13

10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. 

11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. 

12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." 

13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 

I'm aware of the dangers of Arminianism, but I fail to see why there not treated as brethren of "lesser" light. Even if the've been Christians for a season where it could be said that they ought to be teachers by now. Not everyone receives the same measure (some 30, 60, 90, etc.). Do they believe in the "essentials of the faith"? Not your church's constitution, not a particular confession of faith (as important as they may be), but the whole counsel of God according to that which is to the saving of the soul. If we are brethren, then we partake of the Lord's supper.


----------



## Coram Deo (Jun 11, 2007)

Just Curious,

If the Synod of Dort has condemn Arminianism and therefore those that hold to the teaching of Arminian are heretics, should the church be communing at the table with such that believe in false teaching?





trevorjohnson said:


> Amen, Tedd.... the essentials of the faith are not the 3 forms of Unity. ONe need not sign a form to break bread with the brothers.
> 
> 
> One need not get narrowly denominational in order to guard the table. A mere Christian of whatever stripes can eat the supper.
> ...


----------



## Coram Deo (Jun 11, 2007)

Personally, I believe that the table should be guarded and that Arminians should be barred from the Table of the Lord. 

In this topic I am going to have to side with Pastor Cronkhite, and Jenney.

As already mentioned I believe the Church Order of Dordt sums it up well by stating:

"The consistory shall admit to the Lord's Supper only those who have made public profession of the Reformed faith and lead a godly life. Members of sister-Churches shall be admitted on the ground of a good attestation concerning their doctrine and conduct."

Michael


----------



## Coram Deo (Jun 11, 2007)

Well, I for one believe that the Lord's Supper must only be partaken by those who are true believers and who are members of a true church of God and are in good standing of their church and if are visiting a church must met with the elders before they are able to partake of the Lord Supper.

Now it is true that a Arminian MIGHT be a true believer, but an Arminian church is not a true church of God therefore the arminian should be barred from the Lord's Supper at a Reformed church on that point alone.....

The Ordo or order is clear... Salvation, Baptism, Church Membership in a true branch of the church, Lord's Supper....

Michael




trevorjohnson said:


> What authority does the Synod of Dort have over me?
> 
> 
> It was a historic dispute in another time and in another country.
> ...


----------



## thekingsknight (Jun 12, 2007)

thunaer said:


> Just Curious,
> 
> If the Synod of Dort has condemn Arminianism and therefore those that hold to the teaching of Arminian are heretics, should the church be communing at the table with such that believe in false teaching?


Oh, well! One more I guess. Think about this: John MacArthur is a Dispensationalist who happens to believe in "Lordship Salvation" (as it is termed
!). Reformed soteriology, but he still holds to false teaching as well. Do we call him a heretic? Misguided? What? We hold up Augustine and Luther along side of Calvin, and yet these men held to some erroneous views also-hmm!! Do you consider Arminians (& Dispensationalists for that matter) to be the "openly ungodly" "professing Christian"? Have you not met an Arminian who "bears much fruit"? Let's not have a mere righteousness that goes no further than that of the Pharisees.


----------



## Augusta (Jun 12, 2007)

Church councils have had to defend Biblical Christianity down through the ages. What do Nicea and Chalcedon have over you also? What they do is defend Biblical Christianity from error. They have precedence in the scripture in Acts with the council on circumcision. 

Dort defended Biblical Christianity from yet another errror. It should not be ignored as if it were nothing when the church visible stands up as one to say something. 




trevorjohnson said:


> What authority does the Synod of Dort have over me?
> 
> 
> It was a historic dispute in another time and in another country.
> ...


----------



## non dignus (Jun 12, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Not many Indonesians know what Dort is. I would say it is irrelevant as a document. No need to sign it or voice consent to it.
> 
> These people are being taught the truth without tacking on irrelevant documents that have to do with European theological conflicts.
> 
> ...




Traci makes a very good point about Nicea. Would you allow a non-Trinitarian to the Table?


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 12, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Not many Indonesians know what Dort is. I would say it is irrelevant as a document. No need to sign it or voice consent to it.
> 
> These people are being taught the truth without tacking on irrelevant documents that have to do with European theological conflicts.
> 
> ...


 
Treavor,

I am quite suprised to hear you say this actually. Afterall, weren't you the one that was reminding us that the church is bigger than a single denomination? It seems that if church unity is to happen, it must happen with the reformed churches first. And if the reformed do not rally around historic synods such as Dort, then what hope does the church have for true unity?

This reminds me of another question that I have thought of: Does the Synod of Dort function as an ecumenical council? Sounds like a good topic for another thread.


----------



## Coram Deo (Jun 12, 2007)

So I guess in your view Christians need not rally behind the Synod of Jerusalem in Acts 15 since a group of believers in some foreign country does not know what Jerusalem was and so not to introduce documents that other parts of the world have never heard of.

Jerusalem was a International Church Synod, Yes?
Nicea was a International Church Synod, Yes?
Dordt was a International Church Synod, Yes?

It is not about Western vs. everyone else, nor is it about the Dutch or some other culture related theme... It is about church history and about Church Councils that are legal or in other words scriptural and binding....

Michael




trevorjohnson said:


> Because a group of believers in some foreign country does not know what Nicea is, this does not make them non-Trinitarian.
> 
> Because many have never heard of Dort does not mean that they are pelagians.
> 
> ...


----------



## elnwood (Jun 12, 2007)

thunaer said:


> So I guess in your view Christians need not rally behind the Synod of Jerusalem in Acts 15 since a group of believers in some foreign country does not know what Jerusalem was and so not to introduce documents that other parts of the world have never heard of.
> 
> Jerusalem was a International Church Synod, Yes?
> Nicea was a International Church Synod, Yes?
> ...



Michael, do you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled? That was what was decided that Gentiles ought to do at Jerusalem.

Church councils are not binding. Scripture is binding. The largest church council in the world does not necessarily produce scriptural teaching. For example, very few Reformed Christians believe that the papacy is THE anti-Christ, and yet that is what the writers of the Westminster, Savoy Declaration, and London Baptist Confessions agree on. Should that understanding be binding?


----------



## Augusta (Jun 12, 2007)

Trevor, the point is that Christians wherever they are, are not rogues. They are part of the Body of Christ that has roots and history. They should be taught this. I don't think something needs to be signed but some statement of faith should be given, and it should be an informed statement of faith. (catechism?) 

This whole argument is only making stronger the view that ministers of the gospel only should be evangelists because they would make sure that things are done decently and in order. Yes, even in Indonesia.


----------



## satz (Jun 12, 2007)

A side point, I am sure, but why do we feel that Nicea or Dordt should be put along side the Council of Jerusalem? The latter was chosen by God to be recorded in inspired scripture, and included inspired Apostles. No other council, no matter how godly we may think it to be, can claim the same 'credentials'.

I do not downplay the need for christians to use the teachers God has ordained at all. But why the special reverence for these councils? Predestination is true by the Word of God and arminianism is an error. But why is the decision of Dordt anymore special than that of a single pastor today who proclaims the truth to his congregation? Why should my hearing the truth of predestination from Dordt be anymore special than hearing it from my pastor at last week's service?


----------



## BJClark (Jun 12, 2007)

trevorjohnson;

My heart truly aches for you, as I read this thread knowing that many in Indonesia have NEVER heard of the Counsel of Dort, Nicea, Calvin or anything other than Christ Crucified and are willing to die for that TRUTH Alone...

May I be found as faithful in my own faith even if to death, putting Christ and Christ alone at the Head of His table as the one who issues the invitation..to anyone whether they have signed some creed or not..


----------



## Coram Deo (Jun 12, 2007)

I think where we are getting bogged down at is over Ecclesiology.. This debate almost seems totally polarized into two groups, The Independant Baptist and Presbyterial Presbyterians. Besides Jenney and myself who are Baptist and siding with the Presbyterial's on this... Of course I see the need to Church Councils and Synods...

The Independant here see no need for church councils and so are playing them down and their creeds, and the Presbyterians see the need and the biblical basis for Church Councils.... I believe this to be the root of the debate in this threat and the two sides will not come out on the same conclusion until the root is finally solved which is church polity. And I do not see that issue being resolved anytime soon...

P.S. I am unsure why, but I have seen a push in Reformed Baptist circles to also undermine and almost completely do away with the 1689 Confession for a push for greater Ecumenicalism and I believe to our harm.....


----------



## Augusta (Jun 12, 2007)

Trevor, I know you do not doubt the power of God in conversion, you must realize that true converts want to know the truth and they want to know all of the truth. I may not have been converted from Hinduism, Islam, or some animistic religion but Charismatics are just as bad but in a different way. 

One of the things I went through, post conversion, was anger that Pastors and teachers were not telling me the truth. My desire was to follow Christ in all things and to do nothing displeasing to him. 

Don't take it upon yourself to filter what you think they need and want to know over there from what they, as converts, want to learn and to know. They will want to know it all.


----------



## Coram Deo (Jun 12, 2007)

That is why I firmly believe that all people should not partake of the Lord's Supper until they meet with the Pastors who administer the Elements of the Lord' Supper. No one should approach the Supper of the Lord who is NOT known to the Minister who is administering the Elements... The Supper should be guarded.....

Pastors can determine if their doctrine is correct or not according to Dort or the 1689 or the Westminster, or Nicea. And if they do not have the correct knowledge the pastor should inform them what the scripture teachings on them...

In all Reformed Baptist Churches I have been to, and even Reformed Presbyterians, A warning is given before the elements are partaken that no one partake of the Supper without making themselves known to the elders of the church and are questioned of their doctrine and confession of salvation. 
And in the RPCNA I attend the elements are NOT passed out to those the Pastors are unaware of or have not been questioned..... I believe this to be a biblical approach....

Michael




trevorjohnson said:


> But what about those who have never heard about Dort or the 1689... these things are good things to be taught, but are not essential to be known before receiving communion.


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 12, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> HERE'S A FOLLOW UP QUESTION:
> 
> 
> Is it sin to bar a fellow believer uneccessarily from the Lord's Table, even though they are a believer (and not just "your kind" of believer)?
> ...


 
Trevor, 

Then what about those under church censures? Surely you are not willing to say that all those under discipline are not believers? Surely some repent at some point and show that they were in a period of rebellion, no? 

The point I am trying to make is not that we should try to judge somebody's heart, but to judge a credible profession.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jun 12, 2007)

The reformed confessions declare our view of sound Biblical doctrine; they are a précis of what we hold the Bible to teach.

In countries where pioneer missionaries labor what is important is to teach sound doctrine, that which is under the confessions. To teach the Biblical doctrines the confessions declare (but apart from the confessions) is nonetheless to teach the truth.

One can teach the doctrines of Dort without even mentioning Dort. The question is not (on a foreign field, say), do we teach Dort, but do we teach what Dort says the Bible teaches? In this sense Trevor has a point. But I would ask you, Trevor, do you teach the sovereignty of God in salvation (without minimizing human responsibility)? In short, the five points of Calvinism -- the five points Dort maintained against the false teachings of the Arminians? *Not*, mind you, a reformed confession (or Dort in particular), but simply the Biblical doctrines?

An aside, one of the instructors teaching a class of Sudanese pastors, elders, etc. (with some Kenyans, Ugandans, and Tanzanians) the Heidelberg Catechism so won their hearts with it, that when I replaced him I was asked if I could get them copies so their could teach their villagers from it when they returned home. I got fifty copies of the entire 3FU from a church in the states, and a teacher replacing me brought another 50 copies (plus 50 of the WSC). Dort is in African villages now!

I have a friend who is a Wesleyan pastor in New York who loves Christ. I know he truly knows Him. If he visited my church I would allow him to partake of the Table. I would let him know not to teach in any way his form of doctrine to the flock; if he did I would bar him from the table and from felllowship; though I do not think he would defy me. Our differences were such that in the past we could not work or evangelize together.

The diverse reformed churches have different strategies for guarding their doctrine. Some are laxer than others. When in my PCA church in NYC some of the members who were participants in an online discussion started denying the Westminster Standards, asserting that the PCA, and my church in particular, was not concerned about such doctrines as mentioned above, and they could teach as truth things contrary to the WS with impunity, I spoke to the executive pastor (it is a large church) and asked him his view on such. He strongly said we hold to the W. Standards and do not tolerate contrary teaching (privately held -- or quietly held -- views are not a problem). I brought this to the discussion and silenced the defiance from the members.

We are in times when sound doctrine is _everywhere_ opposed. As one who was over 2 decades under the thrall of Wesleyan perfectionism & second blessing teaching, and Finney's pelagianism, I *know* the spiritual devastation these evil teachings cause, and declare they are from the pit. We are still discussing -- my fellow elder and I -- who shall be admitted to the Table.

However the truth of the pure gospel is guarded in the diverse churches, and the table of communion feast celebrated, we must protect against wolves -- witting or unwitting -- for a corrupted gospel causes grave injury to souls, and worse, seeks to obscure the glory of our God's grace.

Steve


----------



## jenney (Jun 12, 2007)

I'm 100% with Jerusalem Blade. 

I also think, Trevor, that this has gotten away from the original question. That was not an Indonesian who had never heard of Dort. That was someone who had been in agreement with the confession and has since reversed his stance. _You_ are speaking of someone who may never have considered the issue at all and might need to be taught (doctrine, not history of Dort). 

Now, does he need to be taught before he is allowed at the feast? I'm back with my "let the elders decide on a case-by-case basis" answer: Why doesn't he know any theology? Is he illiterate? Untaught? A new convert? Lazy? Finds doctrine dull? Is actually still unconverted? Believes in Jesus in a certain way, but is actually a Hindu who has merely added Jesus to his pantheon of gods? A guy who believes that Jesus is the answer for having Purpose and Our Best Life Now but has no concept of his own sin and need of redemption?

In general I see with both sides, because I recognize that there is a huge difference between an American who has read the Councils and denied them and a semi-literate Indonesian who has just been set free last Thursday from the bondage of sin (and Islam) by trusting in Christ. I would _tend_ to deny the former and accept the latter at the Feast. ((But I'd still leave the final decision to my elders!))

I appreciate you and Teresa, your work di sana, and the struggles your churches face. We can so easily intellectualize the issues from our armchairs in the West, while you face them daily in the trenches. Anyone can be myopic, here or there, and we all need to have grace for one another as we wrestle with the Word and how to apply it.


----------



## elnwood (Jun 12, 2007)

thunaer said:


> I think where we are getting bogged down at is over Ecclesiology.. This debate almost seems totally polarized into two groups, The Independant Baptist and Presbyterial Presbyterians. Besides Jenney and myself who are Baptist and siding with the Presbyterial's on this... Of course I see the need to Church Councils and Synods...
> 
> The Independant here see no need for church councils and so are playing them down and their creeds, and the Presbyterians see the need and the biblical basis for Church Councils.... I believe this to be the root of the debate in this threat and the two sides will not come out on the same conclusion until the root is finally solved which is church polity. And I do not see that issue being resolved anytime soon...
> 
> P.S. I am unsure why, but I have seen a push in Reformed Baptist circles to also undermine and almost completely do away with the 1689 Confession for a push for greater Ecumenicalism and I believe to our harm.....



It is a matter of church government, but it is not true that independents, congregationalists and baptists see no need for church councils. Both the Savoy Declaration and the London Baptist see church councils as good things for the larger body of Christ. It is the fact that independents, congregationalists and baptists don't see the church councils as binding that separate them from from the Presbyterians.

From the Savoy Declaration of Faith (And similarly in the 1689 LBCF):


> In cases of difficulties or differences, either in point of doctrine or in administrations, wherein either the churches in general are concerned, or any one church in their peace, union, and edification, or any member or members of any church are injured in, or by any proceeding in censures, not agreeable to truth and order: it is according to the mind of Christ, that many churches holding communion together. do by their messengers meet in a synod or council, to consider and give their advice in, or about that matter in difference, to be reported to all the churches concerned. Howbeit, these synods so assembled are not entrusted with any church-power, properly so called, or with any jurisdiction over the churches themselves, to exercise any censures, either over any churches or persons, or to impose their determinations on the churches or officers.


----------



## MW (Jun 13, 2007)

satz said:


> A side point, I am sure, but why do we feel that Nicea or Dordt should be put along side the Council of Jerusalem? The latter was chosen by God to be recorded in inspired scripture, and included inspired Apostles. No other council, no matter how godly we may think it to be, can claim the same 'credentials'.



Hi Mark. It might be worthwhile noting that Acts 15 doesn't confine the membership of the council to inspired apostles, but mentions apostles and elders. It was an ordinary council and therefore as liable to err as any other council. It was conducted with appeal to Scripture and providence. What made its ruling normative was the fact that "it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us," ver. 28.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 13, 2007)

Trevor,

I understand to some extent the angst over trying to turn every convert into a seasoned theologian but I think you ought to see the reasonable balance and historical and Biblical truth behind what is being argued.

First, I agree with Jenney that this has gone pretty far from the original post.

Secondly, Europeans are just like Indonesians - mostly lost sinners. The path is as broad and was as broad to destruction in 17th Century Europe as it is in Indonesia. I dare say the general populace was not more educated than the average Indonesian. Men are men.

Thirdly, I understand the need to be a bit pragmatic in some matters but a word of caution is in order. It is not too difficult to trace the decline in American Evangelicalism to a similar spirit in the 19th Century with the need to produce Pastors for the expanding mission field in an America that was continually expanding its frontier.

OK, I'm done with my lists.

I'll be honest Trevor, I'm not convinced that the growth in "Christianity" across the globe is a real growth in Christianity. There is an explosion of "Protestant" growth in Africa and Latin America but it is 99.9999999% Pentecostal. Yes, there are Reformed denominations (including my former local Church that has a missionary in Africa) but they don't have the resources of a TBN. Most of these people deny the Trinity. Most practice it in a way that is indiscernible from paganism.

I've honestly never been a big fan of saying: "I know so and so loves the Lord with all his heart even though he is a _________________." I find that to be a bit presumptuous. I treat men as if they are fellow believers if they are baptized but I don't presume to know they are saved.

The Reformed Confessions are not too lengthy on the things that separate Christendom from a false Gospel. I don't know why we spend so much time disputing over things that are the very grounds of our assurance. It scares me to death and causes me to want to teach my fellow man when I know that his theology echoes a self-trust that versions of Arminianism reinforce. I want men to understand the *Gospel*.

If I didn't think that the Reformed Confessions confessed the Gospel then I would confess along with those who did.

Can I work with others who deny truths such as their utter need for a Savior or that God saves on the basis of nothing in us? In some fashions, yes. Can I hope that, in spite of their confession, God might posses them? Yes, but not confidently. I don't know your background Trevor but I was Roman Catholic. I simply don't see much of a difference between the "faith" of some Evangelicals and the faith that I had as a Roman Catholic and that scares me for them.

That said, I hope for the best and continue to simply proclaim Truth in its most primitive form. But I believe the Confessions contain that primitive form and that's why I don't understand why you would eschew them as being "Europoean".


----------



## turmeric (Jun 13, 2007)

Here is a piece I wrote at the request of the Missions Committee at my church when this subject came up. The issue is support of missionaries and why I would support some and not others because of doctrine.

Specific Concerns I Have about Non-Reformed Missionaries

Keswick holiness-Perfection
This model of holiness-perfection was popularized by Hannah Whitehall Smith and admired by D.L.Moody. It comes in many flavors from mild to intense, from the Campus Crusade for Christ variety to the radical teachings of the Pentecostals. It was incorporated into Dispensationalism, (the theology of most independent Bible churches) and was later adopted by the Foursquare Church and the Assemblies of God churches as well. This has made it pretty much ubiquitous in mainstream evangelicalism. This is the teaching which has brought us the “carnal Christian”.

As Michael Horton points out;

“The Westminster Confession defines sin as, not only ‘transgression of the law of God,’ but ‘any lack of conformity to’ that law. Because the law is ignored in the Evangelical world…we have invented our own standards of righteousness. Thus, sin and righteousness are not measured by the degree to which we conform to the law in thought, word and deed, but in being able to live above ‘known sins’. But the Bible doesn’t call us to be ‘fully surrendered’; it demands that we conform perfectly to the righteousness commanded in the law. And it condemns not only for ‘known’ but also for ‘unknown sins’. One unknown sin is enough of an affront to God’s majesty to condemn a person for all eternity...Whenever the law is diminished in its strict terror, we lose the stern taskmaster that leads us to Christ for salvation…For the ‘victorious Christian life’ teaching, sin is not a failure to conform to God’s legal righteousness, but merely a failure to yield or surrender to the Spirit.” 

Horton goes on in a later chapter to compare the typical altar-call (decisional regeneration, and rededication) to the Roman Catholic sacrament of confession.

Decisional Regeneration
This is the teaching that the moment a person expresses assent to certain propositions, that one is reborn. Once the required propositions have been given the person may express his assent in any number of ways, from repeating a prayer to signing a card, or simply by making eye-contact with the speaker. Salvation is represented as occurring the instant the person believes the stated propositions. This notion of faith is very different from the classic Reformed definition, which represents saving faith as a gift from God which consists of three things, knowledge of Gospel content, assent to the Gospel, and personal trust in Jesus’ death as payment for one’s sin. Neither knowledge nor assent is enough. The desire to end one’s rebellion against God must be present as well. This is a result, not a cause, of regeneration; hence regeneration is entirely a work of God.

Active Obedience of Christ
Unfortunately, broad evangelicalism has misunderstood and de-emphasized Christ’s active obedience. One popular author (Maj. W. Ian Thomas) has actually written that the perfect life of Jesus on earth condemns us, whereas His death saves us). Because of this misunderstanding among their teachers, many evangelicals have either never been taught about Christ’s active righteousness, or have been incorrectly taught that the righteousness of Christ which God imputes to us is not the active obedience He performed in His earthly lifetime, but another righteousness of Christ, that which He has now in His resurrected life. The idea is that we draw from this resource in order not to sin; rather than realizing that Jesus kept the law in our place in His life on earth.


----------



## MW (Jun 13, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> My whole point is that we should not tack on extra-biblical requirements before believers come to the table. And signing off on Dort is an extra-Biblical ordinance. The Lord's Supper is for all who are the Lord's (have I said that enough times).



I think that point has been made clear. After reading the thread through again it seems the issue revolves around what makes a person "the Lord's." Is the definition provided by Dort at all normative for determining who are the Lord's people?


----------



## thekingsknight (Jun 14, 2007)

Trevor, 
What is being "pushed" on this thread is "closed" communion-i.e. the practice of allowing only members in good standing in one's own church or denomination to partake of the Lord's Supper. What you and I believe in is "resticted" communion-i.e. Only "true" believers who are members in good standing in a "true" church of Jesus Christ may partake of the Lord's Supper.
A public announcement is made at my church of the "biblical requirements" and "private prohibition" of those known to be unworthy (i.e. those who might partake who are "openly ungodly" professing Christians and/or a "true" believer who is in a state of unrepentance for sins commited).
This obviouly covers the issue of "open communion" i.e. all may partake.
Arm yourself well if you desire to fight the good fight. Contend *for the faith*, not tradition!


----------



## MW (Jun 14, 2007)

Trevor, I'm not sure the "damnation" rhetoric is at all helpful to the thread. We need to understand what is the proper relationship between "salvation" and the Lord's supper. The supper does not exist to confirm one's status as "saved," but in order to confirm the person in their salvation so they might grow up to be an assured and active Christian. A part of this process of confirmation is right teaching. Sacramental efficacy is never divorced from the sound instruction of the Word. The real question then is this: If a person will not receive sound instruction from the Word should they be admitted to the Lord's supper?

Also, I find it strange that Dort can be written off as extra biblical baggage whilst the name "Arminian" is allowed recognition. I sense the one is being used in a technical sense and the other is being used loosely.

We should also make a distinction between the formal and material teaching of Dort. Formally, no, it is not requisite that one subscribe to Dort in order to be saved. Materially, however, we acknowledge that Dort outlines the biblical doctrine of salvation. That being the case, we cannot ignore what Dort states is necessary for salvation in assessing who are the Lord's people.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 14, 2007)

thekingsknight said:


> Trevor,
> What is being "pushed" on this thread is "closed" communion-i.e. the practice of allowing only members in good standing in one's own church or denomination to partake of the Lord's Supper. What you and I believe in is "resticted" communion-i.e. Only "true" believers who are members in good standing in a "true" church of Jesus Christ may partake of the Lord's Supper.
> 
> A public announcement is made at my church of the "biblical requirements" and "private prohibition" of those known to be unworthy (i.e. those who might partake who are "openly ungodly" professing Christians and/or a "true" believer who is in a state of unrepentance for sins commited).
> ...



Ted,

This is very revealing. What is *"The Faith"* Ted?

I find it fascinating how people that most eschew a Confessional expression of the faith once and for all delivered to the Saints as being "tradition" and carrying too much weight, themselves become the arbiter of what "the faith" is.

Notice how dogmatic you are:

1. You prescribe that communion consists of: "Only "true" believers who are members in good standing in a "true" church of Jesus Christ may partake of the Lord's Supper."

OK, Ted, on what basis do you make this pronouncement? Could it be _your_ interpretation of the Scriptures? What makes it superior to Dort's out of curiosity? Were they using Scripture when they wrote the Canons or is it your contention that _they_ were shooting from the hip?

2. Contrarily, the historic Reformed position that seeks to be consistent with the Scriptures itself on the role of Elders and Church discipline is eschewed as _Tradition_ {scary music plays in the background as the word is uttered}

But not you right? You have *THE FAITH*. Is that how I'm supposed to read it? That's right - Calvin, Knox, Dort, and all those other crazy theologians were bound by tradition. They didn't read the Scriptures. Is that what tradition means?

I think I have to type this same idea about once every week lately when somebody claims to have "the faith" or "the Scriptures" against a Church's confession. Let's remember here, people, that the Confession is what _we_ believe the Scriptures teach. I find it fascinating that it is presumed to be the arrogant position when an entire group of people submits to their Elders and says: "We love the Word but are ever reforming and don't know it exhaustively. We submit to our Elder's teaching on this because we are striving for the unity of the faith once delivered to the Saints and we don't believe that means that a new interpretation of the Scriptures is born every time a Christian is."

It's like the post-modernist that claims the Christian is arrogant because he believes in Truth. The truth is that it is the autonomous man who is arrogantly ascribing to himself the right to filter all truth claims, including God's in His Word, and deciding what is true and what is not.

And so, you'll have to forgive me Ted if I don't find your "You and I believe..." statement to be the paragon of humility. Are you stating that you're better studied in the Scriptures than those that have preceded you in the Reformed faith. Are you wiser than Dort? Let us see your exegesis for restricted communion and determine the scholarship that went into your statement.

I don't mind the discussion but when a man chalks up the entire history of Reformed confessionalism and, with a wave of his hand, calls it tradition to HIS faith, that really raises my eyebrows.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 14, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Armourbearer:
> 
> Thanks for hitting the nail on the head and not allowing us yet another futile go-round on what has turned into a merry-go-round debate with little progress.
> 
> ...





armourbearer said:


> Trevor, I'm not sure the "damnation" rhetoric is at all helpful to the thread. We need to understand what is the proper relationship between "salvation" and the Lord's supper. The supper does not exist to confirm one's status as "saved," but in order to confirm the person in their salvation so they might grow up to be an assured and active Christian. A part of this process of confirmation is right teaching. Sacramental efficacy is never divorced from the sound instruction of the Word. The real question then is this: If a person will not receive sound instruction from the Word should they be admitted to the Lord's supper?
> 
> Also, I find it strange that Dort can be written off as extra biblical baggage whilst the name "Arminian" is allowed recognition. I sense the one is being used in a technical sense and the other is being used loosely.
> 
> We should also make a distinction between the formal and material teaching of Dort. Formally, no, it is not requisite that one subscribe to Dort in order to be saved. Materially, however, we acknowledge that Dort outlines the biblical doctrine of salvation. That being the case, we cannot ignore what Dort states is necessary for salvation in assessing who are the Lord's people.



I agree Rev Winzer.

It's funny that, on the same thread, I have to argue against two poles - one side that jumps to the end of Church discipline and another that wants to ascribe discipline to "damning".

Honestly, Trevor, you should know better than to state that the Church "damns" a man. Excommunication, at its worst, doesn't damn a man. Only God does that.

I agree with Rev. Winzer that such language is unhelpful. This discussion really ought to focus on this aspect of discipline not as a final act but as a corrective act.

What complicates this whole discussion is that people are simply not working off of the same definitions. The nature of the Sacraments. The nature of faith. The nature of rebellion or ignorance are all factors that have to be spelled out and agreed upon or we're simply talking past one another. To state, by fiat, that a Methodist must be allowed to the Table cannot be sustained by Scripture. Now, might you present a case where a particular Methodist should be allowed after then sure. Maybe there's a valid discussion on what it means to fence the table - should it be closed or restricted (I don't have a problem with the discussion but I do have a problem when people wave away a systematic confession as "tradition" and present their own view as "the faith").

The point is that Elders have some work to do in the Supper and it's not just a free for all. What shocks me is how _few_ Elders take their responsibility for the care of the flock (those who must give account) and how little fear there is in the hearts of men that someone might be drinking to their own destruction. Doesn't that cause some folks pause? Drinking to destruction. Seriously, if you're an LBCF guy, it's not like you even ascribe anything to the Supper than a memorial value. They're not "missing out" on infused grace if they're barred from the Table as a precaution. The Elder's not saying "you're not a brother" but he is saying "I don't want you to be judged for this."

I just think we could have the same discussion without presuming that the side that is being more guarded in this discussion is necessarily damning all who are not uber-Reformed.


----------



## non dignus (Jun 14, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I agree with Rev. Winzer that such language is unhelpful. This discussion really ought to focus on this aspect of discipline not as a final act but as a corrective act.
> 
> *What complicates this whole discussion is that people are simply not working off of the same definitions. The nature of the Sacraments. The nature of faith. The nature of rebellion or ignorance are all factors that have to be spelled out and agreed upon or we're simply talking past one another. * To state, by fiat, that a Methodist must be allowed to the Table cannot be sustained by Scripture. Now, might you present a case where a particular Methodist should be allowed after then sure. Maybe there's a valid discussion on what it means to fence the table - should it be closed or restricted (I don't have a problem with the discussion but I do have a problem when people wave away a systematic confession as "tradition" and present their own view as "the faith").
> 
> I just think we could have the same discussion without presuming that the side that is being more guarded in this discussion is necessarily damning all who are not uber-Reformed.



Well put, Rich.

This is what the confessions and councils do for us. They spell it out so we don't have to keep on re-inventing the wheel. 

I believe the Jerusalem Council was a model to use in order to combat error infecting the church. Which ever council one favors or disfavors is a form of profession. 

I have a dear friend in the Dawn Bible Students who does not recognize the council of Nicea. He says it was just a convenience for Constantine to bring in Paganism. My friend and I have great discussions because he is very knowledgeable about the Bible, but obviously we do not worship together. 

Today we must deal with the Federal Vision. We must contend for the faith. The model shown to us at Jerusalem still serves us well. What are we waiting for?


----------



## turmeric (Jun 14, 2007)

It seems to me that fencing the Table is not about damnation but its opposite. It's an attempt at rescue.


----------



## thekingsknight (Jun 14, 2007)

To Rich:
Well, I've obviously stirred up your wrath and must bear the chagrin. At this point in time I have neither the time nor energy to go point by point here on this thread as I am infirmed. I will not however let my infirmity be an excuse for not answering you directly "offline" should you wish. Allow me to just say that I've been misrepresented. I never laid any claim to having any sort of superior knowledge. I dare not puff myself up to such heights. The faith? That you would ask me that, having read my testimony? If you feel any need to see if I'm in Christ, let's do it "offline".


----------



## thekingsknight (Jun 15, 2007)

Here's something!
http://www.spindleworks.com/library/murray/restricted_communion.htm


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 15, 2007)

thekingsknight said:


> To Rich:
> Well, I've obviously stirred up your wrath and must bear the chagrin. At this point in time I have neither the time nor energy to go point by point here on this thread as I am infirmed. I will not however let my infirmity be an excuse for not answering you directly "offline" should you wish. Allow me to just say that I've been misrepresented. I never laid any claim to having any sort of superior knowledge. I dare not puff myself up to such heights. The faith? That you would ask me that, having read my testimony? If you feel any need to see if I'm in Christ, let's do it "offline".



Ted,

First, I hope you feel better soon.

Second, you have incurred no wrath.

Thirdly, I did not question whether or not you were "in Christ".

I probably reacted more sharply than I ought to have. I apologize. I do, nevertheless, grow weary of the characterization that to be Confessional is to be, _necessarily_, bound to tradition.

I labor to demonstrate repeatedly that the reason we subscribe to Confessions is because we believe they accurately confess the doctrines of the Scriptures where the speak. Where they do not they need to be reformed because they are secondary to the Scriptures but that is the purview of the Church to reform Confessional documents. Why? Because there is wisdom found in the counsel of many.

Thus, when we're discussing something like Dort and people bring up the Canons then, for one minute, I wish the detractors would existentially transport themselves back to the 17th Century and remember that these were Godly ministers and first class theologians from all over Reformed Christendom. It may be less tempting to dismiss them if we thought of them as Godly brothers who are well studied in the Word and would have to eschew their exegesis and vast pastoral experience to their face.

In fact, the more I intersect the Reformed theology of my forebears, the more I realize how solid not only their systematic but their practical theology was. I realize how pastoral their understanding of human nature was.

We are infected by an modernist mindset that eschews the old. We (and I include me) need to fight this tendency because we can import that view on the Word and misunderstand the Word, which was written to a people who would have considered such thinking very foreign.

Such thinking is precisely the opposite, in fact, of the concept of _Sola Scriptura_. It is assumed, today, that this means, essentially, Me and the Bible (with the emphasis on the Me). That is, that individual interpretion is what is intended by Sola Scriptura. Not so. Sola Scriptura places ultimate authority in God's Word but that does not mean, by extension, that the Word gives interpretive authority to the individual. In fact, God's Word declares that the Lord provides Pastors and Teachers for the very function of building up the community of faith and it directly commands that the Church strive for the unity of the faith.

By necessary deduction, the Church must then have a role in determining the proper interpretation of the Word. Hence, the universal affirmation in the Reformed Confessions that synods and councils are given the authority to settle such disputes.

Thus, while I find it _interesting_ that some believe that Dort is out to lunch when it comes to the nature of the Lord's Table, I consider it the interpretation of a man in competition with the interpretation of the Church that I consider myself a confessing member of. I consider the former to be an opinion while I consider the latter to hold authoratative weight that I am required to not so hastily dismiss.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 15, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Hmmmm.... Paul says to examine yourself. Not to have others giving you communion coins.



Yes but he also, in the same passage, extols that we ought to examine _ourselves_. The context of the entire letter is, in part, a rebuke that the Church was not disciplining itself properly. You infer that "ourselves" is a command from Paul that each man merely determine his own eligibility for the Table. I believe the context, in the midst of cases of Church discipline, make this assertion dubious.

Paul, the same letter, upbraids the Church for not putting a man out of the Church for the sin he is bearing upon himself as a protective measure for the Church and for the man himself (that he might come to his senses).

Are the Elders supposed to just ignore something as obviously perilous as "eating and drinking judgment...and simply conclude, in the thread of the entire rebuke: "Well, each man for himself to determine fitness I suppose...."


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 15, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Even if I were not a 1689 guy, would a saved Arminian be refused the "infused grace" of God from driking and eating the Supper - if he is a saved brother. THe criteria is that he DISCERNS THE LORDS BODY, not discerns the WCF.



Incidentally, Trevor, it's statements like this that poison the well.

Not a soul has argued for a discernment of a Creed or a Confession. If you would focus your argument against your opponents and not on straw men then you might make some headway. I don't know who you're arguing with. I catch a lot of flack from Baptists for speaking strongly but at least I attempt to state their Confession accurately before I ravage it in sometimes offensive ways.

Perhaps, in another thread, you ought to present your systematic view of the role of Officers in the Church from the Scriptures so we can see how much or little such men need to fear from God for the care of the flock. Maybe then we could overlay that discussion with this and see how well they mesh.


> The implications of much of this thread would disallow any worship between credo-calvinisits and paedo-calvinisits because both sides are dug in and not teachable on these points.


To state that barring from the Table is tantamount to disallowing worship is another mischaracterization. You started with characterizing discipline as damnation but haven't quite yet backed up to what the real implication would be in the worst case. It is a temporary stage of discipline or may not be discipline at all but a precautionary state. The reason I pointed out the LBCF view of the ordinance is that the Supper is even less significant a meal by your Confession than it is for mine. Neither of our Confessions state that the temporary barring from the Supper is tantamount to complete excommunication or disallowing of fellowship. I frankly don't know what you attribute to the Supper that's not in the Scriptures (and reflected in a Confession) but I don't see any warrant to agree with the charge you have made.


> Yes, at the OPC church in Texas I was given communion and rightly so, because I am one of GOd's covenant people. THe pastor guarded the table by warning sternly against unbelievers taking the Supper. We examined "ourselves" and did not depend on an elder's opinion of us.


What? Men that subscribed to the WCF were nice? Say it isn't so Trevor. You didn't depend upon an elder's opinion of you? Does that mean that if a member of the Church was cheating on his wife, the elders just said: "That's between you and God, don't worry about what we think. What does your heart tell you?"


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 15, 2007)

Trevor,

I think in the final analysis, who is/isn't admitted to the Table is always a local Church issue. Some elders are stricter than others. Some are probably more strict than they ought but I believe that the elders that exercise no discernible discipline in this matter are ultimately the most to be condemned for their wanton lack of care for sheep.

I don't agree with the "if you're not in our denomination then you're not in the Church" stance. I could construct a thought experiment where a man from an Arminian Church, after being interviewed by the Elders of a Church, should be admitted to the Table. I'll be honest, until you've interviewed a man, how do you know he's Christ's at all? Just because he says so? Mormons say that. I think questions that penetrate into his trust in a very primitive fashion are necessary. 

I hope to be an Elder someday and I would not ask: "Do you embrace the 5 points of Calvinism?" Rather, I would ask simple questions that penetrated where the man's trust was. If I sensed he was in denial of the consequences of sin and denied Christ's substitionary death for those who embrace Him by faith then I would enjoin him to believe in such things. If he refused and stood on some heterodox doctrine then, without labelling it, I would have to refuse him to the Table. This wouldn't be on the basis of being "in a camp" but on the basis of what unites a man to Christ.

I honestly believe that, although it is complex language, Dort gives such guidelines on what it means to be united to Christ. All such systematic theology needs to be applied practically and pastorally and, as noted repeatedly, this doesn't mean that all participants have to recite a precise theological formula and pass an exam but, if they're found to be rejecting the Gospel in these basic areas then, very basically, we need to try to get them to see how they relate to their salvation. 

_Then_, if they are recalcitrant and say: "I simply cannot accept that men are depraved sinners!" what are you supposed to do? It's simply not an option at that point to say: "Well Arminians are Christians too!" This is why I hate labels - because men need to be taken one at a time and there is a winsome way to present the Gospel (aka the Reformed Confessional understanding of it) without "5 pointing" it and saying: "Choose ye this day whether ye will be Arminian or Calvinist!" Instead, you work with them and hope they embrace such Truths of the Gospel and when they reject them you have to protect them from the Table.

Trevor, I'm really not trying to toot my own horn but check out:
http://www.baptistchurch.jp/teaching.html

Listen to my teaching on Romans 8:1-17 (and 5-7 if you have the time). I don't think you'll learn anything, per se, but I have managed to communicate my Confessional theology without having to use terms in a bludgeoning way. What if, in the middle of my presentation of Romans 8, a man simply cannot stomach such Truth? I would say that such a man should not be at the Table of the Lord.

Regarding participation at my SBC Church - I get a bit of a pass. Why? Because I was immersed by profession and so was Sonya I'm not a good example because most Baptist Churches wouldn't exclude me because immersion is one of their typical "checklist" items for the Lord's Supper.


----------



## thekingsknight (Jun 15, 2007)

Dear brother Rich, thanks for your last post to me. I too must apologize to you. My infirmity happens to be "Cluster Headaches" & perhaps I should'nt be posting at all during these times, as I'm not always "all there", but I both enjoy and need the interaction of the board. It helps me out a lot. Your last post to me was spot on. I don't have an argument with Dort. I'm more (hopefully not less) trying to address the original post of whether one who rejects the Canons of Dort be allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper. I don't see where Dort deals with the subject-whether explicit or implicit. What I meant by tradition is the practice of "closed" communion as by the definition given. As to the faith, I meant those things that are made plain by the light of scripture & not necessarily the "practice" of a given church/denomination. You know! "Faith & Practice". Again, sorry for the confusion.


----------



## thekingsknight (Jun 15, 2007)

Rich, your post just above mine is kind of what I'm thinking. I guess that we were typing at the same time, but you beat me to the draw.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 15, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> P.s. This leads me to the question, when you tooted your own horn, were you "teaching", "preaching" or "sharing"?


----------



## non dignus (Jun 15, 2007)

By the way, you don't have to give visitors a theological exam. We ask them, "Are you a member of a Reformed Church and communing there?"

Calvary Chapels have open communion. Conceivably the man at Corinth who was sleeping with his father's wife could have gone down the street to CCC (Calvary Chapel of Corinth) where they would have told him to examine himself. One doesn't even need to be baptised to partake! That's why I don't take communion there. I would have no idea who I was uniting with. Remember the _union_ in _communion._ 

Fencing the table is for the benefit of regular members too.


----------



## elnwood (Jun 15, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Regarding participation at my SBC Church - I get a bit of a pass. Why? Because I was immersed by profession and so was Sonya I'm not a good example because most Baptist Churches wouldn't exclude me because immersion is one of their typical "checklist" items for the Lord's Supper.



It would depend on the church. I don't think most Baptist churches would require baptism by immersion for visitors to partake of the Lord's Supper. Most would require it for membership though.

For those of you who would exclude someone from the Lord's table for disagreeing with the Synod of Dort on predestination, would you also exclude someone from the Lord's table for disagreeing with the Synod of Dort paedobaptism?


----------



## non dignus (Jun 15, 2007)

elnwood said:


> It would depend on the church. I don't think most Baptist churches would require baptism by immersion for visitors to partake of the Lord's Supper. Most would require it for membership though.
> 
> For those of you who would exclude someone from the Lord's table for disagreeing with the Synod of Dort on predestination, would you also exclude someone from the Lord's table for disagreeing with the Synod of Dort on paedobaptism?



Did you mean just the synod of Dort; or also the Westminster Confession, Larger and Shorter Catechisms; the Belgic and 2nd Helvetic Confessions, and the Heidelberg Catechism? (Which did I leave out?)

Baptism wasn't an issue at Dort. Even the Arminians were orthodox on Baptism, as far as I know.


----------



## calgal (Jun 16, 2007)

non dignus said:


> By the way, you don't have to give visitors a theological exam. We ask them, "Are you a member of a Reformed Church and communing there?"
> 
> Calvary Chapels have open communion. Conceivably the man at Corinth who was sleeping with his father's wife could have gone down the street to CCC (Calvary Chapel of Corinth) where they would have told him to examine himself. One doesn't even need to be baptised to partake! That's why I don't take communion there. I would have no idea who I was uniting with. Remember the _union_ in _communion._
> 
> Fencing the table is for the benefit of regular members too.



 And if I am not mistaken, the issue from the OP was a member of your church who joined with full knowledge of what the vows of membership were and said member changed his mind? In that instance, the elders can have this brother into a council disciplinary hearing for the good of that church body. Whether a random Arminian who walked in off the street would be able to take communion would be a different issue entirely. And would be at the discretion of the elders.


----------



## jenney (Jun 18, 2007)

I've been away, but I realize I was misunderstood. Trevor, I wasn't trying to say you were off topic, so please don't apologize to me. I was only saying that your hypothetical Indonesian isn't exactly in the same boat as the person in the OP. I wanted to point out that difference, not say you were off-topic.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 18, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Jenney: I am off topic enough that it never hurts me to throw in an apology once in awhile!



Trevor's the kind of guy that, if the teacher posts sitting, then he posts sprinting!


----------



## elnwood (Jun 18, 2007)

non dignus said:


> Did you mean just the synod of Dort; or also the Westminster Confession, Larger and Shorter Catechisms; the Belgic and 2nd Helvetic Confessions, and the Heidelberg Catechism? (Which did I leave out?)
> 
> Baptism wasn't an issue at Dort. Even the Arminians were orthodox on Baptism, as far as I know.



Dort does say that believer's children are part of the covenant. I was wondering, for those who say that the teachings of Dort need to be affirmed in order to take the Lord's Supper, whether that would also exclude Baptists, either by Dort or whatever standard being used.


----------



## non dignus (Jun 18, 2007)

elnwood said:


> Dort does say that believer's children are part of the covenant. I was wondering, for those who say that the teachings of Dort need to be affirmed in order to take the Lord's Supper, whether that would also exclude Baptists, either by Dort or whatever standard being used.



In the URC, some churches do and some don't.


----------



## A5pointer (Jun 18, 2007)

I hope this is not to tangential but this conversation revolves around interpretaton of 

28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without *recognizing the body of the Lord *eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Examining oneself here seems to have something specific in mind not a general personal inspection. The sin of the church at Corinth was seperation along social lines in coming together for the meal. I can see this "recognizing the *body of Christ*" refering to the church body, keeping in context with Paul's charge. The remedy is to rightly keep unity of the church body especially as gathered for the Lord's Supper. 

I know that suggesting that an historic interpretation could be wrong is not kindly taken here but I see this as the best option in context. Feel free to fire away.


----------



## non dignus (Jun 18, 2007)

A5pointer said:


> "A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without *recognizing the body of the Lord *eats and drinks judgment on himself."
> 
> Examining oneself here seems to have something specific in mind not a general personal inspection. The sin of the church at Corinth was seperation along social lines in coming together for the meal. I can see this "recognizing the *body of Christ*" refering to the church body, keeping in context with Paul's charge.



Good point.

The doctrine of Baptism speaks to the nature and identity of the church. Baptists and paedobaptists discern the body differently.

Don, would you like to start a new thread?


----------



## elnwood (Jun 18, 2007)

non dignus said:


> Don, would you like to start a new thread?



About what? You answered my question -- thank you.


----------



## non dignus (Jun 18, 2007)

calgal said:


> ....Whether a random Arminian who walked in off the street would be able to take communion would be a different issue entirely....



Hi Gail,

Right. We would encourage him to attend every Sunday towards making a profession of faith (membership) and then partaking of the sacrament.


----------

