# Lord's Supper-Eligibility



## jenney (May 15, 2007)

The Lord's Supper is for whom? Believers? The elect? The baptised? Covenant Members? Church members? Church attenders? The professing? Adults only?

I recognize the overlap in these terms! I want precision, here, not loosey goosey.

I am _not_ asking about closed vs. open communion, if that's what you're thinking. I want to know who is intended to partake, in the view of various pb members.

thanks


----------



## Coram Deo (May 15, 2007)

How about this answer!

The Elect who are believers who have been baptised and are in covenant as members at a true visable branch of the church who are adults since children are able to make a profession of faith but not a credible profession of faith, which in our circles is normally over 17 years of age, and who are not in Sin or under church censure. One who readies himself and confesses his sins.

And if Visiting a church, the above apply with the addiction of being made know to the elders of the church and give a confession of faith to the elders.

Michael





jenney said:


> The Lord's Supper is for whom? Believers? The elect? The baptised? Covenant Members? Church members? Church attenders? The professing? Adults only?
> 
> I recognize the overlap in these terms! I want precision, here, not loosey goosey.
> 
> ...


----------



## KMK (May 15, 2007)

If I understand the question, you are asking for a 'brainstorming session'. Here are some right off the top of my head...

It is for those who 'discern the Lord's body'...
It is for those who 'examine themselves'...
It is for those who look forward with 'groaning' and 'earnest expectation' and 'hope' for the Lord's return because we are told to partake 'till He comes.'

I am looking forward to more...


----------



## Puritanhead (May 15, 2007)

When I have visited churches in time's past, I never cared for the obtuse nature of some parishoners who would start an interrogation of me or another guest when we were going to take communion (just because we are not a familiar face.)

I think just the pastor should be the one saying something polite about who is to partake Communion from the pulpit and that does not mean singling at individuals and finger-pointing. It's not very polite nor does it make people feel welcome.


----------



## Herald (May 15, 2007)

All baptized believers (the "elect" for those of you in Rio Linda) who have examined themselves and repented of sin.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (May 15, 2007)

Since we all agree that we can't know who are "all baptized _believers_" ipso facto, the WCF is helpful here:

The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to declare his word of institution to the people, to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to *the communicants*;a but to none who are not then present in the congregation.b
_a._ Mat 26:26-28 _and_ Mark 14:22-24 _and_ Luke 22:19-20 _with_ 1 Cor 11:23-27. • _b._ Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 11:20.

*Worthy receivers*, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament,a do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are, to their outward senses.b
_a._ 1 Cor 11:28. • _b._ 1 Cor 10:16.

*Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements* in this sacrament, yet they receive not the thing signified thereby; but by their unworthy coming thereunto are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with him, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table, and can not, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries,a or be admitted thereunto.b
_a._ 1 Cor 11:27-29; 2 Cor 6:14-16. • _b._ Mat 7:6; 1 Cor 5:6-7, 13; 2 Thes 3:6, 14-15.

WLC:

Q169: How hath Christ appointed bread and wine to be given and received in the sacrament of the Lord's supper? 

A169: Christ hath appointed the ministers of his word, in the administration of this sacrament of the Lord's Supper, to set apart the bread and wine from common use, by the word of institution, thanksgiving, and prayer; to take and break the bread, and to give both the bread and the wine to the *communicants*: who are, by the same appointment, to take and eat the bread, and to drink the wine, in thankful remembrance that the body of Christ was broken and given, and his blood shed, for them.[1] 

1. I Cor. 11:23-24; Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20

Q172: May *one who doubteth of his being in Christ*, or of his due preparation, come to the Lord's supper? 
A172: One who doubteth of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation to the sacrament of the Lord's supper, _may have true interest in Christ, though he be not yet assured thereof_;[1] and in God's account hath it, if he be duly affected with the apprehension of the want of it,[2] and unfeignedly desires to be found in Christ,[3] and to depart from iniquity:[4] in which case (because promises are made, and this sacrament is appointed, for the relief even of weak and doubting Christians)[5] he is to bewail his unbelief,[6] and labor to have his doubts resolved;[7] and, so doing, he may and ought to come to the Lord's supper, that he may be further strengthened.[8] 

1. Isa. 1:10; I John 5:13; Psa. 77:1-12; ch 88; Jonah 2:4, 7
2. Isa. 54:7-10; Matt. 5:3-4; Psa. 31:22; 73:13, 22-23
3. Phil 3:8-9; Psa. 10:17; 42:1-2, 5, 11
4. II Tim. 2:19; Isa. 1:10; Psa. 66:18-20
5. Isa. 4:11, 29, 31; Matt. 11:28; 12:20; 26:28
6. Mark 9:24
7. Acts 2:37, 16:30
8. Rom. 4:11; I Cor. 11:28

Q173: May any who profess the faith, and desire to come to the Lord's supper, be kept from it? 
A173: Such as are found to be *ignorant or scandalous*, notwithstanding their profession of the faith, and desire to come to the Lord's supper, *may and ought to be kept from that sacrament*, by the power which Christ hath left in his church,[1] until they receive instruction, and manifest their reformation.[2] 

1. I Cor. ch. 5; 11:27-31; Matt. 7:6; Jude 1:23; I Tim. 5:22
2. II Cor. 2:7

Sum of Saving Knowledge


<SPAN style="COLOR: windowtext"><FONT face=Arial size=2>II. The covenant of grace, set down in the Old Testament before Christ came, and in the New since he came, is one and the same in Substance, albeit different in outward administration: For the covenant in the Old Testament, being sealed with the sacraments of circumcision and the paschal lamb, did set forth Christ's death to come, and the benefits purchased thereby, under the shadow of bloody sacrifices, and sundry ceremonies; but since Christ came, the covenant being sealed by the *sacraments of baptism and the ' supper*, do clearly hold forth Christ already crucified before our eyes, victorious over death and the grave, and gloriously ruling heaven and earth, for the good of his own people.


----------



## jenney (May 15, 2007)

Michael, welcome! I thought health problems had removed you from us, but it is good to see you even if short-term. I'm going to presume you meant "addition" and not "addiction". Correct me if I'm wrong...  

KMK, Somewhat brainstorming, yes, but more to the point:

Is the Lord's Supper for believers only? Should my baptised, but unbelieving mother be participating, for example? I am _not_ asking, "Should she be allowed?" I'm asking if it is _intended_ for her. Recently I had someone (a presbyterian, ftr) say that it might be the means of her conversion, which implies to me that it is intended for the believing and unbelieving alike, at least according to this person's interpretation of Scripture and the WCF.

Bill, Great! That's the straightforward sort of answer I'd expected. You're always a straightforward sort of guy. That's what I like about you, brother.

I'm hoping some more presbyterians will answer this question because it was a presbyterian who first caused me to wonder if my understanding and confession were off somehow.


----------



## jenney (May 15, 2007)

Rev. McMahon,
I've read the confessions (the LBC and WCF are the same) and catechism wrt this and still don't totally get it:

When we say, "Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament" are we implying that it is for them? That it is not only fine for them to be there, but that they belong there at the table?

Or is it really for the believing and these wicked ignorant men are there improperly?

It seems to me that it is not for those who are ignorant or in scandalous sin according to Q173. Is that right?


----------



## Coram Deo (May 15, 2007)

Hi Jenney,

Yeah, the problems are pretty bad, but I still lurk, just not for a few days at a time.. 

Here is a clearer explaination of what I was driving at...... 

In order to receive the Lord's Supper one must be a member of a true branch of the church. For one must be under oversight and authority of the Elders of the church. Membership is akin to be Covenanting together as saints.

In order to be a member or covenanted together, one must be baptized into the faith. By making a credible profession of Faith and is examined by the elders of the church to be credible one takes the step into the waters of baptism and joins the invisible church and the visible church that he covenants with.

In order to be baptized and added to the church and partake of the Lord's Supper one must be adult for a few reasons..

1. Children are tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, even correct doctrine without a changed heart. Children can make a profession of faith, but not a credible profession of faith. We call our children to repentence and if they tell us they have repentented we tell them good, keep calling on the name of the Lord. But we tell them they must wait to join the church and be baptized...

2. Children can not join the church, otherwise they will have to vote for issues in the church which they cannot understand, even exocommunication cases. Which is an act of Membership. And because they can not be called by the elders to be exocommunicated for their actions when it should be left to the parents until they are of age with the help of the elders. If they can become members they can also bring up charges against people and elders which they lack the wisdom.

If one is baptized, he is a member of the church. You can not baptize and withhold church membership. That is illogical. You can not have your cake and eat it at the same time.

Now we have seen the order for one to partake of the Lord's Supper..

*Adult, Credible Profession of Faith, Baptism, Church Membership (Covenanting), Partaking of the Lord's Supper...*

This is the Ordo, the order and prerequistes for the Lord's Supper.

Now for the rest...

One must examine himself and confess his sins if any are present before partaking of the Lord's Supper..

One must be a member in Good standing of a true church in order to partake.

One must not be under church censure from his Covenanted Church.

One must ready himself spiritually, and within the heart.

And if Visiting a church, the all above apply with the addition of being made know to the elders of the church and give a confession of faith to the elders.

As for your presbyterian friend.. That is a scary answer he gave.... the Lord's Supper is a means of grace, not saving grace.. It is only a means of grace within the context of the true elect in Christ and the unbeliever who partakes is unworthy and will receive condemation.

One might be saved by watching the Lord's Supper since it is a visible view of the gospel, but one will not be saved by partaking and receiving grace from the Lord's Supper...

What he describes sounds to me like Federal Vision Theology, that the Sacraments become saving grace.... Scary.....


Michael






thunaer said:


> How about this answer!
> 
> The Elect who are believers who have been baptised and are in covenant as members at a true visable branch of the church who are adults since children are able to make a profession of faith but not a credible profession of faith, which in our circles is normally over 17 years of age, and who are not in Sin or under church censure. One who readies himself and confesses his sins.
> 
> ...


----------



## JOwen (May 15, 2007)

We in the Free Reformed Churches stipulate that they must be baptized, confessing members, meaning having gone through the Confession of Faith Classes and have met with the elders and made public confession of faith. We have 9 such candidates this year ranging in age from 17-41. We have no magic number but it seems that late teens to early 20s is when most make confession.


----------



## jenney (May 15, 2007)

Michael,

I agree with you entirely on both of your posts. I just didn't mention it before because I was just delighted to see you lurking about. But when you're here, all I ever seem to say is "ditto" and "amen" and "I agree" which makes me rather redundant! Sorry you are not feeling 100%.

So, the Lord's Supper is for believers? And they need to be obedient unto baptism as well as current church membership, correct?

It really is _not_ for those who do not believe. Is this only a credobaptist position? Or do Presbyterians hold to this as well? Where're Rich or Paul Manata when you need 'em? Pastor Winzer? Pastor McMahon? David Pell? Wayne Wylie? Maybe if I'd posted this in the baptism forum with a title like, "paedobaptists are in sin" then it would get more attention from the presbyterians. But honesty compelled me otherwise and some moderator would just move it!


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (May 15, 2007)

jenney said:


> Rev. McMahon,
> When we say, "Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament" are we implying that it is for them? That it is not only fine for them to be there, but that they belong there at the table?
> 
> Or is it really for the believing and these wicked ignorant men are there improperly?
> ...


 
The sacrament is for the covenant community, but the BENEFITS of the sacraments will only be applied to the elect, in either baptism or the Supper. So even though wicked men in the outward covenant community take it (and we don't who is or who is not infallibly) only those who are elect will reap the actual benefits of the sacrament and grace associated with it.

I didn't quote those parts of the confession because you specifically asked who "takes" it or is allowed to take it, or those "intended" to take it.

The answer would be as it had always been "those of the covenant community."

JOwens nicely put forth a simple overview of how his church deals with those allowed to partake.

In the same manner, the RPCGA works it this way, and this is under the administration of the Lord's Supper:

C 2:7 Administration of Sacrament of the Lord's Supper 
A. The Lord's Supper is to be celebrated frequently; but how often, may be considered and determined by the pastors of each congregation, as they shall find it most convenient for the comfort and edification of the people committed to their charge, in accordance with B 10:8B. Where this sacrament cannot with convenience be frequently administered, it is requisite that a public warning be given on the Sabbath prior to the receiving of the sacrament, together with an exhortation consisting of the teaching of the ordinance, and the preparation for and participation in the sacrament. 
B. When it is administered, it is to be done after the sermon. 
C. The ignorant and the scandalous are not fit to receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. 
D. This being done, prayer is also to be joined with Scripture, which establishes this institution (1 Corinthians 11:23-27) for sanctifying the bread and wine to this spiritual use. 
E. After all have received the sacrament, the elder may, in a few words, remind the communicants of the grace of God in Jesus Christ and exhort them to walk worthy of it. 
F. Then the elder shall give solemn thanks to God.​ 
The next question one asks is "What is a communicant member?"​ 
(Note: A communicant member would be those intended to partake of the Supper.)​ 
All members of the church, both communicants and non-communicants, are under the care of the church, and subject to ecclesiastical discipline.​ 
The session of a church, for each candidate, is to examine the communicant for communicant membership to assure itself, so far as possible, that the candidate: possesses the knowledge requisite for active faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; relies for salvation on the work of Christ; is trusting Christ for salvation; and is determined by the grace of God to lead a Christian life.​ 
Note - "as far as possible."​ 
Communicant members are recieved.​ 
I would agree with Michael that the Lord's Supper is not a means of some kind of halfway covenant as Solomon Stoddard tried to convince Jonathan Edwards. The Supper is "intended for grow, not birth." Baptism is for birth, the Supper is for growth, or sanctification. It is intedned for the covenant community, but effectual only for the elect. For the non-elect, it assists in the curses of God upon those who partake unworthily.​


----------



## Herald (May 15, 2007)

> I would agree with Michael that the Lord's Supper is not a means of some kind of halfway covenant as Solomon Stoddard tried to convince Jonathan Edwards. The Supper is "intended for grow, not birth." Baptism is for birth, the Supper is for growth, or sanctification. It is intedned for the covenant community, but effectual only for the elect. For the non-elect, it assists in the curses of God upon those who partake unworthily.



Matt - interesting paragraph. In one of the baptism threads I believe brother Rich and brother Larry pointed towards baptism as a sign of hope for the believer. A believer is able to point towards their baptism in their struggle against sin. That view didn't resonate with me, but if it is transferred to the Lord's Supper I would heartily concur. 

We celebrate the Lord's Supper weekly. For me it is a time to reflect on Christ's sacrifice on my behalf. I am confronted with my sinfulness which results in my confession and repentance. Each time the Lord's Supper is celebrated it is a reminder of how my union with Christ was accomplished. It is a great encouragement to me, more so than baptism.


----------



## larryjf (May 15, 2007)

Only those who repent of their sin, believe in Christ for salvation, and love their fellow man.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 15, 2007)

I don't disagree at all (obviously) with the WCF on this. There is something that ought to be highlighted again:


> Q172: May one who doubteth of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation, come to the Lord's supper?
> A172: One who doubteth of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation to the sacrament of the Lord's supper, may have true interest in Christ, though he be not yet assured thereof;[1] and in God's account hath it, if he be duly affected with the apprehension of the want of it,[2] and unfeignedly desires to be found in Christ,[3] and to depart from iniquity:[4] in which case (because promises are made, and this sacrament is appointed, for the relief even of weak and doubting Christians)[5] he is to bewail his unbelief,[6] and labor to have his doubts resolved;[7] and, so doing, he may and ought to come to the Lord's supper, that he may be further strengthened.[8]


There is a tendency for some to turn examination into a tortured affair. Self-examination is not supposed to be some private enterprise where a weak and tempted believer is supposed to guage his worthiness to come to the Sacrament for strength based on the strength of his faith. We come to the Table as beggars each and every time. If worthiness be measured on whether our hearts ever waver then none of us would be ever worthy to approach. 

There is, then, a danger of making the Table a place of Law where a man measures his worthiness based on his actual righteousness for the week. Some are always found wanting because the honest and redeemed will always find themselves coming short if that is the true bar. The Table will then be only a place for hypocrites who are found to be right in their own eyes with respect of the demands for obedience.

I believe, then, that the right use of examination is whether or not the person is scandolously unrepentant of sin and is actually a Church discipline issue. It is in the context of Church discipline that Paul warns members about examination as well as putting out the members who are scandalous among them. If Church discipline were in place in Corinth then none of those people would have ever had the consent of their overseers to behave in such a scandalous manner around the Table.

Thus, if Church discipline is functioning properly then there never ought to be a torturous process of whether or not a person is a "worthy recipient". The tender of heart and weak will always be grieved by sin to the point that they will believe God's displeasure rests upon them. They need to grow to see that God redeemed them while they were yet His enemies and His disposition towards them is to save His friends to the uttermost. They should be reminded to believe the Gospel that saves the unworthy and be enjoined to come to the Table to feed upon Christ for the strengthening of their faith.


----------



## Herald (May 15, 2007)

The 1689 LBC states:



> All persons who participate at the Lord's table unworthily sin against the body and blood of the Lord, and their eating and drinking brings them under divine judgment. It follows,therefore, that all ignorant and ungodly persons, being unfit to enjoy fellowship with Christ, are similarly unworthy to be communicants at the Lord's table; and while they remain as they are they cannot rightly be admitted to partake of Christ's holy ordinance, for thereby great sin against Christ would be committed.



In principle I agree with Rich. Examination need not be an act of torture whereby an individual suffers weekly. Those who are living in gross sin, worthy of church discipline, certainly should abstain from the supper. That said, a right view of repentance (a continual confession and forsaking of sin) should allow a professed believer to be a communicant at the Lord's table. Since the Lord's Supper is a means of grace and strengthening, it should not be denied to those who are struggling against sin.


----------



## jenney (May 16, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Examination need not be an act of torture whereby an individual suffers weekly. Those who are living in gross sin, worthy of church discipline, certainly should abstain from the supper.



I agree with this entirely, and have to point out that I've never known of someone in gross sin who is tormented by the question, "should I partake?" It is only those who struggle with assurance who wonder. The wrong ones are the ones wondering! People in gross sin either insist they are fine or avoid the table altogether.

It isn't why I asked the question, but I appreciate Rich and Bill's worthy note that examination shouldn't be a self-inflicted torment. Sometimes I think people who worry overmuch about the examination aspect are legalistic in their interpretation, that is, they think they must add something to their righteousness in Christ in order to partake, an extra penance or something.

(Sorry to be off-topic in my own thread! But not sorry enough to delete.)


----------



## jenney (May 16, 2007)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> The sacrament is for the covenant community, but the BENEFITS of the sacraments will only be applied to the elect, in either baptism or the Supper.



If the sacrament is for the covenant community, then why do infants not partake? Is it really only for the "members of the covenant community who are capable of self examination"?

Thanks for the patient answers everyone!


----------



## Herald (May 16, 2007)

jenney said:


> If the sacrament is for the covenant community, then why do infants not partake? Is it really only for the "members of the covenant community who are capable of self examination"?
> 
> Thanks for the patient answers everyone!



Jenny - I won't answer for Matthew, but I will answer for myself.

The 1689 LBC states:



> Furthermore, since man, by reason of his fall into sin, had brought himself under the curse of God's law, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, in which He freely offers life and salvation by Jesus Christ to sinners. On their part He requires faith in Him that they may be saved, and promises to give His Holy Spirit to all those who are elected unto eternal life, in order that they may be made willing and able to believe.
> 
> Gen. 2:17; Ps. 110:3; Ezek. 36:26,27; Mark 16:15,16; John 3:16; 6:44,45; Rom. 3:20,21; 8:3; Gal. 3:10.
> 
> ...



In order for an individual to be part of the covenant they must have exercised faith in Christ. This is the only covenant that matters in respect to the individuals standing before God. I suppose it is possible for an unbeliever to exist within the covenant community while not being "in covenant" themselves. But therein is the crux of the matter. They are not "in covenant" with God even though they may attach themselves to the covenant community.


----------



## jenney (May 16, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> In order for an individual to be part of the covenant they must have exercised faith in Christ. This is the only covenant that matters in respect to the individuals standing before God. I suppose it is possible for an unbeliever to exist within the covenant community while not being "in covenant" themselves. But therein is the crux of the matter. They are not "in covenant" with God even though they may attach themselves to the covenant community.



Well, I agree with you, but then, I'm a baptist. 

It is the same argument that we use for baptism when paedobaptists say, "but you don't know who are truly believers! So if the sacrament is for believers only, then how do you know to whom to give it???" and we say the same thing we _both_ seem to be saying about the Lord's Supper.

I'm having trouble understanding why paedobaptists always come back to that question as if it is a trump card, when it seems to be the precise way they treat the Lord's Supper. That's why I'm so confused about the whole thing. I must be misunderstanding something!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 16, 2007)

Jenney,

I misunderstood the question. You're wondering, with your Baptistic understanding of Church initiation, how it is that any privilege within the Church can be denied any who have been initiated into membership.

Because a Baptist conflates the sign with the thing signified, supposing by profession that they have a guarantor of pure membership by waiting until adult profession, they assure themselves that they have now an unpolluted body of those who will be able to partake of the Supper.

Here is the ironic thing, however. You guys don't actually believe that Baptism joins a man or woman to the New Covenant.

But the Supper replaces the Passover, which was a Covenant renewal rite.

Thus, although the sign you wait to give to a man/woman upon profession does not grant them membership to the Covenant. Only an invisible regeneration and seal (according to your view) which you cannot see gives them invisible membership to the Covenant and only God keeps those rolls.

Baptists, therefore, have no grounds upon which to celebrate the Lord's Supper with one another because you do not know who you are in Covenant with so you can celebrate a Supper that represents a Covenant renewal rite.

Now, I suppose you would like me to explain how we Presbyterians view this so you can make sense of why the Lord's Supper is celebrated at all.

Baptism initiates into membership into the visible Church and signifies the real spiritual union, which only the elect enjoy instrumentally by faith in Christ.

Yet the Lord's Supper is not a Sacrament for the entire visible Church as evidenced even by Paul warning that there are those that should not be partaking of it. It is a Sacrament for _worthy_ recipients - those who, _by self-examination_ are able to come to the Table and _discern_ the Body.

Children cannot examine themselves nor are they mature enough to examine the body and blood of Christ. It's that simple. It says nothing of their personal sin or wretchedness but simply of their capacity to apprehend Spiritual truth at a young age. The reason for Baptizing a child, in fact, is to initiate into a visible Body in which the young can mature in their understanding to come to the place where they embrace the faith of the community in a mature fashion.

When my son sees the bread and wine, he asks "What's that?" He simply cannot understand if I explain what he is doing if I give it to him. He's likely to play with it or fight over it with his little sister.

This is also completely consistent with the OT celebration of the Passover. Only the men of Israel were commanded to go up to the Tabernacle during the Passover while women and children typically remained behind. Christ's first Passover was celebrated in Jerusalem at age 12.

The whole thing makes much more sense if people balance their systematics and their practical theology. From a practical theological standpoint, immature people need to grow in understanding and believers do not just sprout from pagans to mature Christians as they progress from childhood to adulthood. I've repeatedly challenged Baptists from a practical theological standpoint because their systematic theology dominates their speaking but their actions belie how they really treat their children and they cannot give account for it. It's the reason they have to physicalize and de-spiritualize circumcision to account for how something that signified the Gospel (that could only be apprehended by the regenerate) could be applied to every male child.

Ironically, in the end, your question poses more problems for your celebration of the Lord's Supper. Who _are_ the worthy recipients of a Covenant renewal rite in a Church that has no means of recognizing who is in the New Covenant?


----------



## Iconoclast (May 16, 2007)

*you have done it again*

Rich,,you said the following;
Baptism initiates into membership into the visible Church and signifies the real spiritual union, which only the elect enjoy instrumentally by faith in Christ.

The bible says that The Spirit baptism does this ;
12For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 

13For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 

It does not say "the visible church" as if there are many other kinds,,,a church is a church when it visibly assembles. furthermore in verse 18 it says;

18But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him
God sets the members,not water baptism. You then say:

Yet the Lord's Supper is not a Sacrament for the entire visible Church as evidenced even by Paul warning that there are those that should not be partaking of it. It is a Sacrament for worthy recipients - those who, by self-examination are able to come to the Table and discern the Body.

Children cannot examine themselves nor are they mature enough to examine the body and blood of Christ. It's that simple. It says nothing of their personal sin or wretchedness but simply of their capacity to apprehend Spiritual truth at a young age. The reason for Baptizing a child, in fact, is to initiate into a visible Body in which the young can mature in their understanding to come to the place where they embrace the faith of the community in a mature fashion.
Again it is not their young age, or old age that enables them to embrace the faith,,,,it is the sovereign work of God's Spirit,,,without which they will never have truth. You consistently,,,in my opinion,,,, overlook this but then throw in a - well it is only effectual for the elect- to cover your belief system./
I believe everyone on the PB would defend the five points. [ none of the elect will perish] Yet, there seems to me to be an inconsistency in the writings concerning covenant promises,and covenant children.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 16, 2007)

Anthony,

1. Please learn how to use the quote feature.
2. Please stop super-adding commas. It's very hard to follow your arguments with a bunch of strange punctuation thrown in.


Iconoclast said:


> Rich,,you said the following;
> Baptism initiates into membership into the visible Church and signifies the real spiritual union, which only the elect enjoy instrumentally by faith in Christ.
> 
> The bible says that The Spirit baptism does this ;
> ...


I did not state that water baptism effected spiritual union with Christ. Spiritual union occurs only as the work of the Holy Spirit. 

OK, Anthony, let's run with your little paradigm here and show how absurd your conclusion is regarding *local Church membership*. Everyone else pay attention because you're going to see how the lack of an ability to balance the systematic with the practical is going to play out here.

Anthony, assuming that "...only the Spirit..." joins a person to the Church, who else, besides you, is in the Church?



> You then say:
> 
> Yet the Lord's Supper is not a Sacrament for the entire visible Church as evidenced even by Paul warning that there are those that should not be partaking of it. It is a Sacrament for worthy recipients - those who, by self-examination are able to come to the Table and discern the Body.
> 
> ...



Again, Anthony, who is in the Church. Who are you in Covenant with? Who is a proper recipient of the Lord's Table if only members of the New Covenant can participate?

Now, in your answer, I'd like a list of at least 10 names - real flesh and blood people - that you believe are proper recipients of the Lord's Supper.

They need to be actual members remember. They need to have been regenerated by the sovereign work of God's Spirit. Please list those names for me and then we can start to have a practical dialogue about how you know they are elect, members of the true Church, and therefore worthy recipients of the Lord's Table.


----------



## Iconoclast (May 16, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Rich,you said:
> 
> 1. Please learn how to use the quote feature.
> 2. Please stop super-adding commas. It's very hard to follow your arguments with a bunch of strange punctuation thrown in.
> ...



Rich I would list the members in my church. Each member. I am not to do the work of God in knowing a persons heart. I am however to carry out all the one another responsibilities that the Nt. instructs believers to do.
I am in covenant with God by His mercy and grace with all who call upon Him out of a true heart.
It seems to me [everyone else pay attention} that you might have trouble obeying the rest of 1 Cor 12;
19And if they were all one member, where were the body? 

20But now are they many members, yet but one body. 

21And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. 

22Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: 

23And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. 

24For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked. 

25That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. 

26And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. 

27Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. 

If someone is in the membership who is self decieved,God is their judge. Not you or me. The text does not say we cannot know 100% who are elect so therefore just give up on it. 
Earlier in 1Cor 5:11 Paul speaks of a person who is called a brother,but is need of church discipline. That is what Church discipline is for.
Are we infallable in this? If we cannot be 100% sure of his heart condition should we not obey the command for church discipline? Or does it not say to put away that wicked person from you? This seems to indicate that the members are to discern someone among them is unrepentant and wicked and needs to be put away from[ you].


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 16, 2007)

Anthony,

I wrote:


SemperFideles said:


> Again, Anthony, who is in the Church. Who are you in Covenant with? Who is a proper recipient of the Lord's Table if only members of the New Covenant can participate?
> 
> Now, in your answer, I'd like a list of at least 10 names - real flesh and blood people - that you believe are proper recipients of the Lord's Supper.
> 
> They need to be actual members remember. They need to have been regenerated by the sovereign work of God's Spirit. Please list those names for me and then we can start to have a practical dialogue about how you know they are elect, members of the true Church, and therefore worthy recipients of the Lord's Table.


To which you replied.


Iconoclast said:


> Rich I would list the members in my church. Each member. I am not to do the work of God in knowing a persons heart. I am however to carry out all the one another responsibilities that the Nt.



Pay attention everyone.

Notice how Anthony starts out by saying that there's only invisible Church but then when I ask him who he is in Covenant with (remember the New Covenant is only the ELECT), he says that everyone in his Church is in that Covenant.

Really?!

Everyone is Elect?

He then probably noticed the practical difficulty that his misinterpretation gets him into and tries to get around it by quoting a passage that deals with Church discipline because he knows that his systematics are quite impossible to live out.

BUT...

If you cannot know who is Elect then you can't know who is a Covenant member.

I asked you how you know how to administer the Lord's Supper. Even an unregenerate person can fake it. I don't dispute that members ought to be put out but it's pretty problematic when you have no way of judging who members are to begin with because the rolls are all kept in heaven.

If we're Baptists, Anthony, there is no visible Covenant. There is only invisible. Thus, your Scriptural quote for discernment makes no sense because it speaks of members as visible entities and discerning visible sins of visible people that you're refusing or admitting to the Table.

How do you account for this?


----------



## Iconoclast (May 16, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Anthony,
> 
> I wrote:
> 
> ...



Rich, It is you who use the term invisible church. I do not. A church or assembly is a church when it visibly assembles.
Jesus body [the church] really assembles quite visibly. Then you say:



> Really?!
> 
> Everyone is Elect?


Yes Rich.Everyone that God has set in the body,is elect and visibly assemble.
As in the parable Rich [ pay attention everyone] when [non elect] tares are found among the [elect]wheat ie, [the visible church]. Jesus taught that an enemy has done this [ not God]
27So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? 

28He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 

29But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 

30Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. 

So ultimately Rich the visible church had those who were placed among them by the enemy,and yet they were never a part of God's visible church now where they? God did not place them there evidently. Then you say:



> He then probably noticed the practical difficulty that his misinterpretation gets him into and tries to get around it by quoting a passage that deals with Church discipline because he knows that his systematics are quite impossible to live out.


Not a difficulty Rich. [pay attention everyone]

1 John 2:19 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

19They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

I understand the us here to be visible saints who are in actual union with Christ. So does John. Those who go out were never part of the Body described in 1 Cor.12, or ephesians 5 or anywhere else. Then you say:




> BUT...
> 
> If you cannot know who is Elect then you can't know who is a Covenant member.


I say:
We can all know that God has His elect sheep. We can all know who they are.
Yes. They are described in Jn 6|:37-44
37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 

38For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 

39And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 

40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 

41The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. 

42And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? 

43Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 

44No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 

45It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
Not one more,not one less. That is why we are all urged to make our calling and election sure. I do not recall being told I am responsible to know all the elect before heaven. |But it clearly says that they will all be taught of God.

Next you said:




> I asked you how you know how to administer the Lord's Supper. Even an unregenerate person can fake it. I don't dispute that members ought to be put out but it's pretty problematic when you have no way of judging who members are to begin with because the rolls are all kept in heaven




We know how to administer the Lord's supper by following the teaching of Paul in scripture in 1 Cor 11. Each person is to again examine himself, not examine each other,with the caution about those who eat unworthily subject to the judgements described. God will judge those who eat in an unworthy manner.


Then you say:


> If we're Baptists, Anthony, there is no visible Covenant. There is only invisible.




No Rich.There is a visible church.God's body. Who is the deacons and elders of this invisible church you keep speaking about? Where does this invisible church assemble? When and if they do assemble I would think they would be quite visible.

Then you asked:



> Thus, your Scriptural quote for discernment makes no sense because it speaks of members as visible entities and discerning visible sins of visible people that you're refusing or admitting to the Table.
> 
> How do you account for this?



I think I just did If I am wrong and you have the time I am willing to be corrected scripturally

Ps. I do not know how to get the quote in the nice little white box? can someone tell me where I can see how to do this?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 16, 2007)

Any Baptists who understand how Anthony fell down are welcome to try and pick up the pieces. Late here and I won't be back online for quite some time. Have fun!


----------



## Coram Deo (May 16, 2007)

Thanks you jenney. It is refreshing to me to still see common belief shared in Reformed Baptist circles.. They seem to be faultering lately.  So much unOrthodoxy has been creeping in, and many beliefs contrary to the 1689 confession.

To answer your questions... Yes, the Lord's Supper is for believers, and they need to be obedient unto baptism, as well as current church membership. and the Lord's Supper is not for non believers to partake.


Michael




jenney said:


> Michael,
> 
> But when you're here, all I ever seem to say is "ditto" and "amen" and "I agree" which makes me rather redundant! Sorry you are not feeling 100%.
> 
> ...


----------



## Coram Deo (May 16, 2007)

I agree Jenney. If one is going to practice paedobaptism because of continuity sake, one must be consistent and also practice paedocommunion for continuity sake.. I believe it is exodus 12 or 13 where very young children are partaking of the passover.

Our Paedobaptist brethren would then go on to argue that the Lord's Supper requires examination for which young children can not.
I agree, but I also agree the same for Paedobaptism. Repent and Believe (Examination) followed by and be baptist in the Lord.

Michael



jenney said:


> Well, I agree with you, but then, I'm a baptist.
> 
> It is the same argument that we use for baptism when paedobaptists say, "but you don't know who are truly believers! So if the sacrament is for believers only, then how do you know to whom to give it???" and we say the same thing we _both_ seem to be saying about the Lord's Supper.
> 
> I'm having trouble understanding why paedobaptists always come back to that question as if it is a trump card, when it seems to be the precise way they treat the Lord's Supper. That's why I'm so confused about the whole thing. I must be misunderstanding something!


----------



## Coram Deo (May 16, 2007)

Rich,

I agree with you that church membership is never fully 100 % pure. It is part of the New Covenant Paradigm the now/not yet fulliment of the New Covenant of the "All shall know me"

That still does not deny that we need to make discernment "as much as possible" of who is in covenant.

The All shall know me clause have been initiated, have started, being fullfilled but not completed and pure until comsummation.

Just because it is imperfect now does not mean we throw credobaptism out. It is sorta like Sanctification. Our Sanctification is imperfect now, but has been initiated and is progressively being filled and not perfected until consummation. The Same goes for "They shall ALL know me". But in our imperfect state, we baptize on a credible profession of faith, but it is not without error which is what church censures are for....


Michael






SemperFideles said:


> Anthony,
> 
> 1. Please learn how to use the quote feature.
> 2. Please stop super-adding commas. It's very hard to follow your arguments with a bunch of strange punctuation thrown in.
> ...


----------



## turmeric (May 16, 2007)

Iconoclast said:


> Ps. I do not know how to get the quote in the nice little white box? can someone tell me where I can see how to do this?



Well, don't feel bad, I don't know how to get the whole dialogue to come out when I quote. But the little white box is, I think, a mystery of vB code, to wit; place the word QUOTE inside these [] and then at the end you put /QUOTE, again inside these [].
vB code


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 16, 2007)

Its interesting to me to note, once again, that the two "all or nothing" positions only see each other as "consistent", and confessional presbyterians are somehow floating around in neverland, unable to land in one of the "consistencies". Which would be, on that rubric, the baptist (all by profession) and the paedocommunionist (all by not-profession).

But who came up with the principle: "covenant membership determines elegibilbity to the sacraments/ordinances (baptist)"? Was it presbyterians? No. *That position is not to be found anyplace in our confessional beliefs.* Baptists believe it, though. That's why they restrict baptism to professors, because they teach that profession alone confers membership. Paedocommunionists believe it too. That's why they insist on giving the Supper to all members.

To me, the very principle stated is an alien concept. I don't understand why so many Baptists think we OUGHT to practice paedocommunion, _except that I realize that they are not comprehending the presbyterian position, but are superimposing their view of membership on presbyterian practice._

By way of example, take citizenship in the USA. If we take the Baptist argument (against presbyterian exclusion of infants) and apply it to the question of citizenship, then we might ask: *if you are a citizen, why not to let 17 year olds, or 7 year olds for that matter, VOTE?* Isn't it _inconsitent_ not to let them have all the privileges of citizenship? *How about driving?* Somehow, its not hard to comprehend the question of voting or driving as a measure of maturity in the world, but its PUZZLING (!?) that an exam is necessary for access to the Supper in the church?

As for the Passover, two issues need to be recognized. 1) the issue of the difference between the Passover event itself, and the _memorial_ Passover meal. 2) The persons eligible for the memorial Passover.

One could make an argument that everyone, even the young, who might not be real meat-eaters yet, were nevertheless participants in the first Passover by necessity. But the passages that teach the Memorial meal clearly designate who is elligible (it's not everyone). Just take Ex.12:25ff. "When you are come into the land,... and your sons say unto you: 'What do you mean by this act of worship,' you shall say..." I read that as an _observer's_ question, not a participant's.

Rich already pointed out that the males were required to go and eat at the tabernacle/temple, not the women and children. The sons eventually had to go when they were of age. And note is made of Jesus' first visit to Jerusalem at Passover time. What was he doing sitting with the elders? The presbyterian answer is simple: he was being examined. Approximately 1/4 of the female population would have been unclean every year at Passover; they could not participate (assuming they were not excluded altogether). So, it is by no means evident that the sacramental meal was for the children.

So as far as consistency goes, there ought to be some acknowledgement that presbyterians are serious about their efforts at it, if one grants that the testimony of the Bible itself ought to be the rule for consistency, and not an assumed "like manner" kind of consistency. Note too, that as far as _increased participation/elligibility_ we are also consistent. Women (at best, assuming they weren't barred) were sporadic participants in Passover. They weren't circumcised (which was a Passover requirement). And now, they are baptized as well as men, nor is there any more "ceremonial uncleanness" keeping them from participation, and thus they also belong at the Supper.


----------



## Iconoclast (May 16, 2007)

*Who should partake?*

Jenny,
Speaking to those who have come together in church,Paul in 1Cor11:24 says this;
24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
It was those who Jesus had died for. It was those who keep it in remembrance of Him,as often as they do it. It was also for those capable of self examination as in verse 28.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 16, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Its interesting to me to note, once again, that the two "all or nothing" positions only see each other as "consistent", and confessional presbyterians are somehow floating around in neverland, unable to land in one of the "consistencies". Which would be, on that rubric, the baptist (all by profession) and the paedocommunionist (all by not-profession).
> 
> But who came up with the principle: "covenant membership determines elegibilbity to the sacraments/ordinances (baptist)"? Was it presbyterians? No. *That position is not to be found anyplace in our confessional beliefs.* Baptists believe it, though. That's why they restrict baptism to professors, because they teach that profession alone confers membership. Paedocommunionists believe it too. That's why they insist on giving the Supper to all members.
> 
> ...


----------



## Herald (May 16, 2007)

Brethren, allow me to inject a few thoughts from a Baptist perspective.

Anthony, the terms "visible" and "invisible" church are not owned by Presbyterians. They are accurate terms that define the spiritual character of individuals within the church. The visible church are all those who are physically part of the church. I would even stray into gray area for a Baptist and say that infants and children could be part of the visible church. Those who are part of the visible church are not necessarily saved. They may be the most vile and reprobate of sinners, or they may be ignorant of the facts of the gospel (i.e. infants and children). 

The invisible church is made up of visible church members who are regenerate. These are individuals who have exercised repentance and faith in Christ alone. This is what the apostle meant when he wrote:



> Romans 9:6-8 6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 neither are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "through Isaac your descendants will be named." 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.



As finite beings we are unable to know _with certainty_ that all those who claim to be part of the invisible church are regenerate. I believe this is what brother Rich was getting at. It is for this reason that some churches practice closed communion. They wish to protect the sanctity of the sacrament. The problem is that even in a closed communion church there is no absolute guarantee that everyone who partakes is regenerate. 

Now, I am going to leave the visible and invisible church discussion within the context of the Lord's Supper thread. If we were discussing baptism then the visible/invisible church issue would take on a different flavor. 

Anthony, I hope this clears up (or at least makes sense) some of the confusion.


----------



## Kevin (May 16, 2007)

Thanks, Pastor Bruce.


----------



## jenney (May 16, 2007)

Pastor Buchanan,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.



Contra_Mundum said:


> But who came up with the principle: "covenant membership determines elegibilbity to the sacraments/ordinances (baptist)"?



I do not understand why the word "baptist" is in parentheses here. Do you mean that presbyterians do not believe that covenant membership determines eligibility?

The reason I thought it did was this quote from Pastor McMahon:


C. Matthew McMahon said:


> The sacrament is for the covenant community



The benefits are only for the believing, but all who are part of the community *by whatever means they have joined* and are not in gross sin are to partake.



> I don't understand why so many Baptists think we OUGHT to practice paedocommunion, _except that I realize that they are not comprehending the presbyterian position, but are superimposing their view of membership on presbyterian practice._



So I am not comprehending the presbyterian position. Okay, but then please do enlighten me because this is really at the heart of my confusion.



> By way of example, take citizenship in the USA. If we take the Baptist argument (against presbyterian exclusion of infants) and apply it to the question of citizenship, then we might ask: *if you are a citizen, why not to let 17 year olds, or 7 year olds for that matter, VOTE?* Isn't it _inconsitent_ not to let them have all the privileges of citizenship? *How about driving?* Somehow, its not hard to comprehend the question of voting or driving as a measure of maturity in the world, but its PUZZLING (!?) that an exam is necessary for access to the Supper in the church?


Dandy! Let's take the citizenship example.
My question then would be like this:
_the privilege of voting/Lord's Supper is reserved for whom?_

The answers I'd received so far seemed to be citizens/"covenant members" but really, it seems more like citizens over 18 who are not convicted felons/covenant members who are mature enough to examine themselves. Is that correct?

I don't mind that answer, but Rich was the first to have given it, and he hadn't given it yet when I last posted anything.



> What was he doing sitting with the elders? The presbyterian answer is simple: he was being examined.


Unlike the baptist position, which would be what? That he was filling out a decision card???

If you can help me please with the initial question, for whom is it _intended_? The cov't community? Those with faith? Those with faith who've examined themselves and are baptised members of the cov't community? Or ???

Thank you much,


----------



## jenney (May 16, 2007)

Rich,
I so appreciate you, brother, despite our disagreements, because I can always be certain you will clarify the point for me without making me feel stupid or demeaned.



SemperFideles said:


> I misunderstood the question. You're wondering, with your Baptistic understanding of Church initiation, how it is that any privilege within the Church can be denied any who have been initiated into membership.


No. That isn't what I'm asking with my conflation and Baptistic understanding.



> Because a Baptist conflates the sign with the thing signified, supposing by profession that they have a guarantor of pure membership by waiting until adult profession, they assure themselves that they have now an unpolluted body of those who will be able to partake of the Supper.


No again. This isn't what I suppose and it isn't what I'm assured. And I don't know any Baptist who believes there are no false brethren among us. At least not a Calvinist Baptist.

My initial question is this:
who is it for? I mean, is it for baptised _believers_ who are mature enough to discern and self-examine? Or is it for all members of the covenant community (which would mean small children, too)? Or is it for any who profess the Name? I don't mean pragmatically "who may take it?" I mean WHO IS IT INTENDED FOR? Is a false professor wrongly partaking?

The question isn't that complicated, but the answers seem to be.

Thank you again,


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 16, 2007)

Jenney,

Now _I'm_ confused. When I initially responded with who are worthy recipients (or clarified what it meant to not be barred from participation), you seemed to indicate that you wanted to know why Presbyterians don't let all Covenant members participate. You say to Bruce:


jenney said:


> So I am not comprehending the presbyterian position. Okay, but then please do enlighten me because this is really at the heart of my confusion.
> 
> 
> Dandy! Let's take the citizenship example.
> ...


I thought I had answered this for you:



> Baptism initiates into membership into the visible Church and signifies the real spiritual union, which only the elect enjoy instrumentally by faith in Christ.
> 
> *Yet the Lord's Supper is not a Sacrament for the entire visible Church as evidenced even by Paul warning that there are those that should not be partaking of it. It is a Sacrament for worthy recipients - those who, by self-examination are able to come to the Table and discern the Body.*
> 
> ...


I don't know how much clearer I can be.


jenney said:


> Rich,
> I so appreciate you, brother, despite our disagreements, because I can always be certain you will clarify the point for me without making me feel stupid or demeaned.
> 
> No. That isn't what I'm asking with my conflation and Baptistic understanding.


But, in fact, I believe it's because you're trying to look at this issue through a Baptist lens that you keep wondering why we're saying what we're saying. My statement was not intended as pejorative but my point is well made when Mike chimes in with: "The only consistent position is paedocommunion...."

I figure a guy who worships with Presbyterians would not be so grossly ignorant of our view of the Sacraments as that statement indicates. Thus, I thought it necessary for somebody who doesn't hang out with Presbyterians that you try and see how the Reformed have historically interpreted the significance of both Sacraments so you could see why we're saying what we are.

It's a matter of Scriptural interpretation in the end. Our Confessions differ on the significance of the Sacrament. It is quite begging the question to apply your view of Ordinances to our view of the Sacraments and then try to make sense of why our Sacramental view of the Lord's Supper doesn't fit with your view of Ordinances. Thus, I wanted you to take off your Baptist glasses for a second and see how Sacraments work according to our Confession and demonstrate the internal consistency in the matter.



> No again. This isn't what I suppose and it isn't what I'm assured. And I don't know any Baptist who believes there are no false brethren among us. At least not a Calvinist Baptist.


I know that. This is the practical theology speaking here but _notice discussions above that speak of the visible Church consisting of the elect alone._ Thus, if apostates are found, they were never part of the visible Church. Folks think they've escaped the invisible/visible Church problem but all they've done is make the visible Chuch invisible.

I do think the problem that some have is that they're not always thinking through the consequences of their statements. If the visible Church consists only of the Elect and false professors are simply "posers" and not _really_ part of the visible Church then the visible Church, for all intents and purposes, is invisible! 

Why? Because it is entirely possible that the elders, deacons, and members are all posers - false brethren. They may look real and act real but nobody knows they are regenerate.

This is the tension that exists in Baptist systematics that insists that the Sacraments (or Ordinances if you will) are somehow administered to the Elect alone or that the visible Church is with the Elect alone or the New Covenant is with the Elect alone. Take your pick. It still has no practical import on the here and now because the identitiy of the Elect are always hidden.

This says nothing, of course, about whether or not the _goal_ is a pure Church. Both parties heartily admit that. It only goes to the issue of whether the administration of the Sacraments is for the elect only. If that is the standard then they cannot be administered at all. Again, _intent_ is not the issue but whether the _standard_ for the Minister when he goes to administer cannot be election. The standard, in the case of the Lord's Supper, is _worthy recipients_. That's the simple answer. 

It can be no other for the minister because he cannot see the heart. He can evaluate fruit and may bar a man from the table for a season (ex-_communicate_ him) but that is not a declaration of reprobation. It is a judgment call based on fruit, interviews, admonitions, etc.

When Pastor McMahon points out that the Supper is for the Covenant Community I believe he is right on. He also showed that it is for worthy recipients within the Covenant Community. Regarding this issue, what I was pointing out to the Baptists on the board is that:

1. I believe that it is impossible to argue that the Lord's Supper is NOT for the Covenant Community.
2. That Baptists, therefore, have a problem because they do not _know_ who is in the Covenant Community.
3. Thus, Baptists have a problem living up to a systematic insistence on the composition of the Covenant community.

This is where Baptists get irate but I believe I'm warranted in insisting upon their systematic insistence here.

Why?

Because, when it comes to Baptism, they repeatedly assert that they don't want to corrupt New Covenant membership by admitting any who may not be in the New Covenant. Arguments of spirit baptism aside, the systematic complaint against the actual _practice_ of baptizing infants always appeals to Jeremiah 31. It doesn't appeal to practical theology but systematics over the inviolability of the New Covenant.

In fact, due to this systematic insistence, they argue that the Baptism that they wait to administer until _after_ profession does not, in fact, join a man to the New Covenant at all. This must be insisted, after all, because this would admit they would join apostates to the New Covenant in Baptism (however unintended). This cannot happen, they insist, because no false brother can be in the New Covenant. New Covenant membership is thus invisible whether or not you say it's the visible saints who are elect (as explained above).

Thus, because New Covenant membership is indeterminate in a Baptist theological framework, you cannot even determine the proper recipients for the Supper. Now is where you'll apply the practical theology of the Scriptures to over-ride your Systematic insistence. But in this is the inconsistency. If purity is to be insisted for New Covenant membership in one Sacrament it is quite arbitrary to grade on a curve for the Sacrament that signifies a Covenant memorial.

I know this is more than you asked for but things are not as easy as you would like them to be and so I apologize.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 16, 2007)

Iconoclast said:


> Everyone that God has set in the body,is elect and visibly assemble.
> As in the parable Rich [ pay attention everyone] when [non elect] tares are found among the [elect]wheat ie, [the visible church]. Jesus taught that an enemy has done this [ not God]
> 27So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
> 
> ...



Let's see the end of the matter, shall we:


> 36Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
> 
> 37He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
> 
> ...


What is the field Anthony?


----------



## Herald (May 16, 2007)

Rich - the conundrum (re: who is worthy to partake) is not a Baptist distinctive. I don't believe it represented a problem for the framers of the L.B.C. either.

You said:



> When Pastor McMahon points out that the Supper is for the Covenant Community I believe he is right on.



In explaining the Baptist problem with the idea of a covenant community you state:



> Because, when it comes to Baptism, they repeatedly assert that they don't want to corrupt New Covenant membership by admitting any who may not be in the New Covenant.



The closest definition of the covenant community I could find in this thread was made my Matt McMahon:



> The sacrament is for the covenant community, but the BENEFITS of the sacraments will only be applied to the elect, in either baptism or the Supper. So even though wicked men in the outward covenant community take it (and we don't who is or who is not infallibly) only those who are elect will reap the actual benefits of the sacrament and grace associated with it.



Matt uses the phrase, "outward covenant community." Does the word "outward" contrast an _inward_ covenant community? And if so, are these two definitions the same as the visible and invisible church? If so, I don't believe there needs to be a disagreement with Baptists, at least in principle. 

Now, if we say that the Lord's Supper is for the entire covenant community (I'm supposing there is an outward and an inward community), is that the same as saying that the Lord's Supper is for believers and unbelievers? But if that is true, what do we make of the words of Paul to the Corinthians?



> 1 Corinthians 11:26-28 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.



Is Paul writing to believers or unbelievers? It seems clear from the text that he is writing to believers. Does this mean that Paul was writing to the invisible within the visible? Or in other words, the inward within the outward? 

It is precisely because Paul commands the Corinthian believers to examine themselves that we proclaim the same admonition to all potential communicants before we celebrate the Lord's Supper. As a shepherd of the flock I believe that I will be held accountable in the manner in which I officiate the sacrament. That is another reason for the admonition. But just as in a Presbyterian church no man can be completely sure of the spiritual condition of another. 

You suggested that Baptists do not want to corrupt New Covenant membership by admitting those who may not be in the New Covenant. First and foremost, the New Covenant cannot be corrupted. There are corrupt people who claim the inward blessings of the covenant, but they have not corrupted the covenant itself. I don't know about other Baptist ministers, but when someone asks to become a member of our church we do not officiate as arbiters as to whether they are granted membership in the New Covenant. No, our concern is whether they give assent to exercising repentance and faith, are seeking to live a life obedient to scripture and have been baptized. 

Now, what if an individual is either ignorant of their spiritual condition or purposefully misstates the same. Are they part of the New Covenant. I would have to say, "no." They may be illegitimate partakers of the Covenant, but they are not part of the Covenant (Heb. 6:4-6). The Lord's Supper has the same dynamic. An individual may pass all the tests that we can administer to make sure he is worthy to partake of the Lord's Supper, but it is entirely possible that a reprobate may slip through unawares. Has the Lord's Supper been corrupted! μή γένοιτο May it never be! The Lord's Supper remains holy. Judas Iscariot did not corrupt the passover meal in the upper room. Judas was corrupt.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 16, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Now, if we say that the Lord's Supper is for the entire covenant community (I'm supposing there is an outward and an inward community), is that the same as saying that the Lord's Supper is for believers and unbelievers? But if that is true, what do we make of the words of Paul to the Corinthians?
> 
> Is Paul writing to believers or unbelievers? It seems clear from the text that he is writing to believers. Does this mean that Paul was writing to the invisible within the visible? Or in other words, the inward within the outward?


He is writing to the _Church_ at Corinth. Further, the Supper was instituted by Christ in the context of a Covenant memorial and He gave it a new meaning for the New Covenant people.

I actually predicted (to myself) that a Baptist would be forced to avoid Covenant language here. Because they cannot ascertain Covenant membership by their theology, neither Baptism nor the Lord's Supper can be events for the Covenant community. My argument, however, is that the fact that they _are_ for the Covenant community (even if a restricted audience in the case of the Lord's Supper) and so it presents a problem for the Baptist.



> It is precisely because Paul commands the Corinthian believers to examine themselves that we proclaim the same admonition to all potential communicants before we celebrate the Lord's Supper. As a shepherd of the flock I believe that I will be held accountable in the manner in which I officiate the sacrament. That is another reason for the admonition. But just as in a Presbyterian church no man can be completely sure of the spiritual condition of another.


Again, immaterial. My point is that you want to avoid Covenant renewal here because Covenant membership is hidden for you.



> You suggested that Baptists do not want to corrupt New Covenant membership by admitting those who may not be in the New Covenant. First and foremost, the New Covenant cannot be corrupted. There are corrupt people who claim the inward blessings of the covenant, but they have not corrupted the covenant itself. I don't know about other Baptist ministers, but when someone asks to become a member of our church we do not officiate as arbiters as to whether they are granted membership in the New Covenant. No, our concern is whether they give assent to exercising repentance and faith, are seeking to live a life obedient to scripture and have been baptized.


Thank you for writing this. I will quote you the next time a Baptism thread comes up and somebody argues for believers-only baptism on the basis of Hebrews 6 or Jeremiah 31 and says something like: "But the New Covenant can't be violated..." as an argument. You make my point well that this is an invalid argument and yet it dominates Reformed Baptist literature as the penultimate reason for credo-baptism.



> Now, what if an individual is either ignorant of their spiritual condition or purposefully misstates the same. Are they part of the New Covenant. I would have to say, "no." They may be illegitimate partakers of the Covenant, but they are not part of the Covenant (Heb. 6:4-6). The Lord's Supper has the same dynamic. An individual may pass all the tests that we can administer to make sure he is worthy to partake of the Lord's Supper, but it is entirely possible that a reprobate may slip through unawares. Has the Lord's Supper been corrupted! μή γένοιτο May it never be! The Lord's Supper remains holy. Judas Iscariot did not corrupt the passover meal in the upper room. Judas was corrupt.


Again, the issue of corruption is a peculiarly Baptist problem where they insist upon believers-only baptism on the basis, very regularly, of elect New Covenant membership. I never argued that one ought to be cavalier about approaching the Table unworthily. It _is_, however, a Covenant memorial meal for worthy recipients of the Covenant people. The only way you can make the admonition work is to wrest the Covenant completely out of the significance of the meal.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 16, 2007)

jenny said:


> Pastor Buchanan,
> Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
> 
> 
> ...


Two answers here:
1) (baptist) is in parenthesis because many baptists do not use the term "sacrament" but "ordinance". Otherwise we're talking about the same activities.
2) My point is that we don't believe the fact of covenant membership *alone* determines eligibility. Both Baptists and Paedocommunionists would say that it does, that it is sufficient.



jenny said:


> The reason I thought it did was this quote from Pastor McMahon:
> 
> 
> C. Matthew McMahon said:
> ...


This is true. It's not for anyone outside the community. That's why those outside are barred. But it doesn't follow that therefore, _everyone_ in the covenant community is eligible.



jenny said:


> The benefits are only for the believing, but all who are part of the community *by whatever means they have joined* and are not in gross sin are to partake.


That is your position. So, I think I represented it pretty accurately! Presbyterians are in disagreement with that sentence. Children were a part of the covenant community in the OT, and they didn't partake, so... that's a precedent.



jenny said:


> > I don't understand why so many Baptists think we OUGHT to practice paedocommunion, _except that I realize that they are not comprehending the presbyterian position, but are superimposing their view of membership on presbyterian practice._
> 
> 
> 
> So I am not comprehending the presbyterian position. Okay, but then please do enlighten me because this is really at the heart of my confusion.


We say the criteria for covenant membership, and for communion, are _different_. Why must they be identical? I know the paedocommunionist believes that along with the Baptist, but we don't. What is the biblical argument?



jenny said:


> > By way of example, take citizenship in the USA. If we take the Baptist argument (against presbyterian exclusion of infants) and apply it to the question of citizenship, then we might ask: *if you are a citizen, why not to let 17 year olds, or 7 year olds for that matter, VOTE?* Isn't it _inconsitent_ not to let them have all the privileges of citizenship? *How about driving?* Somehow, its not hard to comprehend the question of voting or driving as a measure of maturity in the world, but its PUZZLING (!?) that an exam is necessary for access to the Supper in the church?
> 
> 
> Dandy! Let's take the citizenship example.
> ...


True. The Bible itself sets the criteria, and it plainly demands examination. Self exam is absolutely requisite. And don't forget, _admission_ to the Table is just as much a *judicial* act as _excommunication_. It's the function of the church, the session. They "examine" who comes. With grown adults, that would be their profession of faith, and request for membership; it could also be a re-exam, if church discipline was applied. For children of professing members, it's also their own profession of faith. But in our churches, the children of believers are already members.



jenny said:


> I don't mind that answer, but Rich was the first to have given it, and he hadn't given it yet when I last posted anything.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I... don't know. But I was not under the impression that "examination for admission to the Covenant meal by a covenant child" (bar mitzvah anyone?) was the baptist view of Jesus 12th year journey to Jerusalem. 



jenny said:


> If you can help me please with the initial question, for whom is it _intended_? The cov't community? Those with faith? Those with faith who've examined themselves and are baptised members of the cov't community? Or ???
> 
> Thank you much,


Have I answered well enough?
Blessings,


----------



## Iconoclast (May 16, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Let's see the end of the matter, shall we:
> 
> What is the field Anthony?



Rich, 
Clearly it says the field is the world. Then it just as clearly says the good seed are the children of the kingdom. The tares are the children of the wicked one as I have already posted.
The field is the world. Rich when you discuss particular redemption with someone have you ever pointed out Jn 11:50-52, in relation to 1 jn2:2
50Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. 

51And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; 

52And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad
I understand the field being the world in the sense of us obeying MT28:19-20 
I am not sure of how you are thinking of this parable by offering me these verses.
Do you have a different understanding of these things?
I am not clear what you are saying here.

P.S. Bill thank you for your help. I understand that many use the term invisible/visible to describe the church. Also the term universal church,or the body. I in no way pretend to speak for all baptists here. I should perhaps open a thread to discuss this topic in eccleisology. 
I do not know if my position has a title[ I am sure it must]
But I believe in a strong view of the local visible church. That is that it functions as it assembles. I will post a new thread on this.
The assembly that Hebrews 12:22-24 says we have come to will not fully assemble until the last day.


----------



## G.Wetmore (May 16, 2007)

I, like the other reformed believers here, believe that although an infant ought to be baptized, he ought not recieve the supper until he can discern it. Saying this, though, I believe that a child can do that at a very young age. I always get annoyed at reformed Christians who put an age limit on communion. They think that no person under 13 or 14 (some say even older) could legitimately qualify for the supper. This is nonsense. If a young child believes that Jesus died for him, saving him from his sins, and he understands what the bread and wine represent, then who can legitimately restrict him from the sacrament? He may not have the same understanding of an adult, but this ought not cause him to be barred. The Bible doesn't set a level of understanding, he can simply understand at the level of a child. Therefore, although I am by no means a paedocommunionist, I would have no problem with a 5 year old partaking the supper who could discern it (at a five year old level).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 17, 2007)

Iconoclast said:


> Yes Rich.Everyone that God has set in the body,is elect and visibly assemble.
> As in the parable Rich [ pay attention everyone] when [non elect] tares are found among the [elect]wheat ie, [the visible church]. Jesus taught that an enemy has done this [ not God]





Iconoclast said:


> Rich,
> Clearly it says the field is the world. Then it just as clearly says the good seed are the children of the kingdom. The tares are the children of the wicked one as I have already posted.


Let me explain how things work on this board Anthony so you can determine for yourself if you want to continue to participate.

1. When you accuse another Brother of ad hominem attacks and are caught being lazy in your reading then you retract your fallacious charges.

2. When you state one thing you are not permitted to say that you stated another.

You inferred that the field was the Church in the first quote above within the context of establishing a view of the Church. The passage is not about the Church and nothing that you proposed could be demonstrated from that passage concerning the Church (except when you beg the question by presuming that the Elect=the Church, which the passage does not teach). Any other doctrines you think you can infer from that passage are immaterial to the discussion at hand. Part of the reason you have such an eclectic theology is that you play fast and loose with texts and don't seem to follow others when very basic mistakes are being pointed out.

This is not up for debate. There are plenty of Baptist brethren that I can disagree peacably with but they have the integrity to read what is written and not accuse another brother falsely of something without having the courtesy to retract.


----------



## MW (May 17, 2007)

G.Wetmore said:


> Therefore, although I am by no means a paedocommunionist, I would have no problem with a 5 year old partaking the supper who could discern it (at a five year old level).



It is easy to show zeal in younger years, but when the burdens and pressures of teenage years come to bear on us we can find ourselves in a spiritual no-man's land. I think it is best to wait and see what comes of this period before "tasting of the heavenly gift." Falling away after being confirmed can bring disastrous consequences.


----------



## G.Wetmore (May 17, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> It is easy to show zeal in younger years, but when the burdens and pressures of teenage years come to bear on us we can find ourselves in a spiritual no-man's land. I think it is best to wait and see what comes of this period before "tasting of the heavenly gift." Falling away after being confirmed can bring disastrous consequences.



Do you have any Biblical support for making someone wait until their teenage years before taking communion? There are many tough periods of life, but we don't say that one has to go through those to be worthy of the table. Passing life stage A (or whatever) is not a Biblical prerequisite. If a child can discern the table, and trusts in Jesus, who are we to tell him he cannot partake? What if someone thought that we needed to wait until people went through a mid-life crisis? I find an arbitrary age limit problematic.


----------



## MW (May 17, 2007)

G.Wetmore said:


> Do you have any Biblical support for making someone wait until their teenage years before taking communion?



The Bible recognises the transition from being under care of others to being responsible for oneself. This is sufficient. Our societies recognise certain ages wherein it is felt a person is capable to accept social responsibility, maintain vows, etc. That is about the time when young people should take on the responsibility of becoming members in full communion and make vows to the Lord before His people.


----------



## Coram Deo (May 17, 2007)

Interesting  

That is the same exact argument that I and many in our circle of Reformed Baptist Churches use to hold off Baptism until 17 years of age, in other words adulthood.. In fact I have a sermon cd from one of our pastors that said the same exact things you said above.

Michael



armourbearer said:


> It is easy to show zeal in younger years, but when the burdens and pressures of teenage years come to bear on us we can find ourselves in a spiritual no-man's land. I think it is best to wait and see what comes of this period before "tasting of the heavenly gift." Falling away after being confirmed can bring disastrous consequences.





armourbearer said:


> The Bible recognises the transition from being under care of others to being responsible for oneself. This is sufficient. Our societies recognise certain ages wherein it is felt a person is capable to accept social responsibility, maintain vows, etc. That is about the time when young people should take on the responsibility of becoming members in full communion and make vows to the Lord before His people.


----------



## MW (May 17, 2007)

thunaer said:


> That is the same exact argument that I and many in our circle of Reformed Baptist Churches use to hold off Baptism until 17 years of age, in other words adulthood.. In fact I have a sermon cd from one of our pastors that said the same exact things you said above.



If I remember correctly, Samuel Miller quotes John Gill to show the necessity of maturity for Passover, and applies it to the Lord's supper. We don't disagree with our antipaedobaptist friends over discriminating communion. We disagree with their agreement with paedocommunionists that the two sacraments signify the one thing -- paedocommunionists making them both initiatory and antipaedobaptists making them both confirmatory. Baptism should come at the commencement of a course of catechetical instruction and communion should come at the close of it.


----------



## jenney (May 17, 2007)

Pastor Buchanan,



Contra_Mundum said:


> 1) (baptist) is in parenthesis because many baptists do not use the term "sacrament" but "ordinance". Otherwise we're talking about the same activities.


gotcha. I do use "sacrament" but I don't mind "ordinance" so I wasn't thinking about the significance of the difference.



> 2) My point is that we don't believe the fact of covenant membership *alone* determines eligibility. Both Baptists and Paedocommunionists would say that it does, that it is sufficient.


Because we mean different things by covenant membership.
I don't think we really have different definitions of who is eligible. Unless I'm misunderstanding who's eligible (y'all must think I'm really dense if I still don't know!)



> This is true. It's not for anyone outside the community. That's why those outside are barred. But it doesn't follow that therefore, _everyone_ in the covenant community is eligible.


I agree.



contra mundum said:


> jenney said:
> 
> 
> > The benefits are only for the believing, but all who are part of the community by whatever means they have joined and are not in gross sin are to partake.
> ...


I was trying to restate what I thought _you'd_ said but missed part of it. That isn't my position. I think the person has to be able to examine him/herself, too. I believe there are elect infants but I don't offer them the Lord's Supper because I don't know how to tell them apart from the reprobate ones.



> We say the criteria for covenant membership, and for communion, are _different_. Why must they be identical? I know the paedocommunionist believes that along with the Baptist, but we don't. What is the biblical argument?


Well, _I'm_ a baptist and I don't think they are identical. The elect infant thing. Also the mentally handicapped, the comatose, etc. I wouldn't say they can't be saved, but I would say they aren't eligible for participation at the table.



> The Bible itself sets the criteria, and it plainly demands examination. Self exam is absolutely requisite. And don't forget, _admission_ to the Table is just as much a *judicial* act as _excommunication_. It's the function of the church, the session. They "examine" who comes.


This could have been said by a reformed baptist as well (except for the "session" part!), so I'm again not sure where we differ on the issue!



> Have I answered well enough?


You _always_ answer well enough! It's my brain that can't understand well enough!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 17, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Any Baptists who understand how Anthony fell down are welcome to try and pick up the pieces. Late here and I won't be back online for quite some time. Have fun!



I said several snide things to Anthony yesterday. I repent.


----------



## G.Wetmore (May 17, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> The Bible recognises the transition from being under care of others to being responsible for oneself. This is sufficient. Our societies recognise certain ages wherein it is felt a person is capable to accept social responsibility, maintain vows, etc. That is about the time when young people should take on the responsibility of becoming members in full communion and make vows to the Lord before His people.



That doesn't exactly answer my question. I didn't ask if the Bible recognizes a transition period (of which I am skeptical to relate to one's teenage years. I think that the Bible recognizes an authority shift in relation to marriage, not an arbitrary age.) I do not believe your argument is sufficient. An appeal to our society is arbitrary as well. The question is what are the Biblical requirements to participate in communion. I don't think you have sufficienty incorporated that into your response. If we look to the passover, the requirement of the youngest participators is that they be able to ask the passover questions. Certainly one could do that before they were a teenager. The idea is that they must understand what is taking place. They must be able to discern. 
I think the hard part about your view, is that it is self fulfilling. If you teach a child that he does not fully participate in the blessings of Christ, if you teach them to doubt their position, you should not be suprised when they believe it when they are a teenager. 
There is no Biblical age requirement for communion. If someone is trusting in Christ, and understands what the elements are and what the Lord's supper is, then we have no right to bar them because of some man made arbitrary age limit.


----------



## G.Wetmore (May 17, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> If I remember correctly, Samuel Miller quotes John Gill to show the necessity of maturity for Passover, and applies it to the Lord's supper. We don't disagree with our antipaedobaptist friends over discriminating communion. We disagree with their agreement with paedocommunionists that the two sacraments signify the one thing -- paedocommunionists making them both initiatory and antipaedobaptists making them both confirmatory. Baptism should come at the commencement of a course of catechetical instruction and communion should come at the close of it.



Well I am a paedobaptist, and I view both baptism and the Lord's supper as confirmatory. A child is baptised because they belonged to the covenant from the womb. They are born into the covenant, membership is theirs by familial bond and God's promise, and this is confirmed in baptism. It seals unto them the promises that were theirs from the womb.

Speaking on this Gillespie said


> Whereas the sacrament is not a converting, but a *confirming* and sealing Ordinance, which is not given to the Church for the conversion of sinners, but for the communion of saints: It is not appointed to put a man into a state of grace, but to seal unto a man that interestt in Christ and in the covenant of Grace which he already hath.



Calvin said:


> The first thing that the Lord sets out for us is that baptism should be a token and proof of our cleansing; or (the better to explain what I mean) it is like a sealed document to *confirm* to us that all our sins are so abolished, remitted and effaced that they can never come to his sight, be recalled, or charged against us. For he wills that all who believe be baptized for the remission of sins (Matt 28:19; Acts 2:38)





> “The offspring of believers are born holy, because their children while yet in the womb, before they breathe the vital air, have been adopted into the covenant of eternal life. Nor are they brought into the church by baptism on any other ground than because they belonged to the body of the Church before they were born. He who admits aliens to baptism profanes it. . . . For how can it be lawful to confer the badge of Christ on aliens from Christ. Baptism must, therefore, be preceded by the gift of adoption, which is not the cause of half salvation merely, but gives salvation entire; and this salvation is afterwards *ratified by Baptism*.”


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 17, 2007)

Gabriel,
Matthew's point is that it wasn't up to the son's parents to decide when he should take Passover. It belonged to the elders. So, evidently they had an authority from God to set an "arbitrary" age-standard, one that even Jesus Christ submitted to (who, under other rules, could have eaten the Passover as soon as he was able to chew meat, if he could have expressed his faith).

And it still belongs to the elders. So even if you think differently and express yourself opinon respectfully, you don't have the right to resist the imposition of their authority. In fact they DO have the right to bar until they see fit to admit.

Other examples of ages SET in Scripture (chiefly Moses and David):
--Numbers 4:3, etc.; 1 Chron. 23:3, Tabernacle/Temple service (30 years old); note Numbers 8:24 (25 years old), indicates a _period_ of training or apprenticeship, and 1 Chron. 23:24 (20 years old, cf. Ezra 3:8), indicating a greater number of personnel were required in the Temple.
--Exodus 30:14, Numbers 1:3; etc, Male census (20 years old); measured fighting strength
--Leviticus 27:3-7, valuations of persons, by age _brackets_
--Numbers 14:29, cut-off age of those in the generation that should not enter the Promised Land, 20 years old


Let me add, as after your last post, "confirmatory" is aboviously being used in two different senses, one by Matthew, the other by yourself and Gillespie. Please note the difference.


----------



## Iconoclast (May 17, 2007)

*I also repent*

I have sent a series of messages to Rich.We have discussed the issues we have with each other. I did provoke Him, and I believe we went over the line.
He has helped me understand some things about my conduct in the threads on the PB. Sorry if it became a distraction to others on the thread


----------



## G.Wetmore (May 17, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Gabriel,
> Matthew's point is that it wasn't up to the son's parents to decide when he should take Passover. It belonged to the elders. So, evidently they had an authority from God to set an "arbitrary" age-standard, one that even Jesus Christ submitted to (who, under other rules, could have eaten the Passover as soon as he was able to chew meat, if he could have expressed his faith).
> 
> And it still belongs to the elders. So even if you think differently and express yourself opinon respectfully, you don't have the right to resist the imposition of their authority. In fact they DO have the right to bar until they see fit to admit.
> ...



I believe that you have misunderstood me. I never said that parents had the right to circumvent the elders and give thier children the supper. I don't know why you would think that I said anything of the sort. Yes, the elders do decide when a child should come to the table. My whole point about an arbitrary age standard was not that there should not be any standard. I think you may need to re-read my post. I simply made the point that we need to have a Biblical standard, not an arbitrary one. When elders admit people to the table, I believe that it is unBiblical for them to say, for instance, that no person under 16 will be admitted. Where do we see the standard in Scripture that a person must be 16? I think that the Bible requires certain things of those who partake in the Lord's supper, God places a fence around his table to keep certain people out. My problem is when people arbitrarily make another fence and exclude people that meet the Biblical requirements. 

So, I believe that you have misunderstood my complaint. I have never said that parents have the right to decide when their child comes to the table. The elders do that, but the question is whether the elders should, as undersheperds, to set an arbitrary age limit to participate in the supper. 
The question is what the elders ought to do.

Just to make the point. What would you think if a session made it a policy that no person under 25 years old could take communion? What if they said that is a time when someone is really mature, and many people apostasize before that, so 25 is a good age. Would you think that would be a perfectly fine decision for a session to make? I would certainly hope you would not. And if that isn't right, what makes it right for them to set an age limit of 20? or 16? or 10? My whole point is that these things need to be decided on an individual basis, and not simply an age rule. There are probably a lot of 8 year olds that would be better candidates for communion than many 25 year olds. There is no Biblical age requirement for the Lord's supper, there are requirments but it is not how many years you have been alive. 

And unless I have read Rev. Winzer wrong, I didn't think his point had anything to do with parents admiting their children (rather than the elders) to the sacrament. I thought (correct me if I am wrong) that he was saying that a session should take the general rule of not letting people come to the table until they pass the testing of their teenage years. He said:


> It is easy to show zeal in younger years, but when the burdens and pressures of teenage years come to bear on us we can find ourselves in a spiritual no-man's land. I think it is best to wait and see what comes of this period before "tasting of the heavenly gift." Falling away after being confirmed can bring disastrous consequences.



The passages that you have cited have nothing to do with requirment to come to the Lord's table. I never argued that there are no Biblical age requirements for anything.

So, again, just for the record, I do not believe that parents have the right to decide (against the elders!) when their child is permitted to come to the Lord's table. The Lord's supper is a sacrament, and it is under the authority of the Church, therefore the elders have the right to admit and bar people. My only point concerned the standard elders should employ when determining such things.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 17, 2007)

While we don't have a chapter/verse ("Thou shalt..."), by inference from the Scriptures (Luke 2:42) and immemorial observance historically among the Jews, the "set" age for Passover was 13 (bar mitzvah, "son of the covenant"). So, that's a precedent. Something we find in Scripture. Not spelled out, however, so we have to ask, "is this _normative_ or is this _permissive_?" If normative, then we have to make everyone go through examinations starting at age 12. If permissive, then clearly this is a matter of "wisdom".

So, no, I personally don't think making everyone wait until 25 is "wisdom." But then, I'm not the one in the position where that session sat and made that decision, so I don't think I can pre-judge them...

There is no question at this point as to _whether_ we can find the setting of age in Scripture, but what we are to make of the setting now that we found it.

Peace.


----------



## G.Wetmore (May 17, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> While we don't have a chapter/verse ("Thou shalt..."), by inference from the Scriptures (Luke 2:42) and immemorial observance historically among the Jews, the "set" age for Passover was 13 (bar mitzvah, "son of the covenant"). So, that's a precedent. Something we find in Scripture. Not spelled out, however, so we have to ask, "is this _normative_ or is this _permissive_?" If normative, then we have to make everyone go through examinations starting at age 12. If permissive, then clearly this is a matter of "wisdom".
> 
> So, no, I personally don't think making everyone wait until 25 is "wisdom." But then, I'm not the one in the position where that session sat and made that decision, so I don't think I can pre-judge them...
> 
> ...



Well I would disagree that we have found an age in Scripture for participating in the Lord's supper. Sorry, but Jewish tradition is not an infallible guide. May I remind you that Jesus preached against their traditions. Furthermore, the one passage that you reference has at best a shady relation to that tradition. At best it can prove that when Jesus was a child he did what his parents told him, and they presented him at twelve according to the tradition of the elders. It simply does not follow, that 12 is therefore the age that people can come to the Lord's supper. So there yet remains a question of Scripture setting an age for people to come to the table. I don't believe it does. It gives requirements, but age is not one.

But assume you are right, that would mean that children should be examined at 12 to take the supper. That is still not what Rev. Winzer was proposing. He said we should wait until after their teenage years to see if they fell away during them. So if you are going to make your argument from that passage, you ought to say that children should be examined at age 12, not 18 or older.


----------



## jenney (May 17, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Our Confessions differ on the significance of the Sacrament. It is quite begging the question to apply your view of Ordinances to our view of the Sacraments and then try to make sense of why our Sacramental view of the Lord's Supper doesn't fit with your view of Ordinances.


But our confessions do not differ on the significance of the Lord's Supper. I am not asking why all covenant/church members don't participate. 

I was confused by a presbyterian telling me that my unbelieving mother might receive saving grace via the Table and that I should therefore not discourage her from partaking. Does that fit with your confession?



> If the visible Church consists only of the Elect and false professors are simply "posers" and not _really_ part of the visible Church then the visible Church, for all intents and purposes, is invisible!


YES! I agree!!!  



> This says nothing, of course, about whether or not the _goal_ is a pure Church. Both parties heartily admit that. It only goes to the issue of whether the administration of the Sacraments is for the elect only. If that is the standard then they cannot be administered at all.


What I mean by "Who's it for?" is the goal. Is it grace for salvation? Or is it strengthening grace?

I would say strengthening grace for the believer.



> It can be no other for the minister because he cannot see the heart. He can evaluate fruit and may bar a man from the table for a season (ex-_communicate_ him) but that is not a declaration of reprobation. It is a judgment call based on fruit, interviews, admonitions, etc.



We would agree with that.



> 1. I believe that it is impossible to argue that the Lord's Supper is NOT for the Covenant Community.
> 2. That Baptists, therefore, have a problem because they do not _know_ who is in the Covenant Community.
> 3. Thus, Baptists have a problem living up to a systematic insistence on the composition of the Covenant community.



You have the precise problem you say _we_ have!
1. You believe the Supper is for the worthy members of the Covenant Community.
2. You have a problem because you don't know who is truly "worthy".
3. Thus you have a problem living up to a systematic insistence on the composition of the Worthy Members of the Covenant Community.

Adults who come to a Presbyterian church for admittance into membership don't just walk up and say, "hey, I wanna join" and then you let them in. There is a process of determining if they understand the Gospel and believe it. You can't know their hearts, but you examine them in some sense, right? Why? Is it_ not_ to protect the purity of the Body in some sense?

Again, I am willing to believe it is I, not you, who is missing something. You will have to supply that if it's the case.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 17, 2007)

jenney said:


> But our confessions do not differ on the significance of the Lord's Supper. I am not asking why all covenant/church members don't participate.
> 
> I was confused by a presbyterian telling me that my unbelieving mother might receive saving grace via the Table and that I should therefore not discourage her from partaking. Does that fit with your confession?


Oh! Now I get it. 

Absolutely not. The Lord's Supper is not magical. It is for members of the Covenant community.




> What I mean by "Who's it for?" is the goal. Is it grace for salvation? Or is it strengthening grace?


Well, if one considers sanctification part of salvation then it's both. I believe I answered this in another thread but the Gospel proclaims Christ while the Sacraments confirm and strengthen Him to the converted.



> I would say strengthening grace for the believer.


Good.



> You have the precise problem you say _we_ have!
> 1. You believe the Supper is for the worthy members of the Covenant Community.
> 2. You have a problem because you don't know who is truly "worthy".
> 3. Thus you have a problem living up to a systematic insistence on the composition of the Worthy Members of the Covenant Community.


1. No, because I recognize them as in the Covenant. I don't wonder who is in the Covenant on the basis of election. I know you say you don't (practically) either but your confession declares that only the elect are in the Covenant. This makes visible Covenant membership impossible. 
2. Not in the sense of those who will receive the full benefit of the Sacrament but certainly the Church is able to discern those whose profession and fruit do not show them to be impenitent. Again, I know you'll say: "Me too" from a practical matter but it's not really a Covenantal matter. This sounds pejorative but it's not intended as such. It merely recognizes that Baptists make Covenant membership invisible so it's not a matter of degrees as it is with the Reformed Confessions.
3. No, need to read the WCF again to see that this is not the case.



> Adults who come to a Presbyterian church for admittance into membership don't just walk up and say, "hey, I wanna join" and then you let them in. There is a process of determining if they understand the Gospel and believe it. You can't know their hearts, but you examine them in some sense, right? Why? Is it_ not_ to protect the purity of the Body in some sense?


Sure, but then we admit them to the Covenant community. Their membership in the Covenant community is not now a mystery. It is very visible.



> Again, I am willing to believe it is I, not you, who is missing something. You will have to supply that if it's the case.


I'm not trying to beat you up on this but get you to understand the difficulty in an elect NC membership, practically, and reconciling it with Covenant language in the Scriptures of the NT - especially with regard to the Lord's Supper.

Gotta run.

Blessings!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 17, 2007)

G.Wetmore said:


> Well I would disagree that we have found an age in Scripture for participating in the Lord's supper. Sorry, but Jewish tradition is not an infallible guide. May I remind you that Jesus preached against their traditions. Furthermore, the one passage that you reference has at best a shady relation to that tradition. At best it can prove that when Jesus was a child he did what his parents told him, and they presented him at twelve according to the tradition of the elders. It simply does not follow, that 12 is therefore the age that people can come to the Lord's supper. So there yet remains a question of Scripture setting an age for people to come to the table. I don't believe it does. It gives requirements, but age is not one.
> 
> But assume you are right, that would mean that children should be examined at 12 to take the supper. That is still not what Rev. Winzer was proposing. He said we should wait until after their teenage years to see if they fell away during them. So if you are going to make your argument from that passage, you ought to say that children should be examined at age 12, not 18 or older.


This is my final response. no offense, I'm just not that drawn into the debate.

I pointed FIRST to the Bible, not to tradition--a tradition that validates my hermeneutic. So please don't try to make my argument into a "look at the venerable tradition" argument it never was , OK? You have "flipped" my argument to make it look like I appealed to tradition and then to a text. So, sure, thanks for reminding me that Jesus preached against elevated traditions. But I wasn't appealing to them as law, but as support. Jesus himself also told his followers to obey them that sat in the seat of Moses.

You are free to mock the interpretation of Luke 2 as insufficiently convincing to you. However, it has been stock presbyterian analysis of that episode in our Savior's earthly life. Make hash of those divines' opinions if you want. Jesus was submitting to authority, parental and ecclesial, And saying that his parents were just "choosing" to follow some dusty old tradition is (in my opinion) a less perceptive reading of the text.

You started off claiming (assuming I read you correctly) that setting a standard age for communicant membership was arbitrary, and outside the scope of a session's lawful prescription. I challenged that claim by pointing to the elders of the OT church, who apparently did set such a standard age. I also said that the age they chose was a practical "wisdom" issue, since there was no divine legislation on the matter. But they had a right and a duty to set the custom for their church.

As for even if my interpretation is allowed, that it does not follow--I disagree. Because the parallels between Passover and the L.S. are just as pertinent to our sacramental observance as parallels between circumcision and baptism.

If the question is only "does the Bible legislate THE age for examination?" then I agree it doesn't. But if the question is can sessions set a standard age for examination, there is "approved example" (approved because Jesus submitted to it) in the Bible. I won't argue that *12* is THE age, because I think the matter was a wisdom matter. If Rev. Winzer thinks that the "standard age" is higher than I do, or you do, he can try to persuade his session to make that the rule in the congregation. Sounds to me like you'd tell him that making the rule is _overstepping their authority._

If I misread you, I'm sorry.
Blessings,


----------



## MW (May 17, 2007)

G.Wetmore said:


> There is no Biblical age requirement for communion. If someone is trusting in Christ, and understands what the elements are and what the Lord's supper is, then we have no right to bar them because of some man made arbitrary age limit.



Friend, this issue probably boils down to differences of opinion as to what the Lord's supper actually is. According to the traditional view partaking of the Lord's supper is a public profession of one's interest in the redeeming work of Christ and a commitment to fulfil all the duties of a Christian profession of faith. It requires more than a mere "Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so." The only thing I can suggest is a study of the Larger Catechism Q&A 168-177 for a solid and concise statement of the traditional view.


----------



## MW (May 17, 2007)

G.Wetmore said:


> But assume you are right, that would mean that children should be examined at 12 to take the supper. That is still not what Rev. Winzer was proposing. He said we should wait until after their teenage years to see if they fell away during them. So if you are going to make your argument from that passage, you ought to say that children should be examined at age 12, not 18 or older.



Please note the original portion of your post which I quoted in my first post on this thread. I was responding to your proposal that a five year old could be admitted to the Supper. My answer was, that we should see what takes place in the formative years, that is, in the teenage years. There may be cases of thirteen year olds coming who have already been confirmed in their commitment to uphold the Christian faith in the world. It is unusual, but it might happen. These days young people are not given the kinds of responsibilities which were known to a Jewish "son of the commandment." They do not leave home and start University at anywhere from 12 onwards, as was the case in earlier times. We over-nurture them, in my opinion; in fact, we spoil them, as a result of social pressure. And because that is the case, they often times do not mature as young as they might, which means they cannot be admitted to the responsibilities of a full Christian profession in the world.


----------



## MW (May 17, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Let me add, as after your last post, "confirmatory" is aboviously being used in two different senses, one by Matthew, the other by yourself and Gillespie. Please note the difference.



Thanks Bruce, that is right on the mark. Gillespie and Calvin are using the word "confirming" in relation to both sacraments and in distinction from the "converting ordinance" of the Word; whereas I am speaking of the distinction which exists between the sacraments themselves -- one being initiatory and the other confirmatory of the benefits of the covenant of grace so far as individual participation is concerned. Says Calvin (Institutes 4:13:6): "It is not now difficult to infer what view on the whole ought to be taken of vows. There is one vow common to all believers, which taken in baptism we confirm, and as it were sanction, by our Catechism, and partaking of the Lord’s Supper. For the sacraments are a kind of mutual contracts by which the Lord conveys his mercy to us, and by it eternal life, while we in our turn promise him obedience. The formula, or at least substance, of the vow is, That renouncing Satan we bind ourselves to the service of God, to obey his holy commands, and no longer follow the depraved desires of our flesh." As stated previously, baptism is given before catechism, and communion after it.


----------



## MW (May 17, 2007)

More from Dr. Calvin (Institutes, 4:16:30):



> For if we attend to the peculiar nature of baptism, it is a kind of entrance, and as it were initiation into the Church, by which we are ranked among the people of God, a sign of our spiritual regeneration, by which we are again born to be children of God; whereas, on the contrary, *the Supper is intended for those of riper years*, who, *having passed the tender period of infancy*, are fit to bear solid food. This distinction is very clearly pointed out in Scripture. For there, as far as regards baptism, the Lord makes no selection of age, whereas he does not admit all to partake of the Supper, but confines it to those who are fit to discern the body and blood of the Lord, to examine their own conscience, to show forth the Lord’s death, and understand its power.


----------



## G.Wetmore (May 17, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> More from Dr. Calvin (Institutes, 4:16:30):
> 
> 
> > For if we attend to the peculiar nature of baptism, it is a kind of entrance, and as it were initiation into the Church, by which we are ranked among the people of God, a sign of our spiritual regeneration, by which we are again born to be children of God; whereas, on the contrary, the Supper is intended for those of riper years, who, having passed the tender period of infancy, are fit to bear solid food. This distinction is very clearly pointed out in Scripture. For there, as far as regards baptism, the Lord makes no selection of age, whereas he does not admit all to partake of the Supper, but confines it to those who are fit to discern the body and blood of the Lord, to examine their own conscience, to show forth the Lord’s death, and understand its power.



Rev. Winzer,

I think Calvin is exactly right. But, notice what he says, it's for people who have passes the tender period of infancy. I never said an infant should take the supper. I never even said that all five year olds should, I simply believe it is at least theoretically possible for a five year old to meet the Biblical requirements. Calvin here simply says that it isn't for babies, but its for people who can "discern the body and blood of the Lord, to examine their own conscience, to show forth the Lord’s death, and understand its power." That is exactly what I have been trying to argue. I think that people should be admitted to baptism on that merit, not on a standardized age. They should be viewed as a case by case basis. What I don't see Calvin saying here is that another requirement for baptism is passing teenage years, or passing a trial period of life. So if you simply want to say that you don't think a young person could legitimately "discern the body and blood of the Lord, to examine their own conscience, to show forth the Lord’s death, and understand its power" until their late teenage years, that is one thing (If you took this view, I would simply want to know if you believed it theoretically or if you would be willing to be proved wrong. For example if a parent came to you and said their child wants to take the supper and would like to be examined, would you examine them, or would you automatically say: no they are only 10, come back in 7 years). But to say that we need to make sure they don't fall away during their teenage years is something completely different. It seems as though you are saying that they must first perservere a trialsome period of life. That is what I disagree with.


----------



## jenney (May 17, 2007)

Rich,
Thanks!
I don't feel beat up at all. You have no idea how much I like you!



> The Lord's Supper is not magical. It is for members of the Covenant community.


But not for all the members of the Covenant Community, right? Only those who are "worthy", right? And worthiness comes from being old enough to examine themselves and discern the Body and making some sort of profession of faith.

Okay, let me see if I have this straight. Correct me if I'm wrong:

God has a Covenant People, consisting of all who trust in Him and their children (both biological and adopted).

The sign of the Covenant is baptism, to be applied to all Covenant members.

When a Covenant member is old enough to examine him/herself and discern the Body, he/she is eligible to partake in the Lord's Supper, regardless of his profession of faith, because it is for the Cov't Community of which he is a member. (Or must he be interviewed by the session or something to become a communicant member?)

thanks for the clarification,
jen


----------



## MW (May 17, 2007)

G.Wetmore said:


> I think Calvin is exactly right. But, notice what he says, it's for people who have passes the tender period of infancy. I never said an infant should take the supper. I never even said that all five year olds should, I simply believe it is at least theoretically possible for a five year old to meet the Biblical requirements. Calvin here simply says that it isn't for babies, but its for people who can "discern the body and blood of the Lord, to examine their own conscience, to show forth the Lord’s death, and understand its power." That is exactly what I have been trying to argue. I think that people should be admitted to baptism on that merit, not on a standardized age. They should be viewed as a case by case basis. What I don't see Calvin saying here is that another requirement for baptism is passing teenage years, or passing a trial period of life. So if you simply want to say that you don't think a young person could legitimately "discern the body and blood of the Lord, to examine their own conscience, to show forth the Lord’s death, and understand its power" until their late teenage years, that is one thing (If you took this view, I would simply want to know if you believed it theoretically or if you would be willing to be proved wrong. For example if a parent came to you and said their child wants to take the supper and would like to be examined, would you examine them, or would you automatically say: no they are only 10, come back in 7 years). But to say that we need to make sure they don't fall away during their teenage years is something completely different. It seems as though you are saying that they must first perservere a trialsome period of life. That is what I disagree with.



Please read the other quotation from Calvin in relation to Catechism. No, I haven't suggested they persevere through "a trialsome period of life," but that they be determined to serve the Lord. Many can seem zealous early in life, but that can simply be because their zeal is not according to knowledge. The reformed church insists on catechetical instruction before admittance to the communion. Five years of age is simply too young.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 17, 2007)

OK Jenney, you mostly have it (in a nutshell) but let me clean it up just a little bit:


jenney said:


> But not for all the members of the Covenant Community, right? Only those who are "worthy", right? And worthiness comes from being old enough to examine themselves and discern the Body and making some sort of profession of faith.


Right. The whole point of the Sacrament is that people are supposed to understand that the benefit of the Table is for those who are Christ's and who apprehend him by faith:



> VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament,13 do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.14
> 
> VIII. Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament; yet, they receive not the thing signified thereby; but, by their unworthy coming thereunto, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Him, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table; and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries,15 or be admitted thereunto.16



They ought to be mature enough to understand (to some extent) both aspects. They also ought to be desirous, understanding VII to approach the Table for the benefit it offers in sealing Christ and His benefits to them. By this I mean, that they understand that those benefits are only sealed to those who first have a faith in the Gospel. Thus, I have a problem with a mere "profession of faith" if that profession is no more than the kind of faith that James condemns.



> God has a Covenant People, consisting of all who trust in Him and their children (both biological and adopted).


OK.



> The sign of the Covenant is baptism, to be applied to all Covenant members.


Yes because we believe, in distinction from the Baptist confession that baptism admits a person to the visible Church - the Covenant people of God. BUT we are also careful to say that the sign does not _confer_ union with Christ and His benefits. That instrument is faith and not Baptism. BUT, Baptism is still very meaningful for us because the man with faith can look back at his Baptism and see the Promise of God in it: God promises forgiveness and justification to all who rest themselves in Christ.

{sidebar}
I'm sorry to get on a tangent but even if you don't agree with the first part about joining a person visibly to the Covenant, I've found that Baptists should try to embrace the significance of the Baptism as God's promise and not their faith. I had a Filipino man the other day tell me: "Rich, tell me what you said again about Baptism because I really liked that." He had always understood the significance of his baptism to rest in the sincerity of his faith. It was common to be re-baptized where he came from. I explained that the moment of your baptism upon profession was not the important thing. It was the promise of God upon your Baptism that was significant. You need not be re-baptized as you become more and more awakened to your sin and need for Christ. The promise has already been made in your Baptism and you need not doubt God by having Him make the promise again.

OK, had to say that because there is nothing I delight in more than giving weary Christians rest for their souls. You may not need to be reminded of this but there are a lot of Christians out there still trying to turn faith into a work. The way we view Baptism can turn what is meant to strengthen us into a work of the Law
{end sidebard}



> When a Covenant member is old enough to examine him/herself and discern the Body, he/she is eligible to partake in the Lord's Supper, *regardless of his profession of faith*, because it is for the Cov't Community of which he is a member. (Or must he be interviewed by the session or something to become a communicant member?)


Screech! Negative! Nyet! Nein! No!

Nothing in the Church is to be viewed as *regardless of faith*. Read the portion again. The Sacrament is for the strengthening of those who already trust the Gospel and can apprehend what the Sacrament is for. Might my young children already have an infantile trust in God? Perhaps. I wouldn't presume they do not and I train them as if they can respond to the things of God. But can they understand and rest in Christ in the way that they understand the Sacrament is strengthening them in? No. They need to _mature_.

Incidentally, notice I don't mix my words of maturing with the idea: "If my kids are elect...." It's not because I don't believe in election but because I live according to the revealed things. I raise my children according to the commands and promises of God and do not mix unbelief and doubt according to the good He repeatedly demonstrates He has toward them.

I can tell you this: I will not permit my children to partake until they can articulate and demonstrate the faith that their baptism represents. I am very sober about such things and will be more scrupulous and should be more honest about their hearts and capacity than any elder because I know them better than anyone.

Hope that helps!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 17, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Please read the other quotation from Calvin in relation to Catechism. No, I haven't suggested they persevere through "a trialsome period of life," but that they be determined to serve the Lord. Many can seem zealous early in life, but that can simply be because their zeal is not according to knowledge. The reformed church insists on catechetical instruction before admittance to the communion. Five years of age is simply too young.



I completely agree.

It is really hard to argue with the wisdom of so many centuries. Though some false Churches have perverted the process of confirmation, the historical Presbyterian practice to wait until completion of catechesis is well established, wise, and comports with the historic Jewish practice of which our Lord Himself submitted to. Wisdom can always be easily argued against when somebody asks "prove it". It is much easier to challenge with exceptions than it is to demonstrate the wise testimony of our forebears in the faith.

I'm not a fan of setting a specific age lest the pride of parents cause them to pressure their children. {Incidentally, this is not a peculiarly Presbyterian problem because I've met scores of Baptist families that start to pressure their kids to become baptized and worry why their children haven't made a decision yet}. That said, however, children under 10 are typically far too immature to comprehend things beyond the parroting of the things asked of them.

It's been my experience that it's typically over-eager parents who would want to think their kids ready before they are. It's the typical "my child is particularly bright" syndrome where we all tend to be a bit self-deceived because we are awed by the development of our children.

The reason we don't let 5 year olds to the Table is the same basic reason we don't leave guns unlocked around them. I don't care how much a man convinced me his boy was mature enough to treat it with respect, wisdom dictates that I protect against the folly of youth.


----------



## MW (May 17, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> The same reason we don't let 5 year olds to the Table is the same reason we don't leave guns unlocked around them.



That's a good analogy, Rich; equivalent to Calvin's poison illustration. In the modern day we have a good word of caution on medicines and poisons -- keep out of reach of children.


----------



## jenney (May 18, 2007)

Okie Dokie,
Work with me on this scenario.
A 17 year old who has been raised by believing parents (I know we can't see people's hearts, but I made them up and, as the potter, I can have my clay be believing if I want it that way!). This kid isn't rebellious and he is well-trained. But he doesn't believe. On the outside you might not notice that, but his parents, because they know him and love him and are close to him, have discussed his spiritual condition with him and he just says, "you know, guys, I just don't believe it. I want to make you happy, but I just don't. I'm sorry." He can tell that some of the other families at church sort of snicker at his parents sometimes because he is the only one his age who isn't taking the Lord's Supper and he knows his parents worry about him so he decides he'll ask to partake and figure that it will make everyone happy.

(Of course, the parents are not happy, because this isn't the purpose of the Feast, and because they really do cry out daily for their son's soul, not for his appearance before men.)

Would he be allowed to partake as a covenant member who is old enough to examine himself and discern the body? Does he have to profess faith at this point? Let's assume he's an honest kid who won't lie (the way I did) to participate. Is anyone going to ask him about his faith besides his parents?

_Since I made up the story I'll give it a happy ending. When he tells his parents his desire they are aghast and reassure him that this will not make them happy because what they want most is for him to be reconciled to God. The light turns on for him, his eyes are opened and he repents, believes, and is truly a new man. And they all live happily ever after._



> I can tell you this: I will not permit my children to partake until they can articulate and demonstrate the faith that their baptism represents. I am very sober about such things and will be more scrupulous and should be more honest about their hearts and capacity than any elder because I know them better than anyone.



Your family sounds delightful, Rich, and your children are *blessed* to have you and your lovely wife as parents. I am thrilled for you that the Lord is adding to your quiver. May your children grow in grace as you raise them for His glory.

Thank you for answering my questions!
~jen


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 18, 2007)

jenney said:


> Okie Dokie,
> Work with me on this scenario.
> A 17 year old who has been raised by believing parents (I know we can't see people's hearts, but I made them up and, as the potter, I can have my clay be believing if I want it that way!). This kid isn't rebellious and he is well-trained. But he doesn't believe. On the outside you might not notice that, but his parents, because they know him and love him and are close to him, have discussed his spiritual condition with him and he just says, "you know, guys, I just don't believe it. I want to make you happy, but I just don't. I'm sorry." He can tell that some of the other families at church sort of snicker at his parents sometimes because he is the only one his age who isn't taking the Lord's Supper and he knows his parents worry about him so he decides he'll ask to partake and figure that it will make everyone happy.
> 
> ...


No, he better not participate. You don't have to be God in order to judge this one when a mature teenager says: "I just want to make you happy...."

The parents ought to be mature enough to warn their son not to partake, especially if they are mature enough to understand what the Supper is about (sadly, I fear, too few adults are catechized these days). The grief you describe would be real if a son is honest enough to express his rejection of the faith but they ought to keep praying for and with him for his conversion (or the fruits thereof). I don't think a parent would have very much spiritual discernment if a teenager could so easily feign tenderness for the things of God to them but, gladly, the parents are only the primary line of defense to protect the kid from the judgment that the Table could bring.

The second line of defense would be the Session. The session is responsible examine the young man and examine him to determine his readiness for the Supper. Any man worthy of the Office ought to be able discern somebody faking it for his parents.

Incidentally, that scenario sounds like a lot of kids in the many Baptist congrations I have attended but you should replace Baptism and Lord's Supper in your scenario above since you give both in one fell swoop. It's really interesting to see how much expectation Baptists have that their kids will be saved even though their dogmatics would insist they have no reason for such expectation. I believe this is a happy inconsistency.

I know this sounds partisan bringing up Baptist congregations but it is a sad fact. I have never attended a Reformed Baptist congregation so I trust the care is greater for the Lord's Supper. I obviously don't agree that you withold the sign of covenant membership from your kids because they are members according to my confession. Nevertheless, since the Church would be admitting them to the Table with their Baptism, it's good that you're more discerning about the profession of your kids. Again, because my experience was limited to non-Reformed Baptist congregations, I've seen a good amount of parental pressure and expectation with little discernment concerning the conversion of the child. The Southern Baptist Covention estimates that 85% of the youth apostasize. I've actually witnessed far more care in Presbyterian parents ensuring their children are ready for the Table then Baptist parents who sort of culturally expect their kids to get baptized. Of course, if I was comparing PCUSA youth to SBC youth then that would be a fairer comparison.



> _Since I made up the story I'll give it a happy ending. When he tells his parents his desire they are aghast and reassure him that this will not make them happy because what they want most is for him to be reconciled to God. The light turns on for him, his eyes are opened and he repents, believes, and is truly a new man. And they all live happily ever after._






> Your family sounds delightful, Rich, and your children are *blessed* to have you and your lovely wife as parents. I am thrilled for you that the Lord is adding to your quiver. May your children grow in grace as you raise them for His glory.



I wouldn't pat myself on my back so vigorously. I feel like a wretched parent at times. So impatient with my kids and so apt to squander opportunities to cause them to be desirous of spiritual things. I am happy that my kids seek the touch of my hand at bedtime that I might bless them as they sleep. My prayer is always something to the effect of: "Father, please bless Anna and cause her to come to faith in your son Jesus Christ and trust in Him for her salvation. Please overlook my sins and failings as a father and may my many sins not undermine her faith in Christ. Amen."



> Thank you for answering my questions!
> ~jen


My pleasure.


----------



## jenney (May 18, 2007)

> Incidentally, that scenario sounds like a lot of kids in the many Baptist congrations I have attended but you should replace Baptism and Lord's Supper in your scenario above since you give both in one fell swoop.


Certainly, and I thought of that, but I was trying to figure out the Lord's Supper, whether children had to be examined or if they could just decide to participate.

It was not intended as an indictment but as an honest question because I was present when someone asked a prominent Presbetyrian man, "what do you do to celebrate when your child comes to faith?" and he said, "why do you ask? Are you a Baptist? I do nothing. Why celebrate what we expect God to do in our children's lives? When they realize their calling, they participate in the Lord's Table and that is beyond any celebration I could plan!" I got the impression that children (not necessarily small children, I just mean progeny) didn't have to go through any examination, but that they could just decide when they wanted to on their own and start right up.

Anyway, you are correct, there could be the same danger in Baptist circles with baptism. Of course the parents are the first line of defense, though if they are the ones pressuring, then they'll miss the lack of fruit. The elders are the next line and they are harder to con. They announce the person's request for membership and then if any in the body have an issue with the person, we can bring it up with the "applicant" and then with the elders (in that order) if the concern isn't put to rest. In our church, the applicant gives his testimony a few weeks before his baptism/commencement of membership so that we have time to address any concerns we might have.

I've never been _aware_ of any pressure, but the potential is obviously there. Probably in an altar call sort of church where children can go forward really young it is more likely, but we don't have altar calls in RB churches! I'm with Pastor Winzer and Michael that older teens are more appropirate candidates.

I do know one mom who told me years ago that she wanted her sons to be pastors and I sat there dumbfounded because my husband and I were pretty close to these two teens and they were not believers. She was offended that I suggested they might not be Christians. A year later one of them had just _rebelled_ and she blamed the "legalistic" reformed baptists for his "apostacy". Her other son said our hymns were boring and her husband was angry with our church for not entertaining the youth more to keep them interested. Now they are attending a Calvary Chapel and I sincerely hope they are not placing their hope in it to save their children the way they did with our church. Their older son said he felt pressured by his friends being baptised, but not just that. He also didn't like them talking about spiritual things and not laughing at his escapades or joining in his partying. I guess you could call that pressure.

We believe only the elect are supposed to be at the table, but we can't know who the elect are, so we go with what is revealed: one's profession and fruit. We trust the Lord with what is not and examine ourselves so that we might receive the benefit of His Feast and only worry about another when his profession changes or when his life is grossly inconsistent with it. Is that vastly different from the Presbyterian doctrine or practice?


----------



## Calvibaptist (May 18, 2007)

Rich,

I don't post here often because I don't have a lot of time. I have appreciated your interaction on this thread, as well as what I have seen from you elsewhere. 

Here it comes...

BUT, as much as you like to point out the inconsistency in the Baptist view of the covenant community and covenant sign, I was wondering why you would say these two statements.



SemperFideles said:


> Well, if one considers sanctification part of salvation then it's both. I believe I answered this in another thread but the Gospel proclaims Christ while the Sacraments confirm and strengthen Him to the converted.



and



> Nothing in the Church is to be viewed as regardless of faith. Read the portion again. The Sacrament is for the strengthening of those who already trust the Gospel and can apprehend what the Sacrament is for.




You have already said that the Sacrament of Communion is for the entire Covenant Community which could consist of true believers and unbelievers. I have other questions about that I will post later. But, believe it or not, I am sort of OK with that, because I agree with you that we cannot know who is a true believer or a true unbeliever. You seem consistent there. But how do you as a Presbyterian know who is "converted" or who "already trusts the Gospel" in order to give them the Sacrament of Communion?

Are you merely stating that everyone receives the Sacrament but only those who are converted receive these benefits? If so, then that makes sense.


----------



## eternallifeinchrist (May 18, 2007)

Isn't the Lord's Supper something like the Sabbath in that it is for our benefit and not necessarily a ritual that must be done to make God happy (appease the god...)? Answering the first question: "our" seems to refer to believers in that we have a physical reminder of Christ's death for our sins and his resurrection for our justification and "our" could refer to the benefit of anyone who may become a believer in that they see a physical reminder of Christ's death for our sins and his resurrection for our justification. Communion is really great! God is so amazing-what the King of all glory did for us. We are redeemed from hell and death! Yippee! Praise Jesus!!!


----------



## jenney (May 18, 2007)

Douglas,
Are you from Bill Brown's church? I know he's a baptist elder in Odenton, MD.

Did Rich actually say that the sacrament was for the entire cov't community? I thought he said it was only for community members who were believing.

A big deal has been made over "Yes, it is for the covenant community, but a restricted part of it!" and the restriction is to "those who believe and are old enough to discern and mature enough to examine themselves." And how do we know if they believe? They tell us so. And we trust that. (Which shouldn't give any baptist pause, right?)

But when _we_ say _Baptism_ is only for those who believe, that is a problem. They say to us, "how do you know if they believe???" We say, "They tell us so. And we trust that," which makes them shake their heads in derision (polite derision, but derision just the same) and say, "but you don't know if they really believe! So you can't baptise anyone!!!"

They might stomach it better if we said Baptism is for a restricted part of the covenant community, the believing part. But since we (baptists) would have to then make a distinction between cov't community and Covenant Member (so the community is all who claim to be in cov't with God, ie the visible church and the covenant membership is all who _actually_ are in cov't with God) it then becomes a battle over terms and everyone goes home crabby.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 18, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Rich,
> 
> I don't post here often because I don't have a lot of time. I have appreciated your interaction on this thread, as well as what I have seen from you elsewhere.


Thanks.



> Are you merely stating that everyone receives the Sacrament but only those who are converted receive these benefits? If so, then that makes sense.



Yes. Exactly.



> VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament,13 do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.14



Notice that only those that, inwardly by *faith*, receive and feed upon Christ crucified and all the benefits of His death. This cannot be so of the unregenerated.

This is why I keep emphasizing an ability to examine communicants so parents and the session can try to discern _mature_ faith and understanding. Not that any _know_ who is converted but it is the right and role of ministers to admit or bar based on fruit to the best of their ability.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 18, 2007)

jenney said:


> It was not intended as an indictment but as an honest question because I was present when someone asked a prominent Presbetyrian man, "what do you do to celebrate when your child comes to faith?" and he said, "why do you ask? Are you a Baptist? I do nothing. Why celebrate what we expect God to do in our children's lives? When they realize their calling, they participate in the Lord's Table and that is beyond any celebration I could plan!" I got the impression that children (not necessarily small children, I just mean progeny) didn't have to go through any examination, but that they could just decide when they wanted to on their own and start right up.



I don't know who the "prominent Presbyterian man" was and cannot really read his mind.

If you asked me the same question I might ask you if you were a Baptist. 

Why? Because it is Baptistic to look for a "day" when your child comes to faith.

Honestly, I don't know the "day" I came to faith. I know I had a lot of zeal for Church as a Roman Catholic attending a charismatic congregation. I got board with RCC's after that and it's what led me to attend a non-denominational Church. I was zealous there, got baptized, and even was their worship leader for a couple of years. I honestly don't know what I trusted in there. I knew I wanted to be forgiven of my sins but I didn't understand the Gospel.

I read _Faith Alone_ on a plane ride to Japan (ironically) in 1997. Maybe I was converted then because it really dawned on me what the Gospel was after reading that book but I still had much to learn.

Faith is a mustard seed kind of thing that grows and doesn't always show full fruit for a while. I know there was a time when I didn't trust Christ and I know that I trust Christ now (imperfectly) but I can't date the day I came to faith.

Now, for my children, how am I going to precisely know when they come to faith if they never rebel against the things I'm teaching them. I'm not so naive to think that their prayers and responses to me are absolute evidences of their election. Yet, at the same time, I cannot exclude that they are tender to the things of God and that I am commanded to train them up in them.

Is faith a thing that grows from a seed into a tree or is it more like something that spontaneously pops into existence?

Baptists tend to view it as the latter.

I believe the Scriptures fundamentally see it as the former.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 18, 2007)

jenney said:


> They might stomach it better if we said Baptism is for a restricted part of the covenant community, the believing part. But since we (baptists) would have to then make a distinction between cov't community and Covenant Member (so the community is all who claim to be in cov't with God, ie the visible church and the covenant membership is all who _actually_ are in cov't with God) it then becomes a battle over terms and everyone goes home crabby.



 I'm so crabby right now! 

Well, it might help your argument better if Baptists didn't argue that Baptism was for the Elect. It is a really easy thing to demonstrate that such is an impossible standard upon which to administer it. The problem is that all your luminaries would have to realize that this argument has always been really poor and so much scholarship is tied up in this weak argument.

Of course, we would still have a problem with you restricting the Sacrament to a portion of the Covenant community even if you say that it's the professing part (as opposed to the elected part). The reason we'd have a problem is that there is no Scriptural warrant for this restriction given in the Scriptures. Now, I know you'll say: "Yes there is." but you're wrong of course. 

You would also have to reform your own Confession that doesn't admit that one is joined to the Covenant community by the sacrament.


----------



## Calvibaptist (May 19, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Not that any _know_ who is converted but it is the right and role of ministers to admit or bar based on fruit to the best of their ability.



I'm beginning to understand some reasons for differences here. Baptists who are accurately following Baptist belief would believe the same as you about the table as far as admission or barring.

Where we differ is that we Baptists believe that it is the right and role of ministers to admit to or bar from baptism based on profession of faith. You believe that every child born of an elect family should be baptized. But you have the same problem (and, therefore, inconsistency) we do. How do you know that the family the child is born into is elect? Maybe they are wolves in sheep's clothing. Would you not then be applying the covenant sign to a child that was not part of the covenant?


----------



## Calvibaptist (May 19, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> :Well, it might help your argument better if Baptists didn't argue that Baptism was for the Elect. It is a really easy thing to demonstrate that such is an impossible standard upon which to administer it.



I agree with you. Now, I admit that I am fairly new to the reformed community. Although, since I am a credo-baptist, some of you would say I haven't gotten into the community yet. 

But, I don't recall from my semi-demi-hemi-armini-pelagian days anyone ever suggesting that Baptism was for the Elect. Even Reformed Baptists I have listened to over the last 5 years don't say that. We say that Baptism is for all who have made a profession of faith. And, of course, we would use debated passages of Scripture such as Acts 8:36-38.

Acts 8:36-38 - Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" 37 Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." 38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.

I understand the textual problems there, but, assuming King Jimmy was right about this passage, it seems pretty clear to us Baptists. Believe then be baptized.

Now, I see what you're going to say next: How do you know they really believe? We don't. But at least we have a profession of belief and some evidence of change based on profession of new desires. All paedo-baptists have is "Wa-a-a-a-h-h" from a baby (just a little joke, there).

I know this isn't a thread about baptism (and there have been many), so I won't take up any more of it with this.

I appreciate your interaction and patience.


----------



## turmeric (May 19, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> I agree with you. Now, I admit that I am fairly new to the reformed community. Although, since I am a credo-baptist, some of you would say I haven't gotten into the community yet.



Sure you're part of the *visibly* Reformed...


----------



## jenney (May 19, 2007)

semper fideles said:


> Is faith a thing that grows from a seed into a tree or is it more like something that spontaneously pops into existence?
> 
> Baptists tend to view it as the latter.
> 
> I believe the Scriptures fundamentally see it as the former.


Faith grows from a seed to a tree. But in the dead unbelieving soul, there is no seed at all.

We are conceived dead in sin and must be converted. We were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world, yet at conception we are still dead sinners. At some point after that, if the Lord is going to save us, He must make us new creations and we cross an invisible boundary between dead and living. I can't see that as anything but a particular moment in time at which the Lord gives life. I don't see anything in Scripture that would indicate that we are converted over a period of time, unsaved-->sorta saved-->halfway saved-->3/4 saved-->totally there!!!

Sanctification is a process, but salvation is not.

However.
That is not to say that we know that day. To us, it is a lot like irresistible grace: from my perspective i made a decision to trust in the Lord Jesus, but in reality, I chose Him because He first chose me. From my perspective, there was a process of coming to faith, but from the Lord's perspective, there was a day when He replaced my heart of stone with a heart of flesh.

I do not look for the point of conversion for you or my children or anyone else. We don't look at the day. We look at _today_, where are they right now? Evangelism and discipleship are different things and we want to discern where they are spiritually so we can be wise in our dealings with them.

I have a sense of where they are spiritually because I walk with them daily with God's Word as a light to my path, the same way I know when they've mastered their lessons because I'm their teacher who interacts with them over their lessons every day. I don't think that is any different from you and your wife or any other consciencious Christian parent.

Is that more clear as to where I stand? There is a day. We don't necessarily know when it is and it is no more spiritual to be able to name the date than not.

The more I get into this thread, the more thankful I am for the grace of God to save me. I am in awe of the God who would give me life when I was so actively His enemy for so long.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 19, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> I'm beginning to understand some reasons for differences here. Baptists who are accurately following Baptist belief would believe the same as you about the table as far as admission or barring.
> 
> Where we differ is that we Baptists believe that it is the right and role of ministers to admit to or bar from baptism based on profession of faith. You believe that every child born of an elect family should be baptized. But you have the same problem (and, therefore, inconsistency) we do. How do you know that the family the child is born into is elect?


Knowledge of the election of the parents or the recipient is not our Confession of what the Scriptures teach. It's not an inconsistency. If the members are presumed unbelieving they ought to be removed from the Church. Only the impious Churches will then apply the sign to parents that like to bring their kids in to be christened. 



> Maybe they are wolves in sheep's clothing. Would you not then be applying the covenant sign to a child that was not part of the covenant?


If they are not under Church discipline and are still visible members of the Church then the child is joined to the visible Church. We don't play "pin the tail on the Elect" in Baptism. Everybody does the best they can - or I should say that they _should_ try to do the best they can. Some sessions are lazier than others about elder care and discipline.

I'll save further discussions for a future discussion on Baptism because this keeps getting moved further away from the Lord's Supper.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (May 19, 2007)

Just a note - 

_"Maybe they are wolves in sheep's clothing. Would you not then be applying the covenant sign to a child that was not part of the covenant?"_

Abraham, with information beforehand about Ishmael not being the child of promise, still placed the covenant sign on him.


----------

