Are Baptism and the Lord's Supper sacraments and "means of grace"?

Status
Not open for further replies.

elnwood

Puritan Board Junior
KMK,

I made it clear in a different thread that some of the Particular Baptists did hold to the sacramental understanding of the ordinances. Your citations of Keach and Collins show this, and thanks for that reminder. However, what Keach and Collins wrote is NOT the confession, and in the LBC, WCF Chapter 27 was removed in its entirety.

We must not think that the Particular Baptists were united on this issue. Likely, they were divided on this issue, as we are divided today. Hence this discussion!

So while Keach and Collins may have been able to affirm WCF Chapter 27, other Particular Baptists probably could not have. But all of us Baptists can agree on the nature of Baptism and the Lord's Supper as "ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world" -- and that's probably why that was put into the Confession, and not WCF Chapter 27, or even a slightly modified version of WCF Chapter 27.

--

Pastor Wallace,

Thank you for sharing your knowledge of Calvin and his sacramental views. I understand now how he viewed Baptism as not effectively sealing until it is received by faith.

However, I do not understand why it is necessary to view baptism as a "means to salvific grace." When "means of grace" is used, it refers to salvific grace -- that was the way Luther used it, and seems to be the way Calvin used it.

So, on one hand, I can view baptism as strictly something Jesus told us to do in obedience in order to signify regeneration.

Or, I can go a step further and say that the Holy Spirit works salvific grace through baptism, even though it is not tied to the moment of administration, nor will it be effective for the non-elect.

I have trouble making the next step for a number of reasons.

1) I don't see it as altogether necessary. I feel like I rest on solid Scriptural ground and in conformity with the LBC without it.

2) It seems like a doctrine left over from and modified from Roman Catholicism, as Dennis alluded to. It gets rid of the idea that salvation is tied to the moment of administration or by virtue of the one administrating it, but keeps the idea of that it actually conveys salvific grace.

As Baptists, we largely see infant baptism as a holdover from Roman Catholicism. Non-salvific "covenantal" infant baptism was never articulated as such until Zwingli formulated it against the Anabaptists. In the same way, the idea of Baptism and the Lord's Supper conveying salvific grace apart from the moment of administration was not articulated until the time of the Reformation.

3) I don't see any solid Scriptural support for it. Quotes from Renihan, Spurgeon, Keats, Collins, Calvin are nice, but I would like some Scriptural support. I did ask for it in the first post, but so far not a single reference to Scripture has been cited in support of it. That should tell us something. By all means, let us debate, but let us debate based on a proper exegesis of Scripture.
 

steadfast7

Puritan Board Junior
To Reformed paedobaptist, the means are only physical vehicles that carry grace, they do not in themselves confer grace (the Roman ex opere operato). This is why they repeat things like "proper use" and "proper time" to ensure that God is given sovereign reign over the grace he alone confers to those for whom they are meant. It has become clear to me that paedobaptists want to say almost nothing about the elective status of those who are given the means because for them, the means are objective statements about God's promises, not subjective indicators of election.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
None of the Reformed (to my knowledge) have ever believed that the Lord's Supper was a means of grace in and of itself. It is only a means of grace in conjunction with the Word.

1 Cor 11:28,29 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. *29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

Is this what you are arguing against, Don? If so, I don't think any here that would disagree with you.
 

steadfast7

Puritan Board Junior
None of the Reformed (to my knowledge) have ever believed that the Lord's Supper was a means of grace in and of itself. It is only a means of grace in conjunction with the Word.
But if this is the case, this brings up the problem (in my mind) how infant baptism could be a named a means of grace - unless it's the parents and congregation that are receiving the word on behalf of the child, but only lutherans believe that.
 

elnwood

Puritan Board Junior
None of the Reformed (to my knowledge) have ever believed that the Lord's Supper was a means of grace in and of itself. It is only a means of grace in conjunction with the Word.

Is this what you are arguing against, Don? If so, I don't think any here that would disagree with you.

That's not it. I'm more questioning the "sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified."

My understanding is that in the sacramental view, salvific grace is mediated through the sacraments by the Holy Spirit. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). That is, for the elect, salvific grace is by the Holy Spirit, but the sacraments are the physical vehicles that carry that grace from the Holy Spirit to us, and confer and seal the benefits of salvation for us. The sacraments are essentially mediators, the means by which we receive the grace by the Holy Spirit.

I don't see why these ordinances are mediating vehicles of salvific grace. I see salvific grace as something received directly by the Holy Spirit, and that the ordinances reminding us of the salvific grace we have already received through Christ's death and resurrection, and continue to receive, rather than being the means for us to receive it.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
None of the Reformed (to my knowledge) have ever believed that the Lord's Supper was a means of grace in and of itself. It is only a means of grace in conjunction with the Word.

Is this what you are arguing against, Don? If so, I don't think any here that would disagree with you.

That's not it. I'm more questioning the "sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified."

My understanding is that in the sacramental view, salvific grace is mediated through the sacraments by the Holy Spirit. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). That is, for the elect, salvific grace is by the Holy Spirit, but the sacraments are the physical vehicles that carry that grace from the Holy Spirit to us, and confer and seal the benefits of salvation for us. The sacraments are essentially mediators, the means by which we receive the grace by the Holy Spirit.

I don't see why these ordinances are mediating vehicles of salvific grace. I see salvific grace as something received directly by the Holy Spirit, and that the ordinances reminding us of the salvific grace we have already received through Christ's death and resurrection, and continue to receive, rather than being the means for us to receive it.

What about the Word?

LBC 10:1 Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, He is pleased in His appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call,1 by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ...
 

elnwood

Puritan Board Junior
Yes, we receive salvation by the proclaiming of the Word, i.e. the gospel, and the regeneration of the Holy Spirit.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
Yes, we receive salvation by the proclaiming of the Word, i.e. the gospel, and the regeneration of the Holy Spirit.

The Reformed view, including that of Luther, Zwingli and Calvin, is that the Lord's Supper is annexed to the Word. It is not, in and of itself, a means of grace. But in conjunction with the Word of God it is. If you agree with Paul that self-examination in light of the Gospel is a means of grace, then you must also agree that the Lord's Supper is a means of grace because this self-examination and discernment of the Lord's body is the essence of the Supper itself.
 

elnwood

Puritan Board Junior
Yes, we receive salvation by the proclaiming of the Word, i.e. the gospel, and the regeneration of the Holy Spirit.

The Reformed view, including that of Luther, Zwingli and Calvin, is that the Lord's Supper is annexed to the Word. It is not, in and of itself, a means of grace. But in conjunction with the Word of God it is. If you agree with Paul that self-examination in light of the Gospel is a means of grace, then you must also agree that the Lord's Supper is a means of grace because this self-examination and discernment of the Lord's body is the essence of the Supper itself.

Where does Paul say that self-examination in light of the gospel is a means of grace? 1 Cor 11:28-29 says that eating unworthily, not discerning the body, is bringing κρίμα, "judgment." upon oneself. It doesn't say anything about self-examination being a means of salvific grace.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
Proper participation in the Lord's Supper requires self-examination in light of the Gospel. Do you deny that self-examination in light of the Gospel is a means of grace?

LBC 14:2 By this faith a Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word for the authority of God himself,4 and also apprehends an excellency therein above all other writings and all things in the world,5 as it bears forth the glory of God in his attributes, the excellency of Christ in his nature and offices, and the power and fullness of the Holy Spirit in his workings and operations: and so is enabled to cast his soul upon the truth consequently believed;6 and also acts differently upon that which each particular passage thereof contains; yielding obedience to the commands,7 trembling at the threatenings,8 and embracing the promises of God for this life and that which is to come;9 but the principle acts of saving faith have immediate relation to Christ, accepting, receiving, and resting upon him alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.10
4 Acts 24:14
5 Ps. 19:7-10, 69:72
6 2 Tim. 1:12
7 John 15:14
8 Isa. 116:2
9 Heb. 11:13
10 John 1:12; Acts 16:31; Gal 2:20; Acts 15:11

Perhaps I am totally misunderstanding your assertions, but what you are saying sounds like you are denying LBC 14:1:

The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts,1 and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word;2 by which also, and by the administration of baptism and the Lord's supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God, it is increased and strengthened.3
1 2 Cor. 4:13; Eph. 2:8
2 Rom. 10:14,17
3 Luke 17:5; 1 Pet. 2:2; Acts 20:32
 

elnwood

Puritan Board Junior
Ken, I think you're broadening the definition of "means of grace." I don't deny that baptism, the Lord's supper and self-examination are means that God uses to strengthen our faith. They are. Note that the LBC adds "other means appointed by God," which the WCF does not have.

The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts,1 and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word;2 by which also, and by the administration of baptism and the Lord's supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God, it is increased and strengthened.

In other words, the LBC says the ordinances, as well as other means, strengthens faith. This includes the ordinances, but also prayer, fasting, meditation, feeding the poor, loving your spouse, and other things we do out of obedience to Christ and his commands.

But this conception of the "means of grace" is not the same as the sacramental understanding that you see in WCF Chapter 27.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
Ken, I think you're broadening the definition of "means of grace." I don't deny that baptism, the Lord's supper and self-examination are means that God uses to strengthen our faith. They are. Note that the LBC adds "other means appointed by God," which the WCF does not have.

The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts,1 and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word;2 by which also, and by the administration of baptism and the Lord's supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God, it is increased and strengthened.

In other words, the LBC says the ordinances, as well as other means, strengthens faith. This includes the ordinances, but also prayer, fasting, meditation, feeding the poor, loving your spouse, and other things we do out of obedience to Christ and his commands.

But this conception of the "means of grace" is not the same as the sacramental understanding that you see in WCF Chapter 27.

You keep making appeals to Westminster, Don, but you won't allow the Westminsterians a voice in this discussion. I think we will get to the heart of the matter if we allow them to speak for themselves.

It is the opinion of the Moderation Team that this thread should be moved from Credo-Baptism Only to the Baptism Forum. Feel free to respond.
 

elnwood

Puritan Board Junior
I strongly object. There are Baptists here who hold the Westminster view of the sacraments, and we've had a productive conversation here. If we can't discuss the nature of the ordinances exclusively within credobaptism, I fail to see the purpose of having a Baptists-only forum.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Objection noted, but this is the way it is going to be unless you want the thread deleted. As far as the "-only" forums, their continued usefulness is under review.
 

Marrow Man

Drunk with Powder
I strongly object. There are Baptists here who hold the Westminster view of the sacraments, and we've had a productive conversation here. If we can't discuss the nature of the ordinances exclusively within credobaptism, I fail to see the purpose of having a Baptists-only forum.

And you must understand that with the way you worded the OP, you were going to find many (if not all) paedobaptists who objected to the way you represented their views. You seem to think that paedobaptists can only argue confessionally and not biblically, then placed the discussion in a forum where paedobaptists are not supposed to post. At best, it is a strawman, and a worst, it is a back-handed slap against paedobaptists. If that was not your intention, then you need to give serious consideration to amending the last point of your OP.
 
Last edited:

JP Wallace

Puritan Board Sophomore
Note to Presbyterian/Covenant Baptist friends. Some of us most certainly do not see paedo/covenant baptism as a hang over from Roman Catholicism - allusion was made to this earlier. Just wanted to qualify that argument as not necessarily being representative.
 

elnwood

Puritan Board Junior
And you must understand that with the way you worded the OP, you were going to find many (if not all) paedobaptists who objected to the way you represented their views. You seem to think that paedobaptists can only argue confessionally and not biblically, then placed the discussion in a forum where paedobaptists are not supposed to post. At best, it is a strawman, and a worst, it is a back-handed slap against paedobaptists. If that was not your intention, then you need to give serious consideration to amending the last point of your OP.

Pastor Phillips,

That objection was raised, and I already offered clarification in post #7, and the objection was withdrawn.

If you desire further clarification, I can state very clearly that I don't believe that "paedobaptists can only argue confessionally and not biblically." I simply wanted a discussion among brethren who did not have confessional commitments. I apologize for not making my OP clear enough, and for offending you.

Objection noted, but this is the way it is going to be unless you want the thread deleted. As far as the "-only" forums, their continued usefulness is under review.

My objection still stands, but in the interest of general equity, I request that the discussion "Sacramental Union and Sacramental Language," which is currently open and in the "Paedo-Baptism Answers" forum, be moved elsewhere so that Baptists can respond. The original poster even wrote that he should have posted it in the "Confession of Faith" forum, but it was never moved.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f122/sacramental-union-sacramental-language-68235/
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
The moderators will review this in conjunction with a review of the "-only" forums.
Objection noted, but this is the way it is going to be unless you want the thread deleted. As far as the "-only" forums, their continued usefulness is under review.

My objection still stands, but in the interest of general equity, I request that the discussion "Sacramental Union and Sacramental Language," which is currently open and in the "Paedo-Baptism Answers" forum, be moved elsewhere so that Baptists can respond. The original poster even wrote that he should have posted it in the "Confession of Faith" forum, but it was never moved.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f122/sacramental-union-sacramental-language-68235/
 

Marrow Man

Drunk with Powder
Don, I moved the thread because the OP requested it. It has been inactive, though, for almost a month.

Thank you for the clarification. But I am not sure I agree with the the assumption that you are making with regard to Baptist arguments. This is a confessional board, and the members who join are bound to their confessional standards. That is, everyone on this board is supposed to have a "confessional commitment." It is possible to argue apart from those commitments while still being bound by them, I suppose, but I am not sure this is what you are suggesting. If you are simply saying, "explain this from the Bible without referencing a confessional document like the LBC," then I can understand that.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
I mentioned before that the London Baptist Confession removes all of the Westminster Confession Chapter 27 regarding the sacraments.

WCF 27
1. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him: as also to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word.
2. There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.
3. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorising the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

It is replaced by LBC Chapter 28:
1. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world.
2. These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.

Every use of the word "sacrament" in the LBC is removed or replaced by "ordinance." The references to the sacraments being the signs and seals of the covenant of grace are removed, and also from 29.1. The "sacramental union" between the sign and the thing signified is removed. Every use of the term "grace" with reference to baptism.

So from a Baptist perspective, do you think baptism and the Lord's supper are sacraments? Means of grace? How would you define "sacrament" and "means of grace"? And, most important of all, what Scriptures would you use to defend it?

I want responses from BAPTISTS ONLY because:
1) The hermeneutical frameworks of Baptists and paedobaptists are very, very different. I want to discuss this among those of us in agreement on the proper recipients of baptism.
2) The Presbyterians are bound to defend "sacraments" and "means of grace" as scriptural because of their subordinate standard. We Reformed Baptists are not so bound. I'm more interested in a discussion revolving around Scripture rather than one in which the confessions are taken a priori as scriptural.

In that both encourage faith (both of the individual and the local body) they are a means of grace. The fact that both signs are commanded (thus the "ordinance") does not lessen their spiritual importance.

sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix.

Going back to the OP, I agree with Bill.

I have reread the thread but I am still trying to understand the point of the OP. Are you making the assertion that because some of the signers of the 1689 viewed the sacraments as 'memorials', modern day Reformed Baptists are still Reformed even if they are memorialists as well? That may be, but I think you need to establish the assertion on firmer ground than a simple word change in the 1689. If you leave Westminster out of it, and provide other historical sources, then I think there can be a healthy discussion among baptists.

Or are you simply asking 'sacramentalists' for the Scripture behind their view?

Or are you simply asking for the meaning of the phrase 'means of grace' as it is used by Baptists?
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
What is interesting is that Swinnock, in his Works, uses the word 'ordinances' to refer to all the means of grace, of which the 'sacraments' are part. This would point to an essential agreement between Westminsterians and Particular Baptists over the nature of the Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

So if thou wouldst but in secret search thy soul, vomit up thy filth by a penitent confession, cleanse thine heart by sincere contrition, and wouldst then frequent the public ordinances, thou wouldst find prayer sweet, preaching sweet, the sacrament sweet, every service sweet. Pg 239
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
To sum up some of the points which have been clarified in this thread.

1. "Reformed Baptists," professing to be Reformed, are bound to approach the authority and exposition of Scripture with the same commitment to confessional integrity as Reformed Presbyterians or the Dutch Reformed. The authority of Scripture is not an abstract ideal which exists apart from the actual content of Scripture.

2. Both the Westminster and London Confessions which are received on this board teach a commitment to "means of grace" (14.1) as an integral part of the overall reformed understanding of grace as a gift and work of God. Some question still remains as to what is meant by "sacrament" or how it can be applied, but no doubt is left as to the "means of grace" as an integral part of the system.

3. Reformed paedobaptists should not be represented as requiring anything less than Spirit-wrought faith as a necessary part of the effectual communication of the benefits of redemption to God's elect. They are credo-baptists in this sense and should not be misrepresented as if they confessed something which is contrary to this reformed teaching.
 

Iconoclast

Puritan Board Junior
None of the Reformed (to my knowledge) have ever believed that the Lord's Supper was a means of grace in and of itself. It is only a means of grace in conjunction with the Word.

Is this what you are arguing against, Don? If so, I don't think any here that would disagree with you.

That's not it. I'm more questioning the "sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified."

My understanding is that in the sacramental view, salvific grace is mediated through the sacraments by the Holy Spirit. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). That is, for the elect, salvific grace is by the Holy Spirit, but the sacraments are the physical vehicles that carry that grace from the Holy Spirit to us, and confer and seal the benefits of salvation for us. The sacraments are essentially mediators, the means by which we receive the grace by the Holy Spirit.



Here is a quote from A Baptist Catechism with Commentary...by W.R. Downing
The Church of Rome has seven sacraments—Baptism, Confirmation,
Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Order and Matrimony.
Protestantism holds to two, baptism and the Lord’s Supper. These two
Baptists and some Evangelicals call “ordinances,” as these have been
commanded by our Lord (Lat. ordinare, “to put in order”). A sacrament (Gk.
musterion, “mystery;” Lat. sacramentum, “secret,” and sacer, “holy”) is a
physical rite which posits something mysterious and beyond the physical
elements in the communication of grace. Historically and theologically,
therefore, the term “ordinance” distinguishes baptism and the Lord’s Supper
as being only symbolic and representative in nature, and considers them to be
means of grace only insofar as they bring the mind and heart to fix themselves
upon the spiritual realities thus symbolized. The term presupposes no mystical
significance as means of grace.
Quest.
Some see it this way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
To sum up some of the points which have been clarified in this thread.

1. "Reformed Baptists," professing to be Reformed, are bound to approach the authority and exposition of Scripture with the same commitment to confessional integrity as Reformed Presbyterians or the Dutch Reformed. The authority of Scripture is not an abstract ideal which exists apart from the actual content of Scripture.

2. Both the Westminster and London Confessions which are received on this board teach a commitment to "means of grace" (14.1) as an integral part of the overall reformed understanding of grace as a gift and work of God. Some question still remains as to what is meant by "sacrament" or how it can be applied, but no doubt is left as to the "means of grace" as an integral part of the system.

3. Reformed paedobaptists should not be represented as requiring anything less than Spirit-wrought faith as a necessary part of the effectual communication of the benefits of redemption to God's elect. They are credo-baptists in this sense and should not be misrepresented as if they confessed something which is contrary to this reformed teaching.

In further summary it seems the main difference between the two camps is the view of baptism being a sign and seal. Reformed Baptists should view baptism as a sign of the new covenant; whereas the sealing is accomplished by the Holy Spirit at the point of regeneration. That difference aside confessional Christians on both sides should view both ordinances as a means of grace, which is consistent with both confessions and as testified in Scripture.
 

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
Reformed Baptists should view baptism as a sign of the new covenant; whereas the sealing is accomplished by the Holy Spirit at the point of regeneration.

Reformed Baptists who view baptism as more than just a sign are exceeding the intent of the 1689 LBC.

1689 LBC 29.1 Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.

It is not an accident that the 1689 LBC omits any mention of baptism being a seal. To view baptism as a seal is to take exception with the confession on this point.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
It is not an accident that the 1689 LBC omits any mention of baptism being a seal. To view baptism as a seal is to take exception with the confession on this point.

Bill, the second sentence does not follow from the first. The confession would have to include an exclusive statement of some kind in order for an exception to be required. The mere omission of a word is no grounds for an exclusive assertion.

How does the "mere sign" terminology fit in with 30.1 of the confession when viewed in the light of the antipaedobaptist commitment to the affinity and analogy of baptism and the Lord's supper? 30.1 appears to suggest something more than a "mere sign" viewpoint.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Quoting Anthony's quote:

Historically and theologically,therefore, the term “ordinance” distinguishes baptism and the Lord’s Supper
as being only symbolic and representative in nature, and considers them to be
means of grace only insofar as they bring the mind and heart to fix themselves
upon the spiritual realities thus symbolized. The term presupposes no mystical
significance as means of grace.

Isn't this agreed upon by all the reformed, both credo and paedo?

---------- Post added at 04:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:11 AM ----------

It is not an accident that the 1689 LBC omits any mention of baptism being a seal. To view baptism as a seal is to take exception with the confession on this point.

Bill, the second sentence does not follow from the first. The confession would have to include an exclusive statement of some kind in order for an exception to be required. The mere omission of a word is no grounds for an exclusive assertion.

How does the "mere sign" terminology fit in with 30.1 of the confession when viewed in the light of the antipaedobaptist commitment to the affinity and analogy of baptism and the Lord's supper? 30.1 appears to suggest something more than a "mere sign" viewpoint.


The 1689 writers quoted the WCF verbatim in many places; therefore, in any place where a particular wording is changed or left out while neighboring sections are brought in en toto, we should expect there to be a significant reason for this, right?
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
The 1689 writers quoted the WCF verbatim in many places; therefore, in any place where a particular wording is changed or left out while neighboring sections are brought in en toto, we should expect there to be a significant reason for this, right?

Samuel Waldron's Exposition mentions places where changes are significant and insignificant. Even where changes are significant it is not necessarily in the direction of doctrinal alteration but might also be due to accommodation. If the latter then the change cannot be regarded as a matter of exclusivity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top