Lord's Supper-Eligibility

[jenney]

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]

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

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

 

[KMK]

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]

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]

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

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[JOwen]

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]

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]

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?

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

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]

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]

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.



God's covenant is revealed in the gospel; in the first place to Adam in the promise of salvation by 'the seed of the woman', and afterwards, step by step, until the full revelation of salvation was completed in the New Testament. The salvation of the elect is based upon a covenant of redemption that was transacted in eternity between the Father and the Son; and it is solely through the grace conveyed by this covenant that all the descendants of fallen Adam who have been saved have obtained life and a blessed immortality; for the terms of blessing which applied to Adam in his state of innocency have no application to his posterity to render them acceptable to God.

Gen. 3:15; John 8:56; Acts 4:12; Rom. 4:1-5; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2; Heb.1:1,2; 11:6,13.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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?



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.

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]

Anthony,

I wrote:

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.

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]

Anthony,

I wrote:

To which you replied.


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.

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]

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]

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

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%.

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?

 

[Coram Deo]

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

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]

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

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.

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?



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.