Here is an article lauding church membership to parachurch workers. In many respects, each of the ten reasons exposes the parasitic relationship that parachurch organizations have with communions. For instance:
3. Church membership allows you to invite members of your local body to participate in your work and be strengthened by it. It enables you to invite others to join in the work of your ministry. Other church members can pray, give, help strategize, or volunteer to help you in your work.
Or:
9. Church membership might even allow you to cultivate your support base. Submitting your life to a church allows people to know you and trust you, and, I hope, to make you trustworthy. In other words, Christians should be able to give their money to people they know and trust, and your formal commitment to a church allows this to happen.
Only in number ten does the author get around to the biggest reason:
10. You will experience the ordinances as Scripture intends. With the exception of missionary contexts in which no church exists (as in Acts 8), Scripture always places the practice of the ordinances in the setting of the local church. The Lord’s Supper and baptism should be practiced among a community of believers who have covenanted together under the preached Word and discipline. In some ways, this point is the culmination of the others above. We should share the bread and cup of communion with those who are alike and different from us—those whom God has brought together—so that we might corporately declare his death until he comes again (1 Cor. 11:17-34). Communion among affinity groups can cloud the universal and inclusive nature of the gospel.
In point of fact, unless someone is baptized and a member in good standing in a church, they should not partake of the Supper nor should any session permit the baptism of the non-members’ children.
Sorry to sound so vinegary. But I am trying to remind the parachurch Gospel Co-Allies of their commitment to the visible church.
Old Life 
“You’ll also enjoy the confidence of working with a supportive and trusted company that has been in business for over 50 years, and a strong community of experienced Amway Business Owners who can help you every step of the way and support you in reaching your chosen goals. ”
The above is quoted from the Business Oppportunity webpage for Amway, and sounds very similar
to point three above.
LikeLike
Does this speak to the question of Open vs. Close(d) communion?
LikeLike
American readers might be interested to know that a trust which cares for “exclusive brethren” buildings in the UK has been denied charitable status (with tax benefits) on the basis that the churches which use these buildings do not allow access to the Lord’s table to the general public.
http://barnabasfund.org/US/Editorial-British-MPs-defend-Brethren-churchs-charitable-status-in-important-test-case.html
This obviously has huge implications for other churches which also want to follow the New Testament pattern of allowing access to the Lord’s table only to suitably qualified Christians.
LikeLike
Inconvenient truths.
LikeLike
Surely this doesn’t apply to Neocalvinists, though, does it?
LikeLike
One of the things on the table with the fiscal cliff is the deductibility of charitable contributions. Things could get interesting for parachurch ministries & churches. At some point relatively soon we’re going to realize all of the worthwhile things that supporting a cradle to grave welfare state crowds out.
LikeLike
I seem to recall that in the past parachurch “ministries” would justify their existence by claiming that they were there simply to assist and enhance the ministry effectiveness of the church. But from the quotes in this post it seems the opposite is the case: in the parachurch mindset the church exists to serve the ministry needs of the parachurch (for example, by providing a network of relationships and a potential support base for those involved in a parachurch ministry). Talk about crass pragmatism. DGH nailed it when he described the parachurch relationship to the church as “parasitic.”
DGH, you’re not alone; this makes me feel rather “vinegary” as well.
LikeLike
We love for baptized Christians who walk in off the street to commune with us. It’s His Supper. He gives it to the ungodly. That’s them…and I surely know that is us.
Maybe we need a little more vinegar?
LikeLike
Steve – The only caveat: Try to ensure they are not fleeing church discipline elsewhere. It is good to ask them where they are a member and let that church know that they partook with you. It’s good for that person and their home church should appreciate the communication as well.
LikeLike
Erik,
Thank you, friend.
When we offer the Supper to baptized Christians who believe Christ to be present in it, we really are not concerned with any litmus test whatsoever. We figure if we are to err…we are erring on the side of God’s grace. And that He is more than capable of handling anything that is going on in the life of that believer.
LikeLike
Erik,
If you can listen to this…and you can come in at around the 10 min. mark (of the 16 min. recording)…and it’ll make our understanding of the Supper a bit more clear…whether or not you happen to agree, or not… and that’s ok.
[audio src="http://theoldadam.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/1-kiz.mp3" /]
Thanks, Erik.
LikeLike
Careless, unworthy partaking of the Supper is deadly, 1Cor.11:30.
Those who are in position of administering and distributing the Supper are identified by the Holy Spirit as “those who must give an account,” for those over whom they exercise care.
If these stewards of the mysteries (2Cor.4:1) simply pass out the body and blood of our Lord carelessly or indiscriminately, they should be prepared to answer for their patent lack of compassion, whether it was in the name of “grace” or anything else.
LikeLike
Who is the Supper for?
St. Paul was speaking directly to those who were not sharing their food and who were getting drunk at the Supper.
We announce what the Supper is. Who it is for. And then invite people up.
We surely are not going to question everyone at the railing. We are not legalists. We actually trust in the Word (the Lord) to take care of His sinners.
If there were something obvious (which happens on occasion) then the pastor would pass the person by and talk to them afterwards. It is rare. But has happened.
LikeLike
Rube, not entirely. The OPC, for instance, practices open in the sense that anyone baptized and a member of a gospel preaching church is welcome to partake. A lot of squishiness there.
LikeLike
C Gribben, what if you fence the table verbally but pass the elements to all people seated in the pews? Some would argue it’s up to the person to apply the pre-sacramental instruction. In the OPC, we don’t yank the plates from anyone.
LikeLike
“, we really are not concerned with any litmus test whatsoever. We figure if we are to err…we are erring on the side of God’s grace.”
So say I get tired of my wife and decide to leave her for a younger woman. I quit my church and shack up with my girlfriend. My church appeals to me to repent of my sin and return to my wife. Being hard-hearted, I ignore them. They bar me from the table and begin the steps toward excommunication while continuing to beg me to repent. My girlfriend grew up Lutheran (or evangelical) and is feeling guilty so she asks me to start accompanying her to church. The Lutheran or evangelical church we go to is really big and doesn’t ask any questions before admitting anyone to the Supper (whether out of conviction or impracticality). My girlfriend and I partake. A friend of my wife who attends the church sees this and reports back to my wife, who reports to my elders. How has the unity of the visible church been strengthened in any way by this? How has the offense against my wife been anything but increased? “Erring on the side of God’s grace”?
LikeLike
I think you miss the point that a lot of people should have no expectation of God’s grace, only God’s judgment. We don’t do these people any favor by pretending otherwise.
LikeLike
Steve Martin wrote: “We announce what the Supper is. Who it is for. And then invite people up.
“We surely are not going to question everyone at the railing. We are not legalists. We actually trust in the Word (the Lord) to take care of His sinners.”
GW: The typical practice in the OPC is similar (as explained by DGH above). Most OP churches practice a “verbal fencing” of the Table rather than closed communion, and we don’t have communion bouncers. The ceremony is simple: The words of institution are read, a brief explanation of the Supper is offered and a verbal warning is issued. A prayer of consecration and thanksgiving are offered. Then the elements are distributed and consumed, and the sacramental part of the service is closed in prayer. In 1 Cor. 11 the Apostle Paul puts the onus of responsibility for self-examination upon the communicants, not upon the administrator. Nevertheless, if the pastor or an elder distributing the elements is aware of an openly unrepentant or unbelieving person being present in the public assembly, such a person will be (quietly) passed by in the distribution of the elements, and (where circumstances require) spoken to after the service. The Lord’s Supper is a means of grace only for broken, humbled sinners who rest for salvation in Christ alone; not for proud, self-righteous, impenitent sinners who trust in their own works or so-called “merits” (who end up eating and drinking judgment to themselves if they dare to partake of the holy supper without prior repentance).
LikeLike
Geoff – Yeah, and you guys also accept Baptists as members. Just a little good-natured URC/OPC ribbing…
I am in the URC and my parents are in the process of joining an OPC. We were all Baptists 20 years ago.
LikeLike
No need to be a bouncer if you deal with it before the service. I am not saying that no one is never offended.
LikeLike
Erik Charter wrote: “I think you miss the point that a lot of people should have no expectation of God’s grace, only God’s judgment. We don’t do these people any favor by pretending otherwise.”
GW: Your observations about the need to maintain proper discipline in the church in order to maintain the integrity of the sacrament is spot on. This is why in the OPC we require that those who would partake must not only be personally trusting in Christ alone as Lord and Savior, but must be members in good standing of a church where the gospel is preached. Your hypothetical illustration of how a lack of sacramental discipline in the name of “erring on the side of God’s grace” is actually not a gracious thing and can compromise the biblical unity of the church.
Westminster Confession of Faith 30.3 teaches that church censures are necessary, in part, “…for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the church, if they should suffer his covenant, and the seals thereof (that would be the sacraments – GLW), to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders.” The Confession teaches that God’s wrath falls upon a church that allows the sacraments (which are seals of God’s covenant of grace) to be profaned. One way a church does this is by failing to properly fence the Table of the Lord.
LikeLike
Guys @ OLT— Old Bob got up early, 7:45, to see what is going on and to suggest a discussion, here. I had hoped to find a new topic, so as to be near first in line with a comment. I found one, mostly about open vs. close communion. Then, “Wow”, as I often say of OLT wonders, scads of comments already! EriK right up there, as always. I wanted to see if I could encourage a bunch of comments on a topic I have been thinking about since reading Pete Lillback’s gift to Elaine and me. His book, “Wall of Misconception”. His wall in mind was that between Church and State. (Known by many different pairs of words.) I thought of MANY walls and 4 classifications which might be discussed— High walls, low walls, no walls and debatable walls— like the one between open and close communion. A few examples of walls which might be classified as one of the 4 (or more) types above—- Good v. evil?, husbands and wives?, church and parachurch?, Humanity and Deity of Jesus, Sola Scriptura and Holy Spirit illumination, 2K and Neo-Calvs, The complete soverignty of God and the reality of human will. Many more! Would this cause more vinergy exchanges? Doesn’t HAVE to! This might seem like old Bob is trying to horn in on Darryl’s great leadership. If anyone would like, you can avoid problems of public discourse: Old Bob @ robertkmorris1928@gmail.com Also any self disclosure stuff is welcome. I must keep in mind that I am getting deeper by the day in service here at Alexian Village, spending sufficient time with my greatest gift from God (Elaine). Homeschooling grand kids via phone, etc. Love, OB
LikeLike
John Fea against the intolerant idolatry of GW by Pete Lillback
http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/George-Washington-a-Christian-John-Fea-02-16-2011?offset=1&max=1
LikeLike
And don’t forget Lillback’s intolerance toward those of you who fence the table against the infant members of your church.
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/miscellaneous/calvins-covenantal-response-to-the-anabaptist-view-of-baptism/
LikeLike
Erik & Geoff:
In a discussion a few months back with the 3rd Paschall brother (who has not appeared on this blog) I was discussing with him the whole “fencing the table” idea, and myself arguing for a more strict URC-type approach when my brother used the following argument:
‘Strict fencing’ (i.e., denying people the supper who are not members or have no been “interviewed” beforehand) is hard to sustain biblically because it’s something, according to 1 Cor. 11:29, that is left up to the person’s conscience. Judgment is not cast down on the church for unknowningly serving the supper to someone living in sin. To do so means you could never serve the Lord’s Supper to anyone, since we all sin. It is left on the part of the individual to judge themselves before taking the supper. If they live in known sin, they are to confess and partake.
Concerning the eldership of the church, if they are cognizant of a sin that needs to be confronted of a member/attender and refuse to do so and yet serve the Supper to an unrepentant individual, the judgment falls on the eldership as well.
I think a ‘strict policing’ is a back-handed pietistic-type move to attempt to discern a man’s heart in ways that we are not privileged to discern. If the eldership is aware of a sin (as was the case in Corinth) then they must confront. If an individual is hiding his sin/unrepentant of his sin and eats the Supper, he drinks judgment on himself. To refuse the supper to someone who professes faith in Christ and has committed himself to the assembly of the saints (“squishy” as DG puts it) is to fail to carry out a significant task of the elder.
Which is to pose the question: “Which is more greivous: to unknowingly serve the Supper to an unrepentant sinner, or to knowingly refuse the Supper to a true believer?”
LikeLike
PLEASE, Guys, go read 12/3 What Bible do Neo-Calvs read and see my l best, maybe last gasp @ OLT. It is 35th comment there, I believe. Love, Old Bob
LikeLike
I have always had respect for those Missouri Synod Lutherans who ask you not to participate in their “sacrament” if you do not agree with them about the ubiquity of the humanity of Christ. On the other hand, I have not much tolerance for the patronizing condescending tolerance of those who open the table with the idea that “this is happening, even if you don’t know what it is, mr jones…” How “objective”–God is required to show up, when the ordained clergy (for life) do the hocus pocus, even though the “covenant curses” are still conditioned on the sinner.
LikeLike
When are we supposed to start talking about how good a person is? When she gets old, or when she dies? When she has made a “creditable profession of faith” so that her child can get water (but not bread)?
Matthew 10:26 “So have no fear of them, for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known
Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;
I Corinthians 4:5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart
Revelation 2:17 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone that no one knows except the one who receives it.’
http://www.thebrazosblog.com/2012/04/hide-it-under-a-bushel-yes-by-jonathan-malesic/
LikeLike
Nate,
I don’t think it’s a matter of determining the state of the visitor’s soul (sorry, Richard), it’s a matter of determining whether or not they are a member of a church and communicating with that church’s elders about their partaking. It’s up to that church’s elders to monitor their member. We don’t know them, their elders do (or should). We do have those darn keys of the kingdom on our belts…
LikeLike
Old Bob: “maybe last gasp @ OLT”
You’ve been recuscitated/resurrected so many times here I’m going to start to refer to you as “Old Lazarus”.
LikeLike
Will our “politics of the Lord’s Table” make us more resentful of the majority “secular” cultures in which we are exiles? Are we satisfied to be “merely” a “voluntary association”, or do we have aspirations to have more “objective” and historical “public” influence?
Stan Hauerwas–“the theological assumption that the invisible church is the true church is a consequence of Constantinianism, so that the distinctive character of Christian life is now primarily identified with inwardness since the majority by definition are already Christian. To talk about ‘creation mandates’ is to invite a distinction between private and public spheres which results in Christian obedience becoming invisible”, in his Christian Critique of America
mark: Stan thinks that’s a bad thing. Me, not so much, but that’s because I not only make a distinction between law and gospel (creation and redemption) but also because I am waiting for Jesus to come to fix creation, as I am depending on His satisfaction of law as my grace….
LikeLike
Erik,
Isn’t that precisely what fencing is (determining the state of the visitor’s soul)? Why else would you set up a ‘fence’ other than to keep out the goats?
LikeLike
Bob, if you want to discuss the four walls, you have to do more than give a quick overview. What exactly do you have in mind? Seems to me separation is a good thing. Magistrates ruined more churches than popes.
LikeLike
Elders worry about their own sheep and goats. When other sheep and goats visit our pasture we notify their shepherds. Hopefully those shepherds are receiving credible professions of faith before admitting their sheep to the table. I’m not entirely sure how to distinguish “baaa” from “baaaa”, but we do our best.
LikeLike
But seriously, for me it’s mostly about visible churches respecting other visible churches and their attempts at discipline. Maybe the biggest problem that Protestants have in my opinion is the ability for people to flee discipline and go to the church down the street without consequence. Fencing is at least an attempt to respect these boundaries. A huge weakness of protestantism is always viewing everything at an individual, as opposed to a communal, level. These notions of the instutional church, shepheding, fencing, and church discipline get at the heart of what 2K is about.
LikeLike
If you’re just going to commune anyone and everyone, and only hesitate if you happen to “know” something…
then by all means, get consistent and set up a firehose on the roof of the church.
“Baptize them all, let God sort them out.”
LikeLike
Erik,
So how did the Apostle Paul verify that a visitor from Ephesus was not under church discipline in Corinth? It’s not like they had email in the first-century. Did believers carry around letters of recommendation from their elders certifying their status as a member-in-good-standing?
What would the Apostles have done – told the person to not take communion until they had a letter from their home-church? Not only do I think this is inconsistent with what Scripture permits (or is silent on) but also inconsistent with how natural relationships function (if we’re gonna talk about 2K) – we take people at their word (i.e., confession). If evidence proves to the contrary then we proceed from there.
It’s like the old saying – fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
LikeLike
Nate Paschall wrote: “What would the Apostles have done – told the person to not take communion until they had a letter from their home-church? Not only do I think this is inconsistent with what Scripture permits (or is silent on) but also inconsistent with how natural relationships function (if we’re gonna talk about 2K) – we take people at their word (i.e., confession). If evidence proves to the contrary then we proceed from there.”
GW: Good point. Erik and I both agree that the Table should be “fenced” in some way, but given both biblical considerations (such as the context of 1 Cor. 11) and practical considerations (such as the scenario you mention above), I think the verbal fencing approach (where a clear verbal warning is issued and responsibility for self-examination is placed upon the heads of visiting would-be communicants) is the better approach than the closed communion approach.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Nate, I don’t think it’s a matter of determining the state of the visitor’s soul (sorry, Richard), it’s a matter of determining whether or not they are a member of a church and communicating with that church’s elders about their partaking. It’s up to that church’s elders to monitor their member. We don’t know them, their elders do (or should). We do have those darn keys of the kingdom on our belts…
RS: Ah, so let us not worry about the soul but just make sure that a person is a member of a church and is able to take the supper there. In other words, don’t make any real effort to see if they understand and believe the Gospel, just let them eat and drink damnation to themselves. Remember, elders will give an account to God for the people in the church.
I Cor 11:27 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.
Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account.
LikeLike
Nate,
What we do is ask them if they are a member of a Christian church in good standing and ask them which church (they fill out a form). We don’t scrutinize the church (unless it is clearly not a Christian church — Mormon or Unitarian, for instance). We admit them, then we send a note to their church informing them that they have had the Lord’s Supper with us. I haven’t been on the Consistory for several years now so I don’t know how much feedback we receive from other churches. We are taking people at their word & giving them the benefit of the doubt, but then following up with the note.
LikeLike
Richard – What is your practice? How in the world do you put someone through your gauntlet without delaying the service for two hours?
LikeLike
Erik,
I can live with that.
I would agree with Geoff with his statement – clear warning of judgment and need for self-examination.
Richard on the other hand… would you hook people up to a polygraph before hand? I mean, if we really have to know…
LikeLike
Nate Paschall: Richard on the other hand… would you hook people up to a polygraph before hand? I mean, if we really have to know…
RS: Polygraphs don’t detect people who are deceived, so that would not be necessary. Polygraphs only detect those that are lying on purpose, though at times they can detect lies when people are just nervous. Thumb screws, however, can get to the truth.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard – What is your practice? How in the world do you put someone through your gauntlet without delaying the service for two hours?
RS: The gauntlet was what Native Americans used as a way of testing and torment. One way is to do what the Scottish and some Americans did in examining the people in the congregation over a period of time and handing out tokens. All who went to the Table had to have a token. It is better for someone to miss out on the Table than it is for them to heap damnation on themselves and the elders who let them do it in order to save time and face.
LikeLike
I’m all for it only if the token is good at Dave & Busters
LikeLike
Richard, what’s the biblical warrant for tokens? Plus, the practice smacks of the sort of externalism I wouldn’t expect you’d find attractive. I don’t. A simple and credible profession seems adequate to gain a place at the Table. You know, eat and drink at no price.
LikeLike
Long day at the salt mine. sorry for getting back in here late. And I’m off to an Advent midweek service in a minute, so I did not have time to read all the comments, just a few after my last comment.
Truth be told, there’s not a one of us who could stand up to scrutiny if our little secrets were let out. Not a one of us.
If someone in a church is doing something to poison the congregation, or being open an unrepentant about a sin and the pastor and elders are aware of it, then that is grounds to withhold the sacrament.
Someone coming up to receive the sacrament that is not known by the congregation is given the benefit of any doubt just as the members of that congregation are.
Thanks be to God that Jesus didn’t pinch out His grace the same way that many full blown sinners (that is what we all are) want to.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, what’s the biblical warrant for tokens?
RS: The tokens were not means of grace, but simply to show (back when hundreds and hundreds came to the Table) that a person had been examined.
Zrim: Plus, the practice smacks of the sort of externalism I wouldn’t expect you’d find attractive.
RS: No externalism in that practice.
Zrim: I don’t. A simple and credible profession seems adequate to gain a place at the Table. You know, eat and drink at no price.
RS: The question is not whether one has to pay for it or not, but whether one has grace or not. The devil is the great deceiver, our hearts are more deceitful than all else, and then add the deceitfulness of lusts and of riches and one sees that a simple and credible profession is not adequate at all.
LikeLike
Steve Martin: Thanks be to God that Jesus didn’t pinch out His grace the same way that many full blown sinners (that is what we all are) want to.
RS: No, redeemed people are not full blown sinners. Sinners, yes, but they grieve over their sin and long to be delivered from it. It is true that Jesus didn’t pinch out His grace, but it is also true that those that He saves by grace alone are changed by that grace.
LikeLike
Richard – “It is better for someone to miss out on the Table than it is for them to heap damnation on themselves and the elders who let them do it in order to save time and face.”
Erik – I actually have some sympathy for what you are saying here, Richard. The Sunday morning time constraints are definitely an issue and I am not saying my answer is the best or only answer. My suggestion at the time our consistory was developing our current practice (which has been in place 4 years or so) was to ask members who planned to have a visitor in attendance on an upcoming Sunday when Communion would take place to alert the elders so we could call the visitor and talk to them ahead of time. My idea didn’t fly so we went with the quick mini-interview and the form that gets sent to the home church. One elder at the time hated the idea and actually quit being an elder and going to our church over it. He wanted the verbal warning only (if even that). He had come from the OPC and hearing some of the OPC guys here sheds some new light on his response (although I think he overreacted). My idea wouldn’t have worked with a visitor who we weren’t expecting, though. I think at the time I would have said we should have that person abstain if we didn’t have adequate time to talk with them.
LikeLike
One more before I hit the road (for church).
We are full blown sinners. As well as holy and righteous saints.
Read Romans 7 and tell me that that is not a full blown sinner speaking. And then look into your own heart and mind and the list of all the things that you should be doing, and are not.
I’ve been a member of my congregation for over 15 years now. In that time I have never seen a scenario play out like the one that Erik mentioned, but I admit it could happen. In 15 years I have seen many friends, relatives, people coming in off the street…their first time with us (numbering in the hundreds over that span of time). And they were told what God does for us in communion, and invited to come if they are baptized and believe Christ is truly present in the Supper. And they received what we received what we received…the pure gospel for the forgiveness of their sins, life, and salvation.
Thanks. Gotta run.
LikeLike
But, Richard, Jesus built his church on a simple and credible profession (“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”). So why would you say it’s inadequate? And what do you mean tokenism isn’t a form of externalism? “See, I have a token. I’m heaven-bound.” God instituted water, bread, and wine to affirm faith, not tokens. And yet, when confessionalists esteem the regular use of those ordinary elements for that purpose you charge externalism.
And how do large numbers justify anything? If it’s the old ways we want to learn from then instead of large churches then small ones. We here in Little Geneva joke about a church on every corner, but that’s because when churches got too big they broke into smaller ones in order to serve their local community better (instead of going mega-church and drawing crowds from all four corners). Tokenism for the sake of efficiency might actually signal a loss of biblical oversight and examination.
LikeLike
Zrim: But, Richard, Jesus built his church on a simple and credible profession (“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”). So why would you say it’s inadequate?
RS: Jesus could see the depths of hearts without asking questions. We have to dig deep and pray for discernment.
Zrim: And what do you mean tokenism isn’t a form of externalism? “See, I have a token. I’m heaven-bound.” God instituted water, bread, and wine to affirm faith, not tokens. And yet, when confessionalists esteem the regular use of those ordinary elements for that purpose you charge externalism.
RS: The token simply meant that the people had been examined by elders and would be admitted. Yes, when you use them the way you seem to use them, it does sound like externalism.
Zrim: And how do large numbers justify anything?
RS: It doesn’t, but because of the large numbers at the way they did things it made things easier and more orderly. They would only have communion once very few months and they would have preaching for several days if not a week before and even the day after. The elders would be examining people for months before the communion season. Some of these times churches would meet together for them, and so there would be large numbers.
Zrim: If it’s the old ways we want to learn from then instead of large churches then small ones. We here in Little Geneva joke about a church on every corner, but that’s because when churches got too big they broke into smaller ones in order to serve their local community better (instead of going mega-church and drawing crowds from all four corners). Tokenism for the sake of efficiency might actually signal a loss of biblical oversight and examination.
RS: Nevertheless, it enabled the elders to examine the people rather thoroughly which is not a loss of oversight at all.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: I actually have some sympathy for what you are saying here, Richard. The Sunday morning time constraints are definitely an issue and I am not saying my answer is the best or only answer.
RS: One answer is to have a service devoted to the Table, or as they did in the old days to have a few days of preparation before and then a day of celebration after. But I suppose people are way too busy on Sundays much less other days to do that these days.
LikeLike
Richard,
I almost would agree with you except that I believe your whole ‘token’ scheme is built on a flawed assumption. You are assuming that partakers of the Supper must be verified-by-the-church-believers.
There’s a giant wrench in your scheme and his name is Judas. How could Jesus knowingly serve the Supper to the son of perdition? According to your logic (which is quite sophisticated) Jesus brought judgement on himself by knowingly serving the Supper to an unbeliever.
LikeLike
Nate Paschall: Richard, I almost would agree with you except that I believe your whole ‘token’ scheme is built on a flawed assumption. You are assuming that partakers of the Supper must be verified-by-the-church-believers.
RS: I would argue that it is not just my flawed assumption, but that of most the Church since the Reformation until modern times. Elders are to look after the souls of the people and certainly watching over them to help prevent sickness and death would be one of them.
Nate Paschall: There’s a giant wrench in your scheme and his name is Judas. How could Jesus knowingly serve the Supper to the son of perdition? According to your logic (which is quite sophisticated) Jesus brought judgement on himself by knowingly serving the Supper to an unbeliever.
RS: Did Jesus serve the Supper to Judas? We know Judas was there at the beginning, but did he actually take part in all of it? Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not tell us that Judas was there during the Supper. John (ch 13) has Jesus giving Judas a morsel and Satan entered into him as soon as he had eaten it. Jesus told him to do what he was going to do quickly. If Judas did take that part of the Supper, then Jesus gave it to him to increase his condemnation and Jesus as God is free to do that. We are not given that freedom. An analogy would be in preaching the Gospel. We are not to knowingly hide the Gospel in preaching it, but Jesus taught in parables in order to blind and to harden (Mat 13). As God He is holy in doing that, but we would by unholy in doing that.
LikeLike
Richard – “But I suppose people are way too busy on Sundays much less other days to do that these days.”
Erik – Which should perhaps make us question our priorities. I’m as guilty of this as anyone.
LikeLike
Richard,
Richard: most the Church since the Reformation until modern times.
Nate: Point taken on this aspect of believer verification, but by ‘verified-by-the-church’ I am intending the practice of ensuring that ‘visitors’ (of whatever kind) are policed in a way that is not articulated in Scripture. Your foundation for ‘tokens’ rests on the fact that the church fears inadvertently serving communion to a supposed attendant who is 1) under church discipline, or 2) not a ‘verified’ believer.
There is not a precedent in scripture for such a “visitor” verification process in order to take the Supper. The clearest passage is the 1 Cor 11 passage and Paul binds it to a believer’s conscience. I would agree with you that church ought to be structured in such a way that anonymity is not possible (i.e., a person shows up and can remain anonymous for the entire event) but though this is ideal, I still don’t think scripture implies that every local congregation must verify the state of every person’s suitability to take the Supper.
This is not to say that I think that there is no verification process – that’s what baptism and church membership is for. But to say that unless a local congregation has a verbal verification of an attendant’s suitability to take the Supper then the church must ensure they are not served, in my understand, goes beyond what is a good-and-necessary consequence of any scriptural passage.
Richard: Did Jesus serve the Supper to Judas? We know Judas was there at the beginning, but did he actually take part in all of it? Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not tell us that Judas was there during the Supper. John (ch 13) has Jesus giving Judas a morsel and Satan entered into him as soon as he had eaten it. Jesus told him to do what he was going to do quickly.
Nate: The burden of proof is not on me to show that Judas is at the supper, but is on you to show that he was actually not at the supper. All the cited texts imply that he was present as well as, at a minimum, that he took the bread (John 13). If we was, as the text imply, then what is necessary to qualify a person as suitable to receive the Supper is different than your proposal. This point is still valid because it follows that what qualifies a person for suitability for partaking of the Lord’s Supper is a profession of faith in Christ (or even as simple as being a disciple – i.e., confession of Jesus and being baptized).
And regarding “Jesus being free to condemn Judas“, I don’t see how you bring that out of the text. The point you have been trying to make is “It is better for someone to miss out on the Table than it is for them to heap damnation on themselves and the elders who let them do it in order to save time and face.” to which I would say there is no precedent set in scripture for the Elders ensuring this in the cases we are discussing. According to 1 Cor 11, it is left to the individual’s conscience, except when evidence has been presented to the church (Mt. 18:15-20) that a person attending is in violation of scripture. This is the proper execution of the keys of the Kingdom and the only time-and-place when external means are used in order to bar someone from the table.
LikeLike
Great work Nate! Very helpful, insighful, and covenatal! Keep pressing on!
This also touches on Richard’s profound confusion on the covenant of grace. Were the Saints of old forgiven? Were the Saints of old saved? The Bible says they were!
“And their sins shall be forgiven”
How could anyone call that anything but grace? Can anyone say “covenant of grace”? Who is called the father of our faith? Is it not father Abraham, the father of us all? If we are in Christ, are we not the seed of Abraham?
LikeLike
Nate Paschall: quoting Richard: most the Church since the Reformation until modern times.
Nate: Point taken on this aspect of believer verification, but by ‘verified-by-the-church’ I am intending the practice of ensuring that ‘visitors’ (of whatever kind) are policed in a way that is not articulated in Scripture.
RS: The elders are charged with watching over the souls of the people. Surely some form of examination every few months is not out of line with watching over the souls of people, not to mention that ex-communion or to excommunicate was a form of judgment.
Nate Paschall: Your foundation for ‘tokens’ rests on the fact that the church fears inadvertently serving communion to a supposed attendant who is 1) under church discipline, or 2) not a ‘verified’ believer.
RS: The tokens was simply a way that enabled elders to allow only those that had been examined to have communion. The token itself is not the issue. However, it is to keep people who had been excommunicated to actually be under discipline and also to keep people from eating and drinking damnation to themselves.
Nate Paschall: There is not a precedent in scripture for such a “visitor” verification process in order to take the Supper. The clearest passage is the 1 Cor 11 passage and Paul binds it to a believer’s conscience.
RS: There is also no precedent in Scripture for a visitor to take the Supper.
Nate Paschall: I would agree with you that church ought to be structured in such a way that anonymity is not possible (i.e., a person shows up and can remain anonymous for the entire event) but though this is ideal, I still don’t think scripture implies that every local congregation must verify the state of every person’s suitability to take the Supper.
RS: I would argue that elders who take the biblical mandate seriously to watch over the souls of the people will do so.
Nate Paschall: This is not to say that I think that there is no verification process – that’s what baptism and church membership is for.
RS: Where is your argument that the Bible bases the Supper on whether people are baptized or not? Where is your biblical argument for church membership?
Nate Paschall: But to say that unless a local congregation has a verbal verification of an attendant’s suitability to take the Supper then the church must ensure they are not served, in my understand, goes beyond what is a good-and-necessary consequence of any scriptural passage.
RS: 1. If they are not “suitable” according to Scripture, then they will eat and drink sickness and/or damnation to themselves. 2. Corporate guilt. 3. Elders are to shepherd the sheep and account for their souls. So in my estimation putting the three points just above together, you need some form of examination. On the other hand, there is no biblical evidence that baptism or church membership was used to prove that a person was suitable to take the supper.
LikeLike
Doug Sowers: This also touches on Richard’s profound confusion on the covenant of grace. Were the Saints of old forgiven? Were the Saints of old saved? The Bible says they were!
RS: Yes they were and I have not said that they were not. But let us not forget that I am not the one confused about the covenant of grace, but instead you are confused with the doctrine of total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints in how they fit with the Eternal Covenant and the New Covenant.
Doug Sowers: How could anyone call that anything but grace? Can anyone say “covenant of grace”? Who is called the father of our faith? Is it not father Abraham, the father of us all? If we are in Christ, are we not the seed of Abraham?
RS: But remember, only those who are in Christ are the seed of Abraham. Gal 3:29 “And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.” The person must actually be in Christ in the New Covenant to be a child of Abraham, a child of faith.
Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.
Romans 4:13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Romans 4:16 For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,
Romans 9:7 nor 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.
RS: Doug, a person must be regenerated by grace to be a child of promise which ensures by grace that all those who are of the promise will have faith. Grace guarantees that they will be converted. All those in Christ have Him as their Prophet, Priest, and King. All those in Christ have been taught of the Father (John 6:45) and have Christ as their propitiation and Mediator. All those in Christ have Him as their righteousness and have Him as their life. All those whom the Father gave the Son (John 17:1-3) from eternity have eternal life. When an elect person is regenerated by grace alone, the eternal election of the Father is revealed and as such the Eternal Covenant is revealed. Your position wants to put people who have not received grace to be in a covenant of grace and to have Christ as the Mediator of grace, but in fact the wrath of God still abides on them. Not only that, but logically speaking, your position demands something close to Doug Wilson’s and the FV boys where the difference between one person and another is their own keeping themselves in the covenant rather than the grace of God.
LikeLike
Doug Sowers: Great work Nate! Very helpful, insighful, and covenatal! Keep pressing on!
This also touches on Richard’s profound confusion on the covenant of grace. Were the Saints of old forgiven? Were the Saints of old saved? The Bible says they were!
“And their sins shall be forgiven”
How could anyone call that anything but grace? Can anyone say “covenant of grace”? Who is called the father of our faith? Is it not father Abraham, the father of us all? If we are in Christ, are we not the seed of Abraham?
RS :
Q. 30. Doth God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?
A. God doth not leave all men to perish in the estate of sin and misery,[111] into which they fell by the breach of the first covenant, commonly called the covenant of works;[112] but of his mere love and mercy delivereth his elect out of it, and bringeth them into an estate of salvation by the second covenant, commonly called the covenant of grace.[113]
RS: Notice that God delivers His elect and brings THEM into an estate of salvation which is in the covenant of grace.
Q. 31. With whom was the covenant of grace made?
A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.[114]
RS: The covenant of grace was made with Christ and all His elect seed.
Q. 32. How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant?
A. The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator,[115] and life and salvation by him;[116] and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him,[117] promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit[118] to all his elect, to work in them that faith,[119] with all other saving graces;[120] and to enable them unto all holy obedience,[121] as the evidence of the truth of their faith[122] and thankfulness to God,[123] and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation.[124]
RS: God requires faith, but gives faith to all the elect and this is the grace in the covenant of grace.
Q. 36. Who is the Mediator of the covenant of grace?
A. The only Mediator of the covenant of grace is the Lord Jesus Christ,[137] who, being the eternal Son of God, of one substance and equal with the Father,[138] in the fulness of time became man,[139] and so was and continues to be God and man, in two entire distinct natures, and one person, forever.[140]
RS: The Mediator of all in the covenant of grace is Christ. So, Doug, while I am aware that at some point Westminster does (IMO) contradict itself and allow those who are not in the covenant of grace to be treated as if they were, where is my confusion since I am following Westminster in its very clear teaching at this point?
LikeLike
Richard,
RS: The elders are charged with watching over the souls of the people. Surely some form of examination every few months is not out of line with watching over the souls of people, not to mention that ex-communion or to excommunicate was a form of judgment.
Nate: Right, I’m not arguing against an “examination” (if that’s the technical term we need to use – or a conversation, or having someone over for dinner… you know hospitality, that quality that Elder’s are supposed to have?) every few months of people in our congregation that are not known. My point is that if someone is excommunicated, judgment is on the excommunicant’s head if they go to another church and partake of the Supper. If the elders of the congregation, after getting to know that person and realize he is under church discipline, they must bar them from the table. If they don’t (or refuse) then judgment is on their heads as well.
RS: The tokens was simply a way that enabled elders to allow only those that had been examined to have communion. The token itself is not the issue. However, it is to keep people who had been excommunicated to actually be under discipline and also to keep people from eating and drinking damnation to themselves.
Nate: Are you wanting to add “and preventing the eldership from bringing damnation on themselves”? I believe a healthy form of eldership in which they actually care for the flock by inviting them into their homes and/or having meals together (well golly, who knew that the Supper was originally a feast!) would prevent the unnecessary trappings of tokens. It would be stupid (sorry for such strong words) if you had someone over and they had to give you a token before they ate your dinner. A token is actually a preventative measure towards intimacy. Instead of actually getting to know a person, a token is, in my mind, a Pharisaical type measure of covering your rear so you don’t bring judgment on yourself. It’s like saying, “Hey, I’d really like to get to know you, but I’m not going to take the time to to that, so I’m just going to ask you 2 questions and if you respond yes to either, then you don’t get a token, ok?” Talk about anonimity and intimacy…
RS: There is also no precedent in Scripture for a visitor to take the Supper.
Nate: Certainly there is. All who call on the name of Jesus and have been baptized into his name are invited to share at his table. Unless you forgot of course that there is “one holy catholic church”.
RS: Where is your argument that the Bible bases the Supper on whether people are baptized or not? Where is your biblical argument for church membership?
Nate: Coming from someone who thinks tokens should be used for the Supper this is an odd question… So you’d serve someone the Supper who isn’t yet baptized? And I may step on a few toes here but I don’t think church membership is ‘necessary’ according to scripture, but ensures a person has publicly acknowledged entrance into the visible church and submission to the Word and those who carry out it’s ministry. Still think your question is rather odd.
RS: 1. If they are not “suitable” according to Scripture, then they will eat and drink sickness and/or damnation to themselves. 2. Corporate guilt. 3. Elders are to shepherd the sheep and account for their souls
Nate: #2 & 3 are what I’ve been asking you to substantiate the whole time in regards to visitors. The best I have heard from you is something along these lines “elders bring damnation on themselves if they unknowingly serve the Supper to someone who ought not receive it”. Even if you interview these people, they could be lying (hence the polygraph question), which still wouldn’t get the elders out from under judgment – they’re still serving the Supper to someone who is an unbliever/under discipline. If they end up serving the Supper to someone who is an unbeliever, according to your scheme, they bring judgment on themselves.
The whole point is that your scheme seeks knowledge that you, in your best attempts, cannot obtain. You cannot know someone’s heart. What if someone in your church is not under discipline, meets the criteria in order to receive a token (i.e., professes faith in Christ) and yet in their heart does not trust Christ. They have performed the outward rites you institute, but you still end up serving the Supper to an unbeliever, and the elders brought judgment on that person, as well as on themselves (violated 1, 2 and 3)
This is why I said it’s a back-handed pietistic-move – you have no way of knowing a person’s heart. A man may have committed adultery but no one knows about it, so he has no right to eat of the table, but is not under discipline because the elders don’t know it is occurring.
I could use numerous hypotheticals (which are not too far from reality) to show you that at some point a strict policing/token scheme eventually breaks down, but I hope these suffice.
LikeLike
Nate: The whole point is that your scheme seeks knowledge that you, in your best attempts, cannot obtain. You cannot know someone’s heart.
RS: You are assuming that one cannot know the hearts of others at all, so you just give up. I might add that in “interviewing” people part of the issue is to help them examine themselves. If you mean the deepest thoughts of the heart, perhaps not. But even in our law courts we go to the matter of intent. If another person is being honest, the real nature of the heart, though certainly not the whole heart, is known to a point. We are told to look out for false prophets, so something can be known.
Nate Paschall: What if someone in your church is not under discipline, meets the criteria in order to receive a token (i.e., professes faith in Christ) and yet in their heart does not trust Christ. They have performed the outward rites you institute, but you still end up serving the Supper to an unbeliever, and the elders brought judgment on that person, as well as on themselves (violated 1, 2 and 3)
RS: That is certainly not impossible, but then the elders would have tried to do all they could have. If one simply goes by external profession and church membership, Pharisees and libertines will be all over the place.
Nate Paschall: This is why I said it’s a back-handed pietistic-move – you have no way of knowing a person’s heart.
RS: So if you have no way of knowing a person’s heart, then why allow them to the Table in the first place? You are essentially saying that you believe a person is a Christian if you allow them to the Table. You are either making a judgment on ignorance that people will jump on and use to assure themselves of salvation, or you are examining the people rather closely. Either way you are assuming something. A judgment that a person is a Christian is far more dangerous to that person than one that the person is not. Your position leads to consequences that are far worse than mine.
Nate Paschall: A man may have committed adultery but no one knows about it, so he has no right to eat of the table, but is not under discipline because the elders don’t know it is occurring.
RS: Which is why they could ask these things.
Nate Paschall: I could use numerous hypotheticals (which are not too far from reality) to show you that at some point a strict policing/token scheme eventually breaks down, but I hope these suffice.
RS: But elders using the Bible as a way to help people examine themselves is not something that breaks down unless it is done in the wrong way. If you refuse to examine people, then you are just allowing them to assume that they are believers and they will go on in the way of damnation and eat and drink damnation to themselves.
LikeLike
A woman was excommunicated from our church this morning because she divorced her husband, left the state, and wouldn’t talk to the elders at all in spite of repeated attempts. The form for excommunication was read from the Psalter. She is barred from the table. We don’t need a lot of probing questions to determine those who shouldn’t come to the table. Sin will rise to the surface eventually and will become evident to all. Elders don’t need to be soul plumbers.
LikeLike
Nate – If you want an illustration of arguing this topic with Richard I can save you some time. Go to You Tube and type in “cat chasing tail”. The more you hang around Old Life the more you can identify the arguments that will not end. Just make sure you’ve cleared your calendar for a few days if you decide to take them up (again).
LikeLike
I found one for you:
LikeLike
This cat could maybe use a little soul-plumbing, though:
LikeLike
Erik Charter: A woman was excommunicated from our church this morning because she divorced her husband, left the state, and wouldn’t talk to the elders at all in spite of repeated attempts. The form for excommunication was read from the Psalter. She is barred from the table. We don’t need a lot of probing questions to determine those who shouldn’t come to the table. Sin will rise to the surface eventually and will become evident to all. Elders don’t need to be soul plumbers.
RS: A scene from judgement day.
Jesus: Elder Erik, did you love me on earth?
EE: Yes I did.
Jesus: Then why didn’t you shepherd my sheep?
EE: But I did shepherd the sheep. I tried to make sure there was no open and obvious sin.
Jesus: But you never dealt with the issues of their hearts!
EE: But we didn’t want to be nosy.
Jesus: Is a doctor nosy when he ask people about symptoms, pains, ways of life and so on?
A doctor is just looking after a perishable body and s/he uses X-rays, blood tests, MRI’s
and asks probing questions to get at the real issues. But you, who were given charge
over their souls would not do anything but wait for eruptions of sin? True Christianity is of
the heart and you wouldn’t do one thing to get at the true welfare of their souls?
EE: But Jesus, we couldn’t know their hearts and so we were not to be nosy.
Jesus: How is asking questions about a person’s spiritual welfare nosy? You were warned that
many people would be deceived and you didn’t care enough for My sheep to shepherd
them and try to deal with the issues of their souls? You were told that their motives and
the intents of their hearts would be judged and you neglected that?
EE: But when sin surfaced we barred people from the Table.
Jesus: But what of all the people who deceived you and all the others that deceived themselves?
What of all those people that ate and drank damnation to themselves and you were
unwilling to shepherd them? Couldn’t it be the case, Erik, that if you were truly
shepherding my sheep you could have talked to this woman about her soul before she
left her husband? You are guilty of spiritual malpractice if you were only concerned about
the external acts of human beings when you were told that their souls were the most
important. Erik, sin is primarily of the heart and if you never dealt with that in your people
then you did not deal with them in a spiritual manner.
LikeLike
Richard,
Thankfully for all of us you are neither Jesus nor an effective satirist. An overactive earnesty gland and humor do not a pair make.
Perhaps you could share with the group some success stories of effective soul plumbing as opposed to just spooking people and running them off.
By the way, I am bulletproof now so you can insult my church, my minister, or my mother as much as you like. It’s just the internet, after all.
LikeLike
Erik, those videos are classic. Thanks for the humor, and a entertaining outlook on debates with good ‘ol RS.
LikeLike
Richard,
Could you substantiate your claims you make?
RS: You are assuming that one cannot know the hearts of others at all,
Nate: Where did I claim this?
RS: even in our law courts we go to the matter of intent.
Nate: True, but only when evidence has been presented (as the whole Mt 18 discussion sought to prove). Last time I checked police officers do not come to my door asking me if I’ve done anything wrong lately. In fact, it’s against the law to pursue a crime without evidence (if we’re going to speak in natural terms). Of course, I’m guessing you don’t find a problem with this.
RS: That is certainly not impossible, but then the elders would have tried to do all they could have.
Nate: Right, but they would still be under judgment, wouldn’t they? Just trying to keep you honest.
RS: Your position leads to consequences that are far worse than mine.
Nate: Only if scripture substantiates that we meddle in people’s souls in order to discern their true estate. I mean, Jesus knew the thoughts and intentions of Judas’ heart and yet still served him the bread (which as I recall, you haven’t picked that one up in a while… are you granting me correct on this point? If so, there could be some devastating effects to your argument).
RS: Which is why they could ask these things.
Nate: So what qualifies then as a sin that bars someone from the table or not? I mean, if you’re inquiring after all, everyone’s got sins to confess – but according to your scheme, how do you discern? If the lack of evidence is still condemning, then no one should eat…
RS: If you refuse to examine people
Nate: I’m not arguing for a refusal to examine, just a matter of when and how. I’m curious if you believe in unconditional election. Because if you did, it would most certainly save you all the trouble of making sure everyone doesn’t bring damnation on themselves.
LikeLike
Nate Paschall: Richard, Could you substantiate your claims you make?
Old Post RS: You are assuming that one cannot know the hearts of others at all,
Nate: Where did I claim this?
RS: When you say that we cannot know the hearts of others, what else can you mean by that?
Old Post RS: even in our law courts we go to the matter of intent.
Nate: True, but only when evidence has been presented (as the whole Mt 18 discussion sought to prove). Last time I checked police officers do not come to my door asking me if I’ve done anything wrong lately. In fact, it’s against the law to pursue a crime without evidence (if we’re going to speak in natural terms). Of course, I’m guessing you don’t find a problem with this.
RS: But police officers don’t come to your door when you want to join a church or take communion.
Old Post RS: That is certainly not impossible, but then the elders would have tried to do all they could have.
Nate: Right, but they would still be under judgment, wouldn’t they? Just trying to keep you honest.
RS: No, they can only do what they do.
Old Post RS: Your position leads to consequences that are far worse than mine.
Nate: Only if scripture substantiates that we meddle in people’s souls in order to discern their true estate. I mean, Jesus knew the thoughts and intentions of Judas’ heart and yet still served him the bread (which as I recall, you haven’t picked that one up in a while… are you granting me correct on this point? If so, there could be some devastating effects to your argument).
RS: I am not granting that point. However, I would also argue that Jesus as the God who hardens hearts for His own purposes could give the Supper with perfect knowledge of the decree of God to Judas and not sin.
Old Post RS: Which is why they could ask these things.
Nate: So what qualifies then as a sin that bars someone from the table or not? I mean, if you’re inquiring after all, everyone’s got sins to confess – but according to your scheme, how do you discern? If the lack of evidence is still condemning, then no one should eat…
Old Post RS: If you refuse to examine people
Nate: I’m not arguing for a refusal to examine, just a matter of when and how. I’m curious if you believe in unconditional election. Because if you did, it would most certainly save you all the trouble of making sure everyone doesn’t bring damnation on themselves.
RS: Of course I believe in unconditional election, but that does not mean that people who are not converted cannot increase their damnation. Each sin will receive its just punishment. This is also not to mention that I Cor 11 speaks of people getting sick and some dying for how they took the Supper.. Would you want people getting sick and dying when the elders could prevent some of that?
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard, Thankfully for all of us you are neither Jesus nor an effective satirist. An overactive earnesty gland and humor do not a pair make.
RS: There was no attempt at humor and it was not satire. It was an attempt to show you the deadly serious nature and results of the things you so glibly defend.
Erik Charter: Perhaps you could share with the group some success stories of effective soul plumbing as opposed to just spooking people and running them off.
RS: I doubt you would interpret things quite the way they were intended. Would you be interested to know of the large croweds that Jesus spooked and ran off? I guess not. Laugh away if you please, Erik, but this is no laughing matter.
Erik: By the way, I am bulletproof now so you can insult my church, my minister, or my mother as much as you like. It’s just the internet, after all.
RS: Take it as you wish, but what I said was not an insult as such to your church or anyone else. It was meant, however, as a “warning” to you. But go ahead and be glib, but remember that the amusements of the world can serve to deaden people to spiritual things.
LikeLike
Richard – When my Consistory disciplines me, I’ll take heed. When you are displeased with me, I’ll take it as a sign I am on the right track. Jesus, too, had a way of ticking off all the right people. Most of them took themselves way too seriously, too.
LikeLike
Richard, I lost track of this post after reading Nate’s excellent response to you, but I must say, I think you stumbled! Jesus gave the first new covenant communion meal to Judas, and washed his feet! Moreover, Judas was in our Lord’s ministry from the beginning. Judas kept the money purse! None of the eleven could read Judas’s heart, so what’s changed? Do the Apostles ever exhort elders to read their members heart? The answer is no.
Read Jesus letters to the 7 churches, Jesus had many concerns, and warnings, but one thing Jesus never said was “why aren’t you reading people’s hearts? Now if people are walking in sin, especially sexual sins, that doesn’t require one to read the heart.
If Jesus didn’t have that concern, then I think you need to give it a rest.
LikeLike
The Pharisees were angry with Jesus and the Judaizers were angry with Paul. They both tried to obscure the simple gospel, load burdens on people, and take away peoples’ Christian liberty. I am glad Jesus and Paul resisted them.
LikeLike
Doug,
Richard himself quoted this from the Canons of Dordt this afternoon:
Article 15 – “we are to think and to speak in the most favorable way about those who outwardly profess their faith and better their lives, for the inner chambers of the heart are unknown to us.”
LikeLike
Richard,
RS: Would you want people getting sick and dying when the elders could prevent some of that?
Nate: The problem with your argument is that Paul didn’t enjoin the elders to examine the people before taking the supper. The question and warning were directed at the people themselves. The whole problem of people getting sick and dying exists because of the Supper being left to people’s consciences. If it wasn’t left to the individual’s conscience (i.e., Elder examination) the problem would not have existed.
LikeLike
Yet Paul did not ask the elders to make sure they even more thoroughly exam the people. If your supposed scheme were true and elders were bringing judgment on themselves as well, then Paul would have corrected the elders – but he didn’t, because Paul left it to the individual’s conscience.
“Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.”
(1 Corinthians 11:28-32 ESV)
http://esv.to/1Co11.28-32
You can’t get any clearer than “let each person examine himself“
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard – When my Consistory disciplines me, I’ll take heed. When you are displeased with me, I’ll take it as a sign I am on the right track. Jesus, too, had a way of ticking off all the right people. Most of them took themselves way too seriously, too.
RS: Perhaps you shouldn’t be so sure your Consistory would have approved of Jesus either.
LikeLike
Doug Sowers: Richard, I lost track of this post after reading Nate’s excellent response to you, but I must say, I think you stumbled! Jesus gave the first new covenant communion meal to Judas, and washed his feet! Moreover, Judas was in our Lord’s ministry from the beginning. Judas kept the money purse! None of the eleven could read Judas’s heart, so what’s changed? Do the Apostles ever exhort elders to read their members heart? The answer is no.
RS: Do I argue that elders are to read the hearts of the members? No, that is simply what people continue to accuse me of. Like you say, you lost track. The biblical account is not exceptionally clear on whether Judas actually finished took the whole Supper with Jesus or not. In the Passover meal, which they were taking, they would dip pieces of bread at different times. John has Judas leaving immediately after he took one morsel from Jesus. But also remember, they were taking Passover and Judas was an Israelite. At some point that meal became the basis for the Supper.
Doug Sowers: Read Jesus letters to the 7 churches, Jesus had many concerns, and warnings, but one thing Jesus never said was “why aren’t you reading people’s hearts? Now if people are walking in sin, especially sexual sins, that doesn’t require one to read the heart.
RS: Again, I have not advocated reading the heart.
Doug Sowers: If Jesus didn’t have that concern, then I think you need to give it a rest.
RS: Sigh
LikeLike
Erik Charter: The Pharisees were angry with Jesus and the Judaizers were angry with Paul. They both tried to obscure the simple gospel, load burdens on people, and take away peoples’ Christian liberty. I am glad Jesus and Paul resisted them.
RS: Erik, what you seem not to understand is that Christian liberty is not freedom from the Law oh blessed condition, I can sin as I please and still have remission. Christian liberty is to be free from the Law as a way of salvation and to be free in order to love God by keeping the Law from the heart. Let me put this in a nice way and yet firmly. You are confused on aspects of what Christian liberty is. It is never freedom in order to sin.
LikeLike
Nate Paschall quoting RS: Would you want people getting sick and dying when the elders could prevent some of that?
Nate: The problem with your argument is that Paul didn’t enjoin the elders to examine the people before taking the supper. The question and warning were directed at the people themselves. The whole problem of people getting sick and dying exists because of the Supper being left to people’s consciences. If it wasn’t left to the individual’s conscience (i.e., Elder examination) the problem would not have existed.
RS: The elders were also never commanded to teach the people about the Trinity either, but as a part of teaching the Bible they should do so. As a part of being an elder that will answer to God for the souls entrusted to him (in that sense), I would think that some form of examination as to the well-being of that soul would be a part of it. Jesus never commanded Nate Paschall or RS to do anything in a direct way, but that does not negate the teaching of the Bible as a whole.
LikeLike
Nate Paschall quoting RS: Would you want people getting sick and dying when the elders could prevent some of that?
Nate: The problem with your argument is that Paul didn’t enjoin the elders to examine the people before taking the supper. The question and warning were directed at the people themselves. The whole problem of people getting sick and dying exists because of the Supper being left to people’s consciences. If it wasn’t left to the individual’s conscience (i.e., Elder examination) the problem would not have existed.
RS: Just how many things do the elders do in our day that are specifically commanded? Do you have a command that the elders are to specifically hand out the elements? Why is it that so many of the things that are practiced around the Table come from the confessions rather than the Bible? I would also argue that for a major section of the Church it has been historically understood that people need to helped by those with more understanding to examine them.
LikeLike
Nate Paschall: Yet Paul did not ask the elders to make sure they even more thoroughly exam the people. If your supposed scheme were true and elders were bringing judgment on themselves as well, then Paul would have corrected the elders – but he didn’t, because Paul left it to the individual’s conscience.
“Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.”
(1 Corinthians 11:28-32 ESV)
http://esv.to/1Co11.28-32
You can’t get any clearer than “let each person examine himself“
RS: As I have argued before, at least when this came up, if you boil it down the real issue of the examination of the elders for entrance to the Table is to help people examine themselves. For church membership, the issue is different. But again, read the whole passage of I Cor 11 very closely. You will not find anything about elders in the text at all. You will not find a church “structure” at all, but appears to be just some believers meeting together. You will not find any teachings that this is a means of grace at all. Instead of that, you will find that it is a means of judgment when it is not done properly. You will find that it never says that a person must be a Christian to take the Supper. It tells us that this is a means of proclaiming the Lord’s death. It does not say things are up to a person’s own conscience, but all it says is that a person must judge himself rightly. I guess if a person judges himself rightly and is an unbeliever, then he is free to eat and drink without judgment. You are correct when you say “You can’t get any clearer”, but Church History seems to think that a lot more should be added that is not as clear as you think. I think it is very clear that elders are to keep watch over the souls of the people and when something like eating and drinking damnation comes into play, that should be included in the practice of the elders. If you want to only go by what is specifically taught, then virtually nothing of the practice of the churches will be kept.
LikeLike
Richard:
RS: The elders were also never commanded to teach the people about the Trinity
Nate: But it is most certainly a necessary consequence of numerous, explicit passages.
RS: Do you have a command that the elders are to specifically hand out the elements?I would think that some form of examination as to the well-being of that soul would be a part of it.
Nate: Correct, which is what I have not argued against – “some form”. I agree with you that there ought to be some form of examination of the congregants. But a kind of “certification” like tokens is far beyond the scope of what scripture allows. And Tokens are what you have been arguing for and what I have been arguing against.
Richard: Do you have a command that the elders are to specifically hand out the elements? Why is it that so many of the things that are practiced around the Table come from the confessions rather than the Bible?
Nate Hey, you’re the one arguing for Tokens, not me. Show me where the bible talks about tokens and I’ll recant. But this is so interesting because you demand that scripture show how we ought to form our practice and then make an argument from history… “I would also argue that for a major section of the Church it has been historically understood that people need to helped by those with more understanding to examine them.”
If you’re going to accuse of unbiblical additions to instituted practices (i.e., the Supper) and then talk about the need to use tokens, I honestly do not know where to go from here.
LikeLike
Richard,
Christian liberty is freedom from the commandments, rules, and interpretations of men. Men like you.
LikeLike
RS: The elders were also never commanded to teach the people about the Trinity either, but as a part of teaching the Bible they should do so.
Penalty flag! Are you comparing the doctrine of the Trinity, to the notion that elders need to examine their member’s conscience? The Trinity is an essenscial doctrine taught throughout Holy Scripture, examining other people’s conscience is not even hinted.
Knowing that Jesus had Judas in his ministry should cause you to back off. Using your tortured logic, we would have to say that Jesus himself was derelict of duty, God forbid!! You’re going w-a-a-a-a-a-y beyond God’ word, and that’s not good!
LikeLike
Nate Hey, you’re the one arguing for Tokens, not me. Show me where the bible talks about tokens and I’ll recant. But this is so interesting because you demand that scripture show how we ought to form our practice and then make an argument from history… “I would also argue that for a major section of the Church it has been historically understood that people need to helped by those with more understanding to examine them.”
If you’re going to accuse of unbiblical additions to instituted practices (i.e., the Supper) and then talk about the need to use tokens, I honestly do not know where to go from here.
RS: No need to go anywhere. I think we have demonstrated a few things. One, all discussions and arguments (attempting to give reasons for a position) are really like the tips of icebergs. We are arguing on the levels of the tips but what is going on underneath is what drives the icebergs. By the way, I am not arguing that all the things people have done by instituting practices are unbiblical. I was just trying to argue that all of us bring things from other places in the Bible and add them at this point. I don’t pretend to argue that my position is from I Corinthians 11 in and of itself, but simply that the fact that the practice of the Supper can lead people to eating and drinking damnation to themselves (or judgment of some kind) would require those watching over the souls of the people to be active in this. I might also add that I am not really arguing for Tokens, but the practice of examining people or of assisting them in their self-examination.
Second, when people come from a tradition they don’t always know that their tradition has an influence on them and simply think that their tradition is biblical.
Third, going by a Confession does not always produce people walking in step.
Fourth, I have enjoyed the discussion with you and have learned (or at a deeper level) a few things. I don’t see this as a cat chasing its tail, but as trying to go beneath the surface and trying to understand another view and the basis for it. One cannot really understand a different view until one goes below the water (Baptist poke) and get to what makes the iceberg really float.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard, Christian liberty is freedom from the commandments, rules, and interpretations of men. Men like you.
RS: Juvenile
LikeLike
Like the Pharisees you take the good commandments of God and the simple gospel message and twist them into a subjective system in which people are constantly doubting gospel promises and their sanctification. Once you get people onto your treadmill they need to look to you constantly for reassurance of their salvation. It’s a man-made trap and is not the gospel. Like the Pharisees you seek to heap burdens on people when Jesus himself says his burden is light.
LikeLike
Every day you oppose the gospel with your subjective system is a day I oppose you Richard. I don’t even take off Holidays. It’s game on 24/7/365.
LikeLike
Doug Sowers quoting RS: The elders were also never commanded to teach the people about the Trinity either, but as a part of teaching the Bible they should do so.
Doug Sowers: Penalty flag! Are you comparing the doctrine of the Trinity, to the notion that elders need to examine their member’s conscience? The Trinity is an essenscial doctrine taught throughout Holy Scripture, examining other people’s conscience is not even hinted.
RS: Doug, read slowly. Now read very slowly trying to think through the issue. An analogy can be used in trying to make a point and to show others that they practice the same type of hermeneutic. The point at hand (in the discussion above) is whether something was taught in a particular text or not. My point was to use the doctrine of the Trinity as an analogy of how we interpret the Bible.
Doug Sowers: Knowing that Jesus had Judas in his ministry should cause you to back off.
RS: If you will read slowly and think about what you are reading, you would realize that I did not bring the issue of Judas up. When someone brought that in as an example I answered by saying that I am not positive that Judas was actually part of the whole Supper. If you will recall what the Bible as a whole teaches us about Judas you would realize that he was chosen to fulfill Scripture. We cannot know this about other people. This means that there is no reason to back off.
Doug Sowers: Using your tortured logic,
RS: Doug, I am not using your form of logic.
Doug Sowers: we would have to say that Jesus himself was derelict of duty, God forbid!!
RS: We don’t have to say that at all, so why would you bring it up?
Doug Sowers: You’re going w-a-a-a-a-a-y beyond God’ word, and that’s not good!
RS: No I am not and I have repeatedly used it, even in this post. One, Judas was chosen by God and it was appointed to him in order to fulfill Scripture. Two, it is not absolutely clear that Judas was there for the whole Supper. In fact, I think that the Gospel of John says otherwise. So when using the Word of God in a cautious manner, it is interesting that you tell me that I am “going w-a-a-a-a-a-y beyond God’ word.” Slow down, read carefully, and don’t jump to so many conclusions. After all, you don’t know my heart.
LikeLike
Richard, this is really serious, you need to get off your high horse, and quit going beyond God’s word, which is asceticism, please consider Colossians 2:21
“Do not handle, Do not tast, Do not touch (referring to things that all persih as they are used)—accrding to human percepts and teaching? These have indeed an apperance of wisdom in promoting self-made rreligion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh”.
That sounds like you Richard! You’re always going beyond God’s word! Jesus drank wine! He enjoyed himself at parties! In fact, Jesus turned the water into wine (about 500 gallons worth) If the Bible doesnt prohibit wine and strong drink, then you need to back off as well.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Like the Pharisees you take the good commandments of God and the simple gospel message and twist them into a subjective system in which people are constantly doubting gospel promises and their sanctification. Once you get people onto your treadmill they need to look to you constantly for reassurance of their salvation. It’s a man-made trap and is not the gospel. Like the Pharisees you seek to heap burdens on people when Jesus himself says his burden is light.
RS: No, Erik, I just realize that few will enter while there is a broad way that many think they are going to heaven on. You can argue that I have a subjective system as much as you want, but you still have to face the Word of God. Indeed Jesus said that, but He also said that many well seek to enter and not be able. He also said that we should strive (agoniza) to enter the kingdom. Be wary of what you call burdens. It may be that you are yanking it from its context and applying it in a way that is not biblical. By the way, what is the Gospel according to Erik?
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Every day you oppose the gospel with your subjective system is a day I oppose you Richard. I don’t even take off Holidays. It’s game on 24/7/365.
RS: Erik, I don’t oppose the Gospel but what appears to be your teaching. I don’t doubt that you see it as a game, but so be it.
LikeLike
Richard’s framework (from Wikipedia):
A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections is a famous publication written in 1746 by Jonathan Edwards describing his philosophy about the process of Christian conversion in Northampton, Massachusetts during the Great Awakening, which emanated from Edwards’ congregation starting in 1734.[1]
Edwards wrote the Treatise to explain how true conversion to Christianity occurs. Edwards describes how emotion and intellect both play a role, but “converting grace” is what causes Christians to “awaken” to see that forgiveness is available to all who have faith that Jesus’ sacrifice atones for all sins. This salvation is not possible through believers’ imperfect good works which are simply evidence of faith, and only possible through Christ’s sacrifice which is free to all. Edwards describes the importance of testing new faith and discerning whether it is legitimate. He lays out twelve tests of true conversion, including ways of measuring allegedly fruitful works. He basically concludes that the fruit of the Spirit are the religious affections, love being the chief affection, and that all other fruit (or Christian virtues) flow from this. “Love is the chief of the affections, and as it were the fountain of them.” (p.76, Banner of Truth Edition). He further says “for it was not by men’s having the gifts of the Spirit (referring to spiritual gifts), but by their having the virtues of the Spirit, that they were called spiritual.” (p.127). This is how you can distinguish between carnal men and spiritual men. Carnal men do not produce the fruit of the Spirit, but spiritual men do. So it was with Christ. “All the virtues of the Lamb of God, His humility, patience, meekness, submission, obedience, love and compassion, are exhibited to our view in a manner the most tending to move our affections of any that can be imagined.” (p.53).
“Religious Affections” remains popular and modern day evangelists and writers such as Tim Keller and John Piper often refer to this and other Edwards works as models for their ministry.[2]
LikeLike
Using your own system, Richard, how much humility, patience, meekness, submission, love, and compassion do you show others in your interactions here? I’m not claiming to be better, but this is your system, not mine.
LikeLike
Richard says: One, Judas was chosen by God and it was appointed to him in order to fulfill Scripture.
So? Why was Judas chosen? Put on your thinking cap! Jesus was teaching us something about the covenant community, no? If Jesus appointed Judas, then it’s NOT the elders job to worry about reprobates who make the good confesion! We walk by faith, not sight, let’s leave the issues of the heart to God.
LikeLike
What is the gospel?
Heidelberg Catechism Question 60. How are thou righteous before God?
Answer: Only by a true faith in Jesus Christ; (a) so that, though my conscience accuse me, that I have grossly transgressed all the commandments of God, and kept none of them, (b) and am still inclined to all evil; (c) notwithstanding, God, without any merit of mine, (d) but only of mere grace, (e) grants and imputes to me, (f) the perfect satisfaction, (g) righteousness and holiness of Christ; (h) even so, as if I never had had, nor committed any sin: yea, as if I had fully accomplished all that obedience which Christ has accomplished for me; (i) inasmuch as I embrace such benefit with a believing heart. (j)
LikeLike
Doug Sowers: Richard, this is really serious, you need to get off your high horse, and quit going beyond God’s word, which is asceticism, please consider Colossians 2:21
RS: High horse? Interesting. You have yet to show me that I am going beyond God’s Word.
Doug Sowers: “Do not handle, Do not tast, Do not touch (referring to things that all persih as they are used)—accrding to human percepts and teaching? These have indeed an apperance of wisdom in promoting self-made rreligion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh”.
RS: So where have I done that in this conversation?
Doug Sowers: That sounds like you Richard! You’re always going beyond God’s word!
RS: Always? You don’t know me and you have not read each and every conversation here. I will assume that you realize that you have just slandered me.
Doug Sowers: Jesus drank wine! He enjoyed himself at parties! In fact, Jesus turned the water into wine (about 500 gallons worth) If the Bible doesnt prohibit wine and strong drink, then you need to back off as well.
RS: Doug, now you are going beyond Scripture yourself, not to mention what this discussion was about. Drinking wine in the days of Jesus on earth is one thing, drinking hard liquor is another. You say that Jesus enjoyed Himself at parties? Do you have a biblical record of that? Do we ever have a record of Him laughing? Do we ever have a record of Him enjoying anything other than the presence of God? It may also be significant that the barrels were full of water that He turned into wine since some historians say that people in that day considered you a Barbatian if you drank unmized wine. Using wine in their water was a way to keep from getting sick. The Bible is quite clear about being drunk and about being a slave to anything but Christ. Personally I have never seen anyone drunk to the glory of God, nor have I seen many drunks admit that they were drunk. Does the Bible prohibit strong drugs? Are they wrong? I am sure there are many that with a slight change in the way they are made would not be on a list declaring them illegal. What is your standard for being drunk, Doug? Remember, we are to be controlled by the Spirit and not by the spirits. How much does it take to be controlled to some degree by the spirits?
Doug, you do realize that in the olden days people used drugs and and alcohol in their seances and those things were (still is) used to attain an altered state and be more open to things in a different realm? If you will go back through the Bible and look at the other instances of people who drank, at least understand that there is another side of the issue. What happened to Lot and then Noah when he drank from the vine? Some see the problem with Aaron’s sons as they were taking of the fruit of the vine. So while I am not arguing that wine is not in the Bible, perhaps we should also consider that “whether, then, we eat, drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” takes precedent over the narrative portions of the Bible. We also know that the narrative portions of the Old Testament have many people having multiple wives and not a word said about it. But there are other passages of the Bible and there are other things that the Bible has to say that should be brought to bear on the issue. If some defended and proclaimed Christ with the vigor that they defend drinking strong drink (as opposed to wine) Christ would be proclaimed a lot more.
Deuteronomy 29:6 “You have not eaten bread, nor have you drunk wine or strong drink, in order that you might know that I am the LORD your God.
Proverbs 20:1 Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, And whoever is intoxicated by it is not wise.
Proverbs 23:31 Do not look on the wine when it is red, When it sparkles in the cup, When it goes down smoothly;
Titus 2:2 Older men are to be temperate, dignified, sensible, sound in faith, in love, in perseverance.
LikeLike
Doug Sowers: Richard says: One, Judas was chosen by God and it was appointed to him in order to fulfill Scripture.
Dout says: So? Why was Judas chosen? Put on your thinking cap! Jesus was teaching us something about the covenant community, no? If Jesus appointed Judas, then it’s NOT the elders job to worry about reprobates who make the good confesion! We walk by faith, not sight, let’s leave the issues of the heart to God.
RS: Judas was chosen according to the wisdom and plan of God. There were no elders commanded to keep watch over the souls of the people at that time. Now there is. Elders are to answer to God for the souls they watch over. Elders are to shepherd the flock rather than let them fall over cliffs.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard’s framework (from Wikipedia):
A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections is a famous publication written in 1746 by Jonathan Edwards describing his philosophy about the process of Christian conversion in Northampton, Massachusetts during the Great Awakening, which emanated from Edwards’ congregation starting in 1734.[1]
RS: I notice that Wikipedia did not mention Richard Smith in its post. So I gather you are inferring that this is my framework and that Wikipedia is accurate in what it says.
Wikipedia: Edwards wrote the Treatise to explain how true conversion to Christianity occurs.
RS: That is not why Edwards says he wrote it.
Wikipedia: Edwards describes how emotion and intellect both play a role, but “converting grace” is what causes Christians to “awaken” to see that forgiveness is available to all who have faith that Jesus’ sacrifice atones for all sins.
RS: Certainly not a very good way to put Edwards’ thinking.
Wikipedia: This salvation is not possible through believers’ imperfect good works which are simply evidence of faith, and only possible through Christ’s sacrifice which is free to all.
RS: Again, not very accurate.
Wikipedia: Edwards describes the importance of testing new faith and discerning whether it is legitimate. He lays out twelve tests of true conversion, including ways of measuring allegedly fruitful works. He basically concludes that the fruit of the Spirit are the religious affections, love being the chief affection, and that all other fruit (or Christian virtues) flow from this. “Love is the chief of the affections, and as it were the fountain of them.” (p.76, Banner of Truth Edition). He further says “for it was not by men’s having the gifts of the Spirit (referring to spiritual gifts), but by their having the virtues of the Spirit, that they were called spiritual.” (p.127). This is how you can distinguish between carnal men and spiritual men. Carnal men do not produce the fruit of the Spirit, but spiritual men do. So it was with Christ. “All the virtues of the Lamb of God, His humility, patience, meekness, submission, obedience, love and compassion, are exhibited to our view in a manner the most tending to move our affections of any that can be imagined.” (p.53).
“Religious Affections” remains popular and modern day evangelists and writers such as Tim Keller and John Piper often refer to this and other Edwards works as models for their ministry.[2]
RS: 1 Corinthians 13:1 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
Gal 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.
19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,
21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.
26 Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another.
LikeLike
Richard – “Do we ever have a record of Him laughing?”
He was a real man, so I think he laughed. Your asking the question says so much, Richard. Oh my goodness, this is a new all-time low around here.
LikeLike
Jesus remains a real man, so I suspect he may be laughing at us right now (or maybe crying). Or laughing so hard he is crying.
I’m laughing and crying at your tired fundamentalist attempts to explain away wine.
LikeLike
“Do we ever have a record of Him enjoying anything other than the presence of God?”
Yes, He enjoyed his friends. You should try it sometime.
LikeLike
I might also add that I am not really arguing for Tokens, but the practice of examining people or of assisting them in their self-examination.
Richard, then nobody is really arguing with you (at least not me), though you do seem rather high on tokenism. Still, you also seem high on examinations that go beyond anything seen in Scripture (I think GW made the point about Simon), getting at the heart of hearts and all that. I’m guessing you’re also not high on frequency of the Supper, since the sort of examinations you demand weekly would be utterly exhausting for those who are dust. But there are some of us who take examination seriously, but not so seriously that it would be an obstacle to making frequent use of the means of grace. I know, probably just those who are lazy and disobedient think this way.
LikeLike
RS: High horse? Interesting. You have yet to show me that I am going beyond God’s Word.
Richard, I see your positions on drinking, and with holding the Lord’s table by examination of elders, as prime examples of going beyond God’s word. Both positoins reek of asceticism, which simply means to go beyond the Bible. Asceticism has an apperence of holiness, but according to God, it’s of no value in your battle with the flesh. So lovingly back off bro!
It looks like your on a high horse Richard, even if you don’t feel you are.
LikeLike
Zrim quoting RS: I might also add that I am not really arguing for Tokens, but the practice of examining people or of assisting them in their self-examination.
Zrim: Richard, then nobody is really arguing with you (at least not me), though you do seem rather high on tokenism.
RS: It was just that in the old days they did this in days leading up to a season at the Table. It simply meant that the person had been examined. When they had these big times where thousands would show up they used tokens, but I am not sure they used those for local churches unless they were large churches. When they had their big celebrations, it was a useful tool.
Zrim: Still, you also seem high on examinations that go beyond anything seen in Scripture (I think GW made the point about Simon), getting at the heart of hearts and all that.
RS: Of course people will be deceived about themselves (as Simon) and the elders cannot know the depths of the hearts of the people. But there are so many folks these days that don’t know the very basics of the Gospel, though they may use the lingo, that it seems like such a simple thing that would be such a good practice to HELP PEOPLE EXAMINE THEMSELVES.
Zrim: I’m guessing you’re also not high on frequency of the Supper, since the sort of examinations you demand weekly would be utterly exhausting for those who are dust.
RS: Elders who knew their people would not need to do this every week. People who are properly taught about Christianity of the heart would not need an examination every week or even every month. I am not sure why it is perceived as such a negative thing for elders to speak to people about how they are doing spiritually.
Zrim: But there are some of us who take examination seriously, but not so seriously that it would be an obstacle to making frequent use of the means of grace. I know, probably just those who are lazy and disobedient think this way.
RS: Or maybe just one of those who have read what others are saying and not what I am really meaning. It is quite easy to misunderstand someone and then wires and discussions get crossed when people are more interested in firing away (not you) rather than understanding the real point.
LikeLike
Doug Sowers quoting RS: High horse? Interesting. You have yet to show me that I am going beyond God’s Word.
Doug Sowers: Richard, I see your positions on drinking,
RS: So I am strongly against people being drunk and controlled (even a bit) by the things they drink and that is going beyond Scripture. Interesting but not beyond the bounds of Scripture. I am not sure what kind of theonomists you are if you think that my positions against being drunk and people controlled by the things they drink are going beyond Scripture.
Doug Sowers: and with holding the Lord’s table by examination of elders, as prime examples of going beyond God’s word.
RS: So elders realizing that they are held accountable by God for the souls of the people under them and so wanting to examine people before they approach the Table is going beyond the Word of God. Again, that is interesting but certainly not beyond the bounds of Scripture.
Doug Sowers: Both positoins reek of asceticism, which simply means to go beyond the Bible. Asceticism has an apperence of holiness, but according to God, it’s of no value in your battle with the flesh. So lovingly back off bro!
RS: So the elders are not to be concerned that people are eating and drinking damnation to themselves and perhaps getting sick in doing so and it matters not that people are being controlled by what they drink rather than the Spirit and that is Asceticism. If that is Asceticism, then Asceticism is biblical. It may be that you are confusing Asceticism with something else.
Doug Sowers: It looks like your on a high horse Richard, even if you don’t feel you are.
RS: Unless you can show me from Scripture or evident reason as opposed to your opinions, I guess I will continue to think that my position is biblical. The heart is also governed by the laws of God, Doug, The affections and our pleasures are also governed by the laws of God, Doug. The Gospel frees people from the loves and pleasures of the world and frees them to love God which is the Royal Law.
LikeLike
Erik Charter quoing: Richard – “Do we ever have a record of Him laughing?”
Erik Charter: He was a real man, so I think he laughed. Your asking the question says so much, Richard. Oh my goodness, this is a new all-time low around here.
RS: Erik, it is becoming evident that there are many things you have yet to be exposed to. For example, true pleasure and real joy. Notice that I asked if we had a record of Jesus laughing. I would argue that Jesus had an exalted joy that was too great for laughing and He had a reverent joy. By the way, Erik, Jesus Christ was not a real man. He was the second Person of the Trinity who in that nature joined a 100% divine nature to a 100% human nature. The name “Jesus Christ” refers to who He really was and not just one of his natures. He was not a man like we are in the sense that our disordered passions are His standard.
Read obituaries fairly often. You will notice that a lot of people who commit suicide were people who laughed a lot and were even the life of the party. Laughing is not the sign of the deepest joy, but it can be the sign of a desperate person trying to fool others or self into thinking that he has joy. We have no record of Jesus laughing but we have a record of Him rejoicing.
LikeLike
Just to reiterate Zrim’s point:
Richard: I might also add that I am not really arguing for Tokens, but the practice of examining people or of assisting them in their self-examination.
but Richard Smith said
Richard Smith
Posted December 5, 2012 at 6:48 pm | Permalink The gauntlet was what Native Americans used as a way of testing and torment. One way is to do what the Scottish and some Americans did in examining the people in the congregation over a period of time and handing out tokens. All who went to the Table had to have a token. It is better for someone to miss out on the Table than it is for them to heap damnation on themselves and the elders who let them do it in order to save time and face.
Nate: ???
LikeLike
Richard – are you or are you not arguing for Tokens? My head is spinning.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Jesus remains a real man, so I suspect he may be laughing at us right now (or maybe crying). Or laughing so hard he is crying.
RS: I would suspect you are clueless to what Jesus is really doing, then.
Erik Charter: I’m laughing and crying at your tired fundamentalist attempts to explain away wine.
RS: I am not trying to explain it away, but trying to set out the biblical pattern of its proper use. Interesting how an attempt to be biblical is interpreted to be fundamentalistic.
LikeLike
Nate Paschall: Richard – are you or are you not arguing for Tokens? My head is spinning.
RS: My point in bringing up the token issue was to show that in the history of the Church an examination by the elders/pastors was required. So am I arguing that we should use tokens in and of themselves? Of course not. Am I arguing that people should be examined before they take the Lord’s Supper? Yes. Am I arguing that church members should be examined each and every time they take the Supper? No.
I am sorry about your head spinning. That can be disconcerting. So just in an effort to be clear, the point about the tokens was an effort to show how in history the leaders in the churches saw the issue of examining people before the Table was vitally important. In that time they did the Supper once every six months or so, but others did it more frequently. They also had special times where the churches got together (churches from miles and miles around) and so they had large numbers of people coming together to have the Supper. I might also add that some of these would last for several days and up to a whole week. There would be several sermons in preparation for the Supper during the week leading up to it.
LikeLike
Richard – “People who are properly taught about Christianity of the heart would not need an examination every week or even every month.”
Erik – How do you know? What if they slipped up during the past week or month? How would you know if you didn;t re-examine them?
LikeLike
Richard, it’s not a bad thing for elders to speak to people about how they are doing spiritually. But in your pragmatic defense of tokenism there is a glaring gorilla: big times and big numbers that demand some mechanism for efficiency. Maybe, instead of invoking a rather dubious system of tokens, someone should wonder how tokenism is a mark of the loss of simplicity and regularity, both Reformed virtues. Special times and large numbers strike me as more medieval and mega-churchy than Reformed. Maybe you agree. But whenever I hear about that thing called Communion Season in the Scottish Highlands, I wonder about the austerity of not observing Xmas but turning around and getting positively medieval over the Supper.
LikeLike
Richard – “By the way, Erik, Jesus Christ was not a real man”
Erik – Wow, Richard. Nice heresy.
Heidelberg Question 16. Why must he be very man, and also perfectly righteous?
Answer: Because the justice of God requires that the same human nature which has sinned, should likewise make satisfaction for sin; (a) and one, who is himself a sinner, cannot satisfy for others. (b)
LikeLike
Richard: Erik, it is becoming evident that there are many things you have yet to be exposed to. For example, true pleasure and real joy.
Erik – I’ll pass on learning those from you. I won’t be coming over to your place on New Year’s Eve, either. I’m sure you’ll be retiring by 9:00 after some bread & water. Whoo-hoo! Why do I picture Major Frank Burns the more I read your stuff?
I don’t think we have any record of Jesus going to the bathroom. Do you conclude that he didn’t? If he wasn’t a real man, maybe he could hold it indefinitely?
LikeLike
Richard,
How do you reconcile your system with Heidelberg 60 saying that we are:
“still inclined to all evil”
And Heidelberg 114:
Question 114. But can those who are converted to God perfectly keep these commandments?
Answer: No: but even the holiest men, while in this life, have only a small beginning of this obedience; (a) yet so, that with a sincere resolution they begin to live, not only according to some, but all the commandments of God. (b)
What does “a small beginning” mean to you?
LikeLike
Erik Charter Quoting Richard – “By the way, Erik, Jesus Christ was not a real man”
Erik – Wow, Richard. Nice heresy.
RS: If you would have read the whole statement that I wrote, you would know the meaning of it. Maybe.
Heidelberg Question 16. Why must he be very man, and also perfectly righteous?
Answer: Because the justice of God requires that the same human nature which has sinned, should likewise make satisfaction for sin; (a) and one, who is himself a sinner, cannot satisfy for others. (b)
RS: But who was in that human nature? Only the God-man could suffer for the sins of others. He was not a man only, but He was the second Person in the Trinity with two natures. That is not heresy. By the way, you throw out that term with specifics way too easily.
LikeLike
Erik Charter quoting Richard: Erik, it is becoming evident that there are many things you have yet to be exposed to. For example, true pleasure and real joy.
Erik – I’ll pass on learning those from you. I won’t be coming over to your place on New Year’s Eve, either. I’m sure you’ll be retiring by 9:00 after some bread & water. Whoo-hoo! Why do I picture Major Frank Burns the more I read your stuff?
RS: Maybe because you watch more television than you read your Bible.
Erik: I don’t think we have any record of Jesus going to the bathroom. Do you conclude that he didn’t? If he wasn’t a real man, maybe he could hold it indefinitely?
RS: Sigh. Erik, you are becoming quite practiced at missing the real point. Read carefully and think carefully. Jesus was not JUST a man, but God and man. We are FALLEN men only. We should not make our fallen humanity the standard of the actions and behavior of Jesus. We laugh at absurd things and many times laugh because a laugh track is playing (sitcom) or because others are laughing. Jesus had real and perfect joy because He was in perfect communion with the Father.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard, How do you reconcile your system with Heidelberg 60 saying that we are:
“still inclined to all evil”
And Heidelberg 114:
Question 114. But can those who are converted to God perfectly keep these commandments?
Answer: No: but even the holiest men, while in this life, have only a small beginning of this obedience; (a) yet so, that with a sincere resolution they begin to live, not only according to some, but all the commandments of God. (b)
What does “a small beginning” mean to you?
RS: You trying to make a biblical point? Where in the world did this question come from? Are you simply going through the Heidelberg trying to find things to make a point? I have no idea of what system I supposedly hold to that does not agree with those two points. Yes, I still believe that you are still inclined to all evil. However, I prefer the Belgic on this: “Therefore we reject all that is taught repugnant to this concerning the free will of man, since man is a slave to sin and has nothing of himself unless it is given him from heaven” (Article 14). Look at the verses below, however. It is the strength of God in man that works in man to do according to His pleasure.
Colossians 1:27 to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. 28 We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ. 29 For this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me.
1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me.
LikeLike
Richard,
So was Jesus a real man or not? If he wasn’t a real man why did Satan bother tempting him? I am serious when I say you are saying potentaiily heretical things about Jesus not being a real man. If the game was somehow fixed when he lived his sinless life than God’s justice against sinful man has not been satisfied.
As far as me watching TV more than reading my Bible, how would you know? You are speculating on my personal behavior which is pretty fruitless. I have done this to you in the past, as well as taking these arguments into the “real world” and I apologized for it. The boundaries really need to be what is written here and not speculations and threats to get our actual churches involved. I was out of bounds doing that and you are getting out of bounds with speculations you can’t verify. Besides, watching things on a computer is not “TV”…
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, it’s not a bad thing for elders to speak to people about how they are doing spiritually. But in your pragmatic defense of tokenism there is a glaring gorilla: big times and big numbers that demand some mechanism for efficiency. Maybe, instead of invoking a rather dubious system of tokens, someone should wonder how tokenism is a mark of the loss of simplicity and regularity, both Reformed virtues.
RS: There is a lot to be said for that.
Zrim: Special times and large numbers strike me as more medieval and mega-churchy than Reformed. Maybe you agree. But whenever I hear about that thing called Communion Season in the Scottish Highlands, I wonder about the austerity of not observing Xmas but turning around and getting positively medieval over the Supper.
RS: I think that the token was primarily used (not certain about that) for the larger Communion Seasons. I am not sure that it was austerity of not observing Xmas, but instead it had to do with the Regulative Principle and of not wanting to follow Rome. Christ–Mass tells us that it was a mass in a supposed celebration of the birth of Christ. It is also true that we are not to worship the human nature of Christ but the Divine alone.
LikeLike
Richard – “It is the strength of God in man that works in man to do according to His pleasure.”
Erik – So why the constant emphasis from you on religious affections, self-examination, examination of others, Edwards, Tennent, revivalism, etc.
If those whom God justifies he also sanctifies, why all the pointing to the believer vs. pointing to Christ?
Look to Christ and put your faith in him and works will follow. You seem to take the former for granted and put all of your focus on the latter. Thus the subjective treadmill you want to put everyone on. You sound way more fundamentalist or evangelical than Reformed. Evangelicals are all about getting people saved and then putting all the focus on the law (“what you do for Jesus now that He has saved you.”) You lead people into a mess.
LikeLike
Richard – “You trying to make a biblical point? Where in the world did this question come from?”
Erik – Shaking the foundations of your theological system. If 60 & 114 are true then guess what your examinations are always going to yield? Confirmation that we still sin. This is why we focus on Christ, Word, Sacrament, and not ourselves.
LikeLike
Richard,
So you don’t subscribe to the use of tokens and you’re not ‘technically’ supporting their use, but you are going to argue for the historical validity of their use, even though you don’t seek to implement their use?
What’s the point again?
(sigh)…
LikeLike
Nate Paschall: Richard, So you don’t subscribe to the use of tokens and you’re not ‘technically’ supporting their use, but you are going to argue for the historical validity of their use, even though you don’t seek to implement their use? What’s the point again?
RS: My point in bringing them up was simply and only to show that men in the past examined people before they took the Supper. That was my point. The issue was and always has been that people need to be examined at some point and perhaps on a regular basis (like every six months or year). I think that the Westminster divines recommended that the elders visit the people once every year or so.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard, So was Jesus a real man or not?
RS: Your original wording was Jesus Christ (as I recall). “Christ” is not the last name of Jesus, but instead it means “Messiah.” Jesus the Messiah cannot be spoken of in truth and with understanding apart from recognizing the divinity of this Messiah. But again, He was the second Person in the Trinity who as a Divine Person had a 100% Divine nature and in taking human form He also had a 100% human nature. But even more importantly in our original context, Jesus was not united to fallen human nature.
Erik Charter: If he wasn’t a real man why did Satan bother tempting him? I am serious when I say you are saying potentaiily heretical things about Jesus not being a real man. If the game was somehow fixed when he lived his sinless life than God’s justice against sinful man has not been satisfied.
RS: I am not saying anything that is heretical. Read the Three Forms on the subject. Satan tried Jesus in an effort to get Him to worship Him and to fail, but God allowed it in order to manifest who Jesus was. You must be wary about thinking of temptation in the modern sense.
Erik: As far as me watching TV more than reading my Bible, how would you know?
RS: You were talking about Major Burns and asked why you thought of him when you read my posts. I gave you one option. When you take a shot at someone, don’t be so surprised if one comes back.
Erik Charter: You are speculating on my personal behavior which is pretty fruitless.
RS: You raised the question and brought up the subject.
Erik Charter: I have done this to you in the past, as well as taking these arguments into the “real world” and I apologized for it. The boundaries really need to be what is written here and not speculations and threats to get our actual churches involved. I was out of bounds doing that and you are getting out of bounds with speculations you can’t verify. Besides, watching things on a computer is not “TV”…
RS: Again, you brought up Major Burns and asked the question. I simply answered your question with one possible answer.
LikeLike
Erik Charter quoting Richard – “It is the strength of God in man that works in man to do according to His pleasure.”
Erik – So why the constant emphasis from you on religious affections, self-examination, examination of others, Edwards, Tennent, revivalism, etc.
RS: Because that is the way to point to the works and temple of Christ and His Spirit.
Erik Charter: If those whom God justifies he also sanctifies, why all the pointing to the believer vs. pointing to Christ?
RS: I am not pointing to the believer but instead am pointing to Christ. Remember, the believer (according to Paul in II Cor 13:5) is to examine himself to see if Christ is in him. So the real issue is to see if Christ is in the person. It is, therefore, pointing to Christ. Where is the temple of the Holy Spirit? It is in the believer. So in pointing people to examine themselves, they are to look for the work of the Spirit (life and fruit) in them.
Erik Charter: Look to Christ and put your faith in him and works will follow.
RS: You sound like an Arminian. I cannot look to Christ unless the Spirit gives me eyes to see. For example, you must be born from above to see the kingdom. No one has faith until they are born from above and given a believing heart.
Erik Charter: You seem to take the former for granted and put all of your focus on the latter.
RS: Not at all. But if there are no inward works of Christ in the heart, then there will be other results. The works of a true believer are in reality a result of the works of Christ in the believer. A professing believer can do the same (more or less) works but will do them in his own strength.
Erik Charter: Thus the subjective treadmill you want to put everyone on.
RS: But again, for perhaps the thousandth time, it is not a subjective treadmill. It is looking for the work of Christ in the soul which is where He dwells.
Erik Charter: You sound way more fundamentalist or evangelical than Reformed.
RS: If I sound that way to you, then perhaps you are unclear on what it means to be Reformed.
Erik Charter: Evangelicals are all about getting people saved and then putting all the focus on the law (“what you do for Jesus now that He has saved you.”)
RS: Not exactly.
Erik Charter: You lead people into a mess.
RS: No, I am not leading them to you.
LikeLike
Erik Charter – So why the constant emphasis from you on religious affections, self-examination, examination of others, Edwards, Tennent, revivalism, etc.
RS: Let me try one more time. You look for true religious affections because a true religious affection is the work of Christ in the soul. People can have many false affections and have them for the wrong reasons. But again, one examines self for the purpose of seeing if Christ is in them and if He is working in them. Some go into the woods (I do this too) and see the glory of God and His works there. But we are told to look in our hearts to see if the work of Christ is really there.
LikeLike
Erik Charter quoting Richard – “You trying to make a biblical point? Where in the world did this question come from?”
Erik – Shaking the foundations of your theological system. If 60 & 114 are true then guess what your examinations are always going to yield? Confirmation that we still sin. This is why we focus on Christ, Word, Sacrament, and not ourselves.
RS: You can focus on the words “Christ” and so on if you want, but if you want to know if Christ has saved you and dwells in you, then you need to look where He will be if He has saved you. Where do you look for a King? In His temple. Christ dwells in those whom He has saved and so they should look in themselves in order to look to Him as well as look for Him. If you don’t look for Christ in His temple, then you are not looking for the biblical Christ. So while your system sounds good in one sense, it is quite backwards in another.
LikeLike
Soul Doctor Richard (my new handle for you) – If you go seeking King Jesus in the temple of a heart (yours or someone else’s) and don’t find Him – what is your prescription? (beyond a nature walk).
What happens if on the nature walk you see two horses copulating, a fox tearing apart a chicken, or a dog taking a dump? Nature isn’t always so gentle or peaceful.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Soul Doctor Richard (my new handle for you) – If you go seeking King Jesus in the temple of a heart (yours or someone else’s) and don’t find Him – what is your prescription? (beyond a nature walk).
RS: Read the Bible, hear the Word of God taught at every opportunity, ask God to give you a new heart, and seek to flee from all known sin while asking God to show you more. Sin hardens the heart and so one should flee from it whether one is a believer or unbeliever. Faith comes through hearing so one should hear as much as possible. God uses the Word to change the hearts of men so one is to read and hear.
Erik Charter: What happens if on the nature walk you see two horses copulating, a fox tearing apart a chicken, or a dog taking a dump? Nature isn’t always so gentle or peaceful.
RS: Yet all nature declares the glory of God in some way. There is nothing wrong with the things you describe. Horses were made that way by God and He uses that to produce little horses. Nature is fallen and so death is part of it, which declares His glory in the fall. I might add that for those who eat meat the animal had to die (yes, I eat meat). Dogs use yards in the cities as dumping grounds, but the thing about being in nature you don’t see people wiping the rear ends of animals (yes, I have seen that) or picking it up with little baggies.
LikeLike
Richard – “Read the Bible, hear the Word of God taught at every opportunity, ask God to give you a new heart, and seek to flee from all known sin while asking God to show you more. Sin hardens the heart and so one should flee from it whether one is a believer or unbeliever. Faith comes through hearing so one should hear as much as possible. God uses the Word to change the hearts of men so one is to read and hear.”
Erik – I agree with all that. I think the definition of the sins we need to flee from might differ. You may focus on a beer where I may focus on more subtler things like a prideful attitude, but you are basically arguing for Word & Sacrament.
My boss owns close to 1000 apartments so we are especially sensitive to doggy dumping. Amazing how many people have dogs these days.
LikeLike
I do think I prefer the Puritans description of “the howling wilderness” over Edwards’ proto-environmentalism but hey, I’m a city guy (although I used to enjoy a nice 15 mile drive through the country to work every day).
LikeLike
Erik – I agree with all that. I think the definition of the sins we need to flee from might differ. You may focus on a beer where I may focus on more subtler things like a prideful attitude, but you are basically arguing for Word & Sacrament.
RS: Of course the need to flee from sin includes the external, but the real issue with sin is the heart. The Word of God goes to the very depths of the soul and external sin comes from a sinful heart. The self and the pride of self is the great enemy of the soul. Jesus told us that we have to deny self in order to follow Him. The denial of self is not denying self things, but denying self (self-love, self-focus, and so on) as self.
LikeLike
Where does all this leave Bill Self?
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Where does all this leave Bill Self?
RS: You mean Bill Clinton?
LikeLike
Richard,
RS: My point in bringing them up was simply and only to show that men in the past examined people before they took the Supper…. I think that the Westminster divines recommended that the elders visit the people once every year or so.
Nate: I would be inclined to believe that the purposes of these visits was not to find a church congregant’s suitability to take the Supper, (although that would be a corollary) but to simply care for a congregant’s spiritual and, where applicable, physical needs. I get the feeling that you’re pressing for some kind of need to regularly inspect your congregant’s souls to ensure proper partaking of the sacraments. I am skeptical that this is the primary intent of the annual visits of the elders referred to.
I would go in a different trajectory entirely. I would state that in a healthy church the congregants are known (through church functions, having people over, sharing life, bible studies, etc.) simply because they are fellow congregants. For those who are not known, the effort to know them is not for the purposes of their suitability for the supper (i.e., an examination) but them as a person (Romans 15:7 ” Welcome one another, therefore, as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.”).
As far as the church historically examining it’s congregants for suitability for supper, I don’t dispute that happened, and I would disagree with you and Erik (though I’m sure there are differences between you two as well on what an “examination” might look like) on the necessity of an elder-examination prior to partaking the supper.
My point on this comment illustrated this.
And the reason we don’t go examining our congregants is the same reason we don’t want the police coming to our doors and asking us if we have broken any laws. It is a negative assumption on their part about us (see this comment). I think Erik’s point about the Canons of Dort establishes this point.
That pretty much sums it up on my part
LikeLike
Nate – “As far as the church historically examining it’s congregants for suitability for supper, I don’t dispute that happened, and I would disagree with you and Erik (though I’m sure there are differences between you two as well on what an “examination” might look like) on the necessity of an elder-examination prior to partaking the supper.”
Erik – Yeah, my examination doesn’t involve bright lights and those things that were used to hold Malcolm McDowell’s eyes open in “A Clockwork Orange” like Richard’s…
And just to clarify — no examination from me, only a testimony from the visitor that he/she is a believer and a member of a visible Christian Church (and which church that is).
We just excommunicated a woman last Sunday. If she is off in another state partaking of the Lord’s Supper I suspect my elders and her ex-husband (whom she abandoned and divorced) would like to know about that.
LikeLike
Nate Paschall: And the reason we don’t go examining our congregants is the same reason we don’t want the police coming to our doors and asking us if we have broken any laws. It is a negative assumption on their part about us (see this comment). I think Erik’s point about the Canons of Dort establishes this point.
RS: But the police are primarily charged with finding those who break laws. Elders are charged with building up the people and even to “reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction” as well as shepherd and feed the sheep.
LikeLike
Richard I put together a little quiz on the issue of Jesus’ humanity a few years back: http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2009/08/10-questions-on-hypostatic-union.html
LikeLike
Mark Dever on table manners
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=24-05-016-v
unless of course you want to ignore the differences between the Abrahamic covenant and the new covenant, and pretend that there is no continuity about circumcision between the Abrahamic and the Mosaic covenants
LikeLike