Invite Arminians to the Lord's Table?

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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


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

 

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

I wonder what caused this sudden shift.

 

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

 

Hi Dave,

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

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

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

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

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

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

None shall be admitted to the Lord’s Supper except those who?according to the usage of the Church to which they unite themselves?have made a confession of the Reformed Religion, besides being reputed to be of a godly walk, without which also those who come from other?Churches shall not be admitted. (art. 61)

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Arminians & the Lord's table

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

 

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

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