historyb
Puritan Board Junior
Trevor,
You should at least properly catechize them before they approach the Holy.
Is doctrine more important than Christ and the Cross?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Trevor,
You should at least properly catechize them before they approach the Holy.
David K.,
Greetings from that other URC church pastored by a radical Armenian!
From my understanding, it may be permissible to transfer members (or "release" in good standing at least) who cannot completely agree with the 3 Forms of Unity to another true church. Some may be better in a Presbyterian church that does not require confessional subscription by non-office bearing members. That may be appropriate in the case of someone who cannot affirm infant baptism.
But in this case, where the doctrines touch so close to the heart of the Gospel, you probably should not transfer or release such a man, since the errors of Arminianism put the soul in grave danger.
Is doctrine more important than Christ and the Cross?
Hi Doug,
Once you mention Christ and the cross, you are using doctrine. You are doing Theology when you lead someone to Christ.
I wanted to mention to Ted a very serious problem in which the Arminian finds himself. In order to explain away the doctrine of unconditional election, he resorts to the idea that predestination consists in God looking across time to see who would receive Christ as Savior and who would not. And then on that basis He predestines the ones who decided to 'follow Jesus'. This doctrine teaches that God looked across time and discovered knowledge of someone's actions. This means that God learns, which means that God does not know everything.
Thus the Arminian has placed himself outside the category of monotheism. He is believing something that a good Jew or Muslim would disdain. OK, it's understandable for a neophyte to think in these terms but it's unpardonable for an educated minister of the gospel. It's quite simply idolatry.
"You" reformed? If you hold to the confession required for membership here, then oughtn't it be "we" reformed? This seems to be somewhat divisive. A joke, perhaps, but divisive just the same.You Reformed are prone to so much melodrama.
Okay...remembering...and what about her? Are you saying Jesus talking to her was akin to offering her the Lord's Supper?Ask yourselves what would Jesus Do? Remember the woman at the well.
Define "confessional". Do you mean they confess Christ?You can tacitly rebuke in the spirit of 2 Timothy 2:24-25, but they are confessional Christians
It's hard for me to see someone calling anyone asinine as asking himself what Jesus would do, yet you have asked the participants here to ask that of themselves.and it's asinine for you guys
No one has barred from fellowship at their homes or dinner table. No one has suggested that as far as I can tell. Please tell me what you are talking about.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.
Amen, Tedd.... the essentials of the faith are not the 3 forms of Unity. ONe need not sign a form to break bread with the brothers.
One need not get narrowly denominational in order to guard the table. A mere Christian of whatever stripes can eat the supper.
Those who want to lay extra bilbical hedges around the table mean well and respect the table, but they are playing with a sinful narrow denominationalism that tries to tack on extra things that are not required by Scripture.
What authority does the Synod of Dort have over me?
It was a historic dispute in another time and in another country.
If CHinese or Indoensian beleivers gather together, they are often just glad to fellowship with other Christian brothers and many have never heard the terms, arminianisn, clavinism or Dort. They know that Christ saved them, though, and this is enough.
The Lord's Supper belongs to the Lord's people. If someone is saved we should eat with them.
Oh, well! One more I guess. Think about this: John MacArthur is a Dispensationalist who happens to believe in "Lordship Salvation" (as it is termedJust Curious,
If the Synod of Dort has condemn Arminianism and therefore those that hold to the teaching of Arminian are heretics, should the church be communing at the table with such that believe in false teaching?
What authority does the Synod of Dort have over me?
It was a historic dispute in another time and in another country.
If CHinese or Indoensian beleivers gather together, they are often just glad to fellowship with other Christian brothers and many have never heard the terms, arminianisn, clavinism or Dort. They know that Christ saved them, though, and this is enough.
The Lord's Supper belongs to the Lord's people. If someone is saved we should eat with them.
Not many Indonesians know what Dort is. I would say it is irrelevant as a document. No need to sign it or voice consent to it.
These people are being taught the truth without tacking on irrelevant documents that have to do with European theological conflicts.
Many beleivers trust in Christ without knowing about much church history, and these believers are fit subjects to share the Lord's meal with.
WHY?
Because they are the Lord's - which should be our criteria as well.
Would you deny millions of Chinese Ture Beleivers and Indonesians and probably Indian Christians the Lord's Supper because they don't know what a "Canon of Dort" is, or even how you fire one!
Not many Indonesians know what Dort is. I would say it is irrelevant as a document. No need to sign it or voice consent to it.
These people are being taught the truth without tacking on irrelevant documents that have to do with European theological conflicts.
Many beleivers trust in Christ without knowing about much church history, and these believers are fit subjects to share the Lord's meal with.
WHY?
Because they are the Lord's - which should be our criteria as well.
Would you deny millions of Chinese Ture Beleivers and Indonesians and probably Indian Christians the Lord's Supper because they don't know what a "Canon of Dort" is, or even how you fire one!
Because a group of believers in some foreign country does not know what Nicea is, this does not make them non-Trinitarian.
Because many have never heard of Dort does not mean that they are pelagians.
We can have unity in Scripture without rallying around specific historical documents that other parts of the world have never heard of.
I find it amusing that that many Western Christian are often myopic and think that foreign Christians must all adopt Western external fashions to be counted as Christian.
The canons of Dort need not be taught and signed before a Papuan beleivers takes communion.
Again; the Lord's Supper is for the Lord's People. If one is the Lord's then he can partake, even if he lives in the jungle and doesn't know who JOhn Calvin was...
So I guess in your view Christians need not rally behind the Synod of Jerusalem in Acts 15 since a group of believers in some foreign country does not know what Jerusalem was and so not to introduce documents that other parts of the world have never heard of.
Jerusalem was a International Church Synod, Yes?
Nicea was a International Church Synod, Yes?
Dordt was a International Church Synod, Yes?
It is not about Western vs. everyone else, nor is it about the Dutch or some other culture related theme... It is about church history and about Church Councils that are legal or in other words scriptural and binding....
Michael
But what about those who have never heard about Dort or the 1689... these things are good things to be taught, but are not essential to be known before receiving communion.
HERE'S A FOLLOW UP QUESTION:
Is it sin to bar a fellow believer uneccessarily from the Lord's Table, even though they are a believer (and not just "your kind" of believer)?
And if so, what sins some of the reformed are guilty of here!
I think where we are getting bogged down at is over Ecclesiology.. This debate almost seems totally polarized into two groups, The Independant Baptist and Presbyterial Presbyterians. Besides Jenney and myself who are Baptist and siding with the Presbyterial's on this... Of course I see the need to Church Councils and Synods...
The Independant here see no need for church councils and so are playing them down and their creeds, and the Presbyterians see the need and the biblical basis for Church Councils.... I believe this to be the root of the debate in this threat and the two sides will not come out on the same conclusion until the root is finally solved which is church polity. And I do not see that issue being resolved anytime soon...
P.S. I am unsure why, but I have seen a push in Reformed Baptist circles to also undermine and almost completely do away with the 1689 Confession for a push for greater Ecumenicalism and I believe to our harm.....
In cases of difficulties or differences, either in point of doctrine or in administrations, wherein either the churches in general are concerned, or any one church in their peace, union, and edification, or any member or members of any church are injured in, or by any proceeding in censures, not agreeable to truth and order: it is according to the mind of Christ, that many churches holding communion together. do by their messengers meet in a synod or council, to consider and give their advice in, or about that matter in difference, to be reported to all the churches concerned. Howbeit, these synods so assembled are not entrusted with any church-power, properly so called, or with any jurisdiction over the churches themselves, to exercise any censures, either over any churches or persons, or to impose their determinations on the churches or officers.
A side point, I am sure, but why do we feel that Nicea or Dordt should be put along side the Council of Jerusalem? The latter was chosen by God to be recorded in inspired scripture, and included inspired Apostles. No other council, no matter how godly we may think it to be, can claim the same 'credentials'.