Self-Excommunication from the Lord's Supper

[Peairtach]

I could be wrong, but I think that's an example of proper function of self-examination

Yes. I believe so, too. That is a very helpful example. As a new minister, I could have never imagined the difficulty of properly inviting and fencing the Table of our Lord. This interchange has been profitable.

Love in Christ,

I believe the fencing of the Table was originally to indicate the kind of presumptuous unrepented sins which would immediately debar a person - converted or unconverted - from the Table. Maybe even more necessary when you have large numbers of congregants whom you do not know as a pastor, coming from near and far to take communion. Hence also the use of communion tokens, and the mention that if anyone present is not in "good standing" with their own session/congregation, that these are not to come to the Table.

One could imagine a kind of "free for all" if the Table was not thus jealously guarded.

Once ministers descend to non-presumptuous sins in there fencing their can be a danger that they discourage weak believers or give the impression that the Table is only for "super saints" who have been on the road a long time and have reached a high level of sanctification.

Maybe another thread could be started on what sorts of sins should be mentioned in fencing and what sorts of sins would ordinarily lead to debarring from the Lord's Table by the session for a period of time until signs of repentance, although there are probably good threads on this already.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Andrew P.C.]

the FV movement is not a monolith.

I think you should do your homework.

1) Waters in his lectures claims that his work and thoughts on the matter point to the fact that the movement is monolithic (as defined by one underlining system or a cohesiveness to the movement). At it's core there is a system of thought shared among FV proponents and his book gives the major tenets of the FV movement as heard here: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=21307133618

2) Guy Waters says this directly in his books:

"A second reason explaining recent interest in the FV is that the FV has purportedly developed its system from covenant theology...Third, the FV, as its name indicated, offers a vision that is comprehensive and sweeping. It articulates an epistemology, a Trinitarian theology, a doctrine of redemption and its application, and a conception of the church, culture, and Christian living in this world. Many FV proponents not only promote this vision as stemming from their understanding of covenant theology but also charge the Reformed world with having failed to live up to what covenant theology entails for belief and practice." (This is the kindle version Location 107 and 112 in the first Chapter titled "An introduction to the Federal Vision" in Guy Waters book Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: a Comparative Analysis

Not only does he say they have a cohesive system, but then he goes on to give specific doctrinal areas in which they agree. Yes, in his book he wants to make sure he does not import one view to another. However men like Wilson, Wilkins, Lusk, and Leithart agree on these points.

Likewise, since lawful courts have called this movement heretical, it would be logical for the more "liked" proponents (e.g. Wilson) to say "you know what? you're right. I shouldn't promote Lusk's books or let him speak at my church because he denies justification by faith alone". But wait... so does Wilson.

 

[Captain Picard]

the FV movement is not a monolith.

I think you should do your homework.

1) Waters in his lectures claims that his work and thoughts on the matter point to the fact that the movement is monolithic (as defined by one underlining system or a cohesiveness to the movement). At it's core there is a system of thought shared among FV proponents and his book gives the major tenets of the FV movement as heard here: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=21307133618

2) Guy Waters says this directly in his books:

"A second reason explaining recent interest in the FV is that the FV has purportedly developed its system from covenant theology...Third, the FV, as its name indicated, offers a vision that is comprehensive and sweeping. It articulates an epistemology, a Trinitarian theology, a doctrine of redemption and its application, and a conception of the church, culture, and Christian living in this world. Many FV proponents not only promote this vision as stemming from their understanding of covenant theology but also charge the Reformed world with having failed to live up to what covenant theology entails for belief and practice." (This is the kindle version Location 107 and 112 in the first Chapter titled "An introduction to the Federal Vision" in Guy Waters book Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: a Comparative Analysis

Not only does he say they have a cohesive system, but then he goes on to give specific doctrinal areas in which they agree. Yes, in his book he wants to make sure he does not import one view to another. However men like Wilson, Wilkins, Lusk, and Leithart agree on these points.

Likewise, since lawful courts have called this movement heretical, it would be logical for the more "liked" proponents (e.g. Wilson) to say "you know what? you're right. I shouldn't promote Lusk's books or let him speak at my church because he denies justification by faith alone". But wait... so does Wilson.

Page number of the book where Wilson denies decretal election, please.

Also the url of the lecture where Waters uses the word monolith. (Not the word system. The word "monolith".)