Comments on: The Lord’s Supper: Is the warning to ‘examine yourself’ abused? http://shepherdtheflock.com/2007/05/13/the-lords-supper-is-the-warning-to-examine-yourself-abused/ "Shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you...” Sat, 11 Oct 2008 18:52:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.2 By: tim http://shepherdtheflock.com/2007/05/13/the-lords-supper-is-the-warning-to-examine-yourself-abused/#comment-258 tim Mon, 14 May 2007 11:29:48 +0000 http://shepherdtheflock.com/2007/05/13/the-lords-supper-is-the-warning-to-examine-yourself-abused/#comment-258 Nathan, I think I tend to agree with you. Certainly, this is a serious occasion. After all, we are remembering the death of the Savior and yet I am in full agreement that it is also a celebration: a celebration of why we are what we are, a celebration of what Christ has done in saving us, a celebration of our ties to one another as family and to Him as Lord. I take the warning seriously. After all, we are told that many get sick and die from not discerning the Lord's body. Most of the time, for me at least, there is both weeping and joy. Nathan,

I think I tend to agree with you. Certainly, this is a serious occasion. After all, we are remembering the death of the Savior and yet I am in full agreement that it is also a celebration: a celebration of why we are what we are, a celebration of what Christ has done in saving us, a celebration of our ties to one another as family and to Him as Lord. I take the warning seriously. After all, we are told that many get sick and die from not discerning the Lord’s body. Most of the time, for me at least, there is both weeping and joy.

]]> By: Gordan http://shepherdtheflock.com/2007/05/13/the-lords-supper-is-the-warning-to-examine-yourself-abused/#comment-262 Gordan Mon, 14 May 2007 23:15:19 +0000 http://shepherdtheflock.com/2007/05/13/the-lords-supper-is-the-warning-to-examine-yourself-abused/#comment-262 Nathan, The guys in black suits and sunglasses will be by your place shortly to pick up your "Reformed" card. It'll go easier for you if you don't resist. :) Nathan,

The guys in black suits and sunglasses will be by your place shortly to pick up your “Reformed” card. It’ll go easier for you if you don’t resist.

:)

]]> By: Nathan White http://shepherdtheflock.com/2007/05/13/the-lords-supper-is-the-warning-to-examine-yourself-abused/#comment-263 Nathan White Tue, 15 May 2007 00:22:40 +0000 http://shepherdtheflock.com/2007/05/13/the-lords-supper-is-the-warning-to-examine-yourself-abused/#comment-263 Tim, Certainly the occasion calls for a serious mood, as well as even weeping, etc. However, it also calls for a celebration as well. But what I'd like to get at is specifically why the somber mood is so common (and congregation are dead). Personally, I believe it is because preachers now days misapply the 1 Cor text and threaten those in attendance with the law, in that personal performance is used to justify whether to participate or not. Is it simply the innappropriate participation in the Lord's Supper that brings judgment? I'd like to take a closer look at this passage. Tim,

Certainly the occasion calls for a serious mood, as well as even weeping, etc. However, it also calls for a celebration as well.

But what I’d like to get at is specifically why the somber mood is so common (and congregation are dead). Personally, I believe it is because preachers now days misapply the 1 Cor text and threaten those in attendance with the law, in that personal performance is used to justify whether to participate or not.

Is it simply the innappropriate participation in the Lord’s Supper that brings judgment? I’d like to take a closer look at this passage.

]]> By: Nathan White http://shepherdtheflock.com/2007/05/13/the-lords-supper-is-the-warning-to-examine-yourself-abused/#comment-264 Nathan White Tue, 15 May 2007 00:23:39 +0000 http://shepherdtheflock.com/2007/05/13/the-lords-supper-is-the-warning-to-examine-yourself-abused/#comment-264 Gordan, I'm guessing you disagree? :) Or, maybe we have different ideas of what 'reformed' means? Gordan,

I’m guessing you disagree? :) Or, maybe we have different ideas of what ‘reformed’ means?

]]> By: JP http://shepherdtheflock.com/2007/05/13/the-lords-supper-is-the-warning-to-examine-yourself-abused/#comment-265 JP Tue, 15 May 2007 07:17:40 +0000 http://shepherdtheflock.com/2007/05/13/the-lords-supper-is-the-warning-to-examine-yourself-abused/#comment-265 Nathan, We are never to pass by the Lord’s Supper if we are qualified to partake of it, for two reasons: #1 The Lord commands us to partake of the Lord’s Supper, to not do so is sinful disobedience. #2 The Lord’s Supper is a means of grace, therefore it is designed for sinners to take and there-by be strengthened etc. I agree that the passage is often misunderstood, I’m not sure if this is so primarily because of scare tactics on the part of pastors and administrators, or whether it is due to misunderstanding on the part of the communicants. Most likely both. However the teaching of the New Testament teaching concerning man, even redeemed man and the teaching concerning the Lord’s Supper make it clear that even though yet corrupted by the sin the believer can and should commune with Christ and his brethren in the Covenant meal of the Lord’s Supper. The syntax of the passage quoted makes this clear… "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 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." We learn three things: 1) A person must examine himself if he is to be sure he is not eating and drinking unworthily and to ensure he is not guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. This is not however an examination of whether we are worthy enough, we are not and we never will be, rather it is an examination of our love for Christ, and our loyalty to Christ, it is has equivalency to checking whether we are coming soberly, thoughtfully and seriously to the ordinance and to ensure that we are coming flippantly as if it was a snack bar (this is what it means to discern the Lord's body). The examination for sin and iniquity should be done, but I believe it is much better done in the days and hours before coming to the worship service at which the ordinance will be administered. Why wait? To hold onto the sin a little longer? 2) The motive of this examination is not to make the guilt-ridden believer pass by the emblems (i.e. to disobey Christ), but rather to cause the believer to see again his union with Christ and dependence upon Christ for redemption, and every spiritual blessing, and to renew his allegiance and loyalty again to Christ. ….”and so [having examined yourself] eat of the bread and drink of the cup”….the self-examination is not so much a fence but a gate in a fence. 3) The main duty of the communicant during the administration is to “discern the Lord’s body”. In passing, I think much of what is said just before the emblems are distributed is said just because something needs to be said. In our church our current practice is a monthly celebration of the Lord’s Supper because this allows us to give the whole service over to meditating upon the Person and Work of Christ. This means that when we come to the actual administration of the ordinance very little needs to be said at all. On the other hand if as is very common the ordinance is tagged on at the end of a normal service a pastor may feel it essential to say something in preparation for the ordinance (rightly so) however in such this small period of time perhaps that which is said is sometimes not the wisest. This is not an argument against weekly celebration at all but merely of the traps a weekly celebration presents, no doubt there are other traps other periods of celebration present. The Westminster Larger Catechism is very helpful here, questions 171-175 are an excellent summary of what the Lord requires of us…before, during and after the administration of the ordinance, and I interpret the before as being the days before, the during as being on the evening and during the actual administration, and the after obviously explains itself. Particularly relevant to this discussion is Question 172, I give it to you complete; Q. 172. May one who doubteth of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation, come to the Lord’s supper? A. One who doubteth of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation to the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, may have true interest in Christ, though he be not yet assured thereof; and in God’s account hath it, if he be duly affected with the apprehension of the want of it; and unfeignedly desires to be found in Christ, and to depart from iniquity: in which case (because promises are made, and this sacrament is appointed, for the relief even of weak and doubting Christians) he is to bewail his unbelief, and labor to have his doubts resolved; and, so doing, he may and ought to come to the Lord’s supper, that he may be further strengthened. JP http://semperreformata.wordrpress.com Nathan,
We are never to pass by the Lord’s Supper if we are qualified to partake of it, for two reasons:

#1 The Lord commands us to partake of the Lord’s Supper, to not do so is sinful disobedience.
#2 The Lord’s Supper is a means of grace, therefore it is designed for sinners to take and there-by be strengthened etc.

I agree that the passage is often misunderstood, I’m not sure if this is so primarily because of scare tactics on the part of pastors and administrators, or whether it is due to misunderstanding on the part of the communicants. Most likely both.

However the teaching of the New Testament teaching concerning man, even redeemed man and the teaching concerning the Lord’s Supper make it clear that even though yet corrupted by the sin the believer can and should commune with Christ and his brethren in the Covenant meal of the Lord’s Supper.

The syntax of the passage quoted makes this clear…

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 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.”

We learn three things:
1) A person must examine himself if he is to be sure he is not eating and drinking unworthily and to ensure he is not guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. This is not however an examination of whether we are worthy enough, we are not and we never will be, rather it is an examination of our love for Christ, and our loyalty to Christ, it is has equivalency to checking whether we are coming soberly, thoughtfully and seriously to the ordinance and to ensure that we are coming flippantly as if it was a snack bar (this is what it means to discern the Lord’s body). The examination for sin and iniquity should be done, but I believe it is much better done in the days and hours before coming to the worship service at which the ordinance will be administered. Why wait? To hold onto the sin a little longer?

2) The motive of this examination is not to make the guilt-ridden believer pass by the emblems (i.e. to disobey Christ), but rather to cause the believer to see again his union with Christ and dependence upon Christ for redemption, and every spiritual blessing, and to renew his allegiance and loyalty again to Christ. ….”and so [having examined yourself] eat of the bread and drink of the cup”….the self-examination is not so much a fence but a gate in a fence.

3) The main duty of the communicant during the administration is to “discern the Lord’s body”.

In passing, I think much of what is said just before the emblems are distributed is said just because something needs to be said. In our church our current practice is a monthly celebration of the Lord’s Supper because this allows us to give the whole service over to meditating upon the Person and Work of Christ. This means that when we come to the actual administration of the ordinance very little needs to be said at all. On the other hand if as is very common the ordinance is tagged on at the end of a normal service a pastor may feel it essential to say something in preparation for the ordinance (rightly so) however in such this small period of time perhaps that which is said is sometimes not the wisest. This is not an argument against weekly celebration at all but merely of the traps a weekly celebration presents, no doubt there are other traps other periods of celebration present.

The Westminster Larger Catechism is very helpful here, questions 171-175 are an excellent summary of what the Lord requires of us…before, during and after the administration of the ordinance, and I interpret the before as being the days before, the during as being on the evening and during the actual administration, and the after obviously explains itself.

Particularly relevant to this discussion is Question 172, I give it to you complete;

Q. 172. May one who doubteth of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation, come to the Lord’s supper?

A. One who doubteth of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation to the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, may have true interest in Christ, though he be not yet assured thereof; and in God’s account hath it, if he be duly affected with the apprehension of the want of it; and unfeignedly desires to be found in Christ, and to depart from iniquity: in which case (because promises are made, and this sacrament is appointed, for the relief even of weak and doubting Christians) he is to bewail his unbelief, and labor to have his doubts resolved; and, so doing, he may and ought to come to the Lord’s supper, that he may be further strengthened.

JP

http://semperreformata.wordrpress.com

]]> By: Gomarus http://shepherdtheflock.com/2007/05/13/the-lords-supper-is-the-warning-to-examine-yourself-abused/#comment-266 Gomarus Tue, 15 May 2007 13:35:11 +0000 http://shepherdtheflock.com/2007/05/13/the-lords-supper-is-the-warning-to-examine-yourself-abused/#comment-266 IMHO, you are right-on here, Jason. Paul is not saying we should examine ourselves to see if we are "worthy." No one is worthy in this sense. Introspection will always find sin and unworthyness. Paul explicitly says unworthy "manner." The context clearly explains it. They were not discerning the body (church) and not discerning the "supper" as a covenant meal. They were treating it as first-come-first-served to fill thier bellies. The exhortation is to examine ther manner in which you observer the Supper, not examine your own personal worthiness. IMHO, you are right-on here, Jason. Paul is not saying we should examine ourselves to see if we are “worthy.” No one is worthy in this sense. Introspection will always find sin and unworthyness. Paul explicitly says unworthy “manner.” The context clearly explains it. They were not discerning the body (church) and not discerning the “supper” as a covenant meal. They were treating it as first-come-first-served to fill thier bellies. The exhortation is to examine ther manner in which you observer the Supper, not examine your own personal worthiness.

]]> By: Gomarus http://shepherdtheflock.com/2007/05/13/the-lords-supper-is-the-warning-to-examine-yourself-abused/#comment-267 Gomarus Tue, 15 May 2007 13:36:06 +0000 http://shepherdtheflock.com/2007/05/13/the-lords-supper-is-the-warning-to-examine-yourself-abused/#comment-267 Ooops. I meant Nathan, not Jason. Feel free to edit and correct. :-) Ooops. I meant Nathan, not Jason. Feel free to edit and correct. :-)

]]> By: Gordan http://shepherdtheflock.com/2007/05/13/the-lords-supper-is-the-warning-to-examine-yourself-abused/#comment-268 Gordan Tue, 15 May 2007 16:12:39 +0000 http://shepherdtheflock.com/2007/05/13/the-lords-supper-is-the-warning-to-examine-yourself-abused/#comment-268 Nathan, no we don't disagree. My comment was purely a joke, anticipating the reaction of one who was maybe more entrenched in Reformed tradition, than in the mandate to be "always reforming." Nathan, no we don’t disagree. My comment was purely a joke, anticipating the reaction of one who was maybe more entrenched in Reformed tradition, than in the mandate to be “always reforming.”

]]> By: scott morgan http://shepherdtheflock.com/2007/05/13/the-lords-supper-is-the-warning-to-examine-yourself-abused/#comment-275 scott morgan Thu, 17 May 2007 19:03:46 +0000 http://shepherdtheflock.com/2007/05/13/the-lords-supper-is-the-warning-to-examine-yourself-abused/#comment-275 Nathan, If you have anyone on here promoting that the Lord's Supper or Baptism is a Means of Grace and they are a Calvinistic Baptist then someone needs to talk with them. As a Pastor of a Baptist 1689 church confession church I can't agree with my Presbyterian brothers. First, as you already know that I do not embrace the Presbyterians as having a True " Visible" church because of Acts 2. Infant Baptism is not Baptism therefore they can't be added to any " Visible" church. The issue is not that they are not in good gospel order( Which they are not) but they are not a " Visible Church" ! Our church only serves the supper to our members in good standing but some Calvinistic Baptist churches are serving it to Presbyterians I have recently found out. One of them I could not believe ! Calvinistic Baptists are not Reformed with a capital R. We have alot of similarities but we differ on Means of Grace, Baptism, Visible church, and other issues as well. Again, as I have said before that I live RC, Lig, and other Presbyterian brothers but they walk disorderly with Baptism and other things that cause me to seperate( 2 Thess 3:6). Read William Kiffin on: A Sober Discourse Of Right To Church Communion London 1681( This can be purchased by calling The Baptist Standard Bearer at 479 963-3831. It's not just about the five points ! Calvinistic Baptists need to read the Old Baptist like Gill, Brine,Kiffin , Booth and etc.... . BTW, I do love my Presbyterian brothers but they are walking disorderly! Nathan,

If you have anyone on here promoting that the Lord’s Supper or Baptism is a Means of Grace and they are a Calvinistic Baptist then someone needs to talk with them. As a Pastor of a Baptist 1689 church confession church I can’t agree with my Presbyterian brothers. First, as you already know that I do not embrace the Presbyterians as having a True ” Visible” church because of Acts 2. Infant Baptism is not Baptism therefore they can’t be added to any ” Visible” church. The issue is not that they are not in good gospel order( Which they are not) but they are not a ” Visible Church” !
Our church only serves the supper to our members in good standing but some Calvinistic Baptist churches are serving it to Presbyterians I have recently found out. One of them I could not believe ! Calvinistic Baptists are not Reformed with a capital R. We have alot of similarities but we differ on Means of Grace, Baptism, Visible church, and other issues as well. Again, as I have said before that I live RC, Lig, and other Presbyterian brothers but they walk disorderly with Baptism and other things that cause me to seperate( 2 Thess 3:6). Read William Kiffin on: A Sober Discourse Of Right To Church Communion London 1681( This can be purchased by calling The Baptist Standard Bearer at 479 963-3831. It’s not just about the five points ! Calvinistic Baptists need to read the Old Baptist like Gill, Brine,Kiffin , Booth and etc…. . BTW, I do love my Presbyterian brothers but they are walking disorderly!

]]> By: JP http://shepherdtheflock.com/2007/05/13/the-lords-supper-is-the-warning-to-examine-yourself-abused/#comment-277 JP Thu, 17 May 2007 23:35:31 +0000 http://shepherdtheflock.com/2007/05/13/the-lords-supper-is-the-warning-to-examine-yourself-abused/#comment-277 Scott, I think I know what you are trying to say, but I think you are actually mixing two or three things up a bit. First of all in your first sentence you say that if a Calvinistic Baptist is promoting the two ordinances as means of grace someone needs to talk to them. That is a separate issue from the rest of your comment. However it is the one I want to take up. Let me quote from a very common form of words found in the constitutions of many RB churches, "There are two ordinances of special significance which our Lord has commanded us to observe, namely Baptism and the Lord's Supper. (These are sometimes referred to as "sacraments".) Neither of them has saving merit, nor is any grace imparted to the recipient through the waters of Baptism, or the bread and the cup of the Supper. These ordinances are not means of "special grace", but they are "special means of grace" and powerful aids to the faith of the believers who participate in them." This may disappoint you, but it is a very common view and one I share. Furthermore this is not actually saying anything that controversial. God has given us many, many means of grace, the Scriptures read is a means of grace, prayer is a means of grace, the Lord's Day is a means of grace....and so I could go on. Under this widely agreed definition of a means of grace i.e. something God has given to maintain, strengthen and invigorate our faith in him, how on earth could the two special ordinances of Christ not be means of grace? I'm assuming that in your thinking a means of grace is something that renders someone saved, but this is not strictly the case. Also since you mention William Kiffin, let me quote from and equally eminent Baptist, none other that Benjamin Keach from his catechism, Q. 95. What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption? A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are His ordinances, especially the Word, Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation. (Rom. 10:17; James 1:18; 1 Cor. 3:5; Acts 14:1; 2:41,42) Q. 96. How is the Word made effectual to salvation? A. The Spirit of God makes the reading, but especially the preaching of the Word an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith unto salvation. (Ps. 119:11,18; 1 Thess. 1:6; 1 Peter 2:1,2; Rom. 1:16; Ps. 19:7) Q. 97. How is the Word to be read and heard that it may become effectual to salvation? A. That the Word may become effectual to salvation we must attend thereunto with diligence, preparation and prayer, receive it in faith and love, lay it up in our hearts and practice it in our lives. (Prov. 8:34; 1 Peter 2:1,2; 1 Tim. 4:13; Heb. 2:1,3; Heb. 4:2; 2 Thess. 2:10; Ps. 119:11; James 1:21,25) Q. 98. How do Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation? A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them. (1 Peter 3:21; 1 Cor. 3:6,7; 1 Cor. 12:13) As you can see brother Keach is extremely clear. Equally so was C.H. Spurgeon, who's catechism is very similar to Keach's. So am I just at the end of a line of Baptist that need a good talking to! Now you can perhaps argue that we are all wrong, but at least you must see that for the RB to use the terminology "means of grace" does not render him some weirdo half-presbyterian, but rather he is following in the footsteps of many previous Calvinistic and Reformed Baptists. JP Scott,

I think I know what you are trying to say, but I think you are actually mixing two or three things up a bit.

First of all in your first sentence you say that if a Calvinistic Baptist is promoting the two ordinances as means of grace someone needs to talk to them. That is a separate issue from the rest of your comment. However it is the one I want to take up. Let me quote from a very common form of words found in the constitutions of many RB churches,

“There are two ordinances of special significance which our Lord has commanded us to observe, namely Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. (These are sometimes referred to as “sacraments”.) Neither of them has saving merit, nor is any grace imparted to the recipient through the waters of Baptism, or the bread and the cup of the Supper. These ordinances are not means of “special grace”, but they are “special means of grace” and powerful aids to the faith of the believers who participate in them.”

This may disappoint you, but it is a very common view and one I share. Furthermore this is not actually saying anything that controversial. God has given us many, many means of grace, the Scriptures read is a means of grace, prayer is a means of grace, the Lord’s Day is a means of grace….and so I could go on. Under this widely agreed definition of a means of grace i.e. something God has given to maintain, strengthen and invigorate our faith in him, how on earth could the two special ordinances of Christ not be means of grace? I’m assuming that in your thinking a means of grace is something that renders someone saved, but this is not strictly the case.

Also since you mention William Kiffin, let me quote from and equally eminent Baptist, none other that Benjamin Keach from his catechism,

Q. 95. What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption?

A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are His ordinances, especially the Word, Baptism, the Lord’s Supper and Prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.

(Rom. 10:17; James 1:18; 1 Cor. 3:5; Acts 14:1; 2:41,42)

Q. 96. How is the Word made effectual to salvation?

A. The Spirit of God makes the reading, but especially the preaching of the Word an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith unto salvation.

(Ps. 119:11,18; 1 Thess. 1:6; 1 Peter 2:1,2; Rom. 1:16; Ps. 19:7)

Q. 97. How is the Word to be read and heard that it may become effectual to salvation?

A. That the Word may become effectual to salvation we must attend thereunto with diligence, preparation and prayer, receive it in faith and love, lay it up in our hearts and practice it in our lives.

(Prov. 8:34; 1 Peter 2:1,2; 1 Tim. 4:13; Heb. 2:1,3; Heb. 4:2; 2 Thess. 2:10; Ps. 119:11; James 1:21,25)

Q. 98. How do Baptism and the Lord’s Supper become effectual means of salvation?

A. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them.

(1 Peter 3:21; 1 Cor. 3:6,7; 1 Cor. 12:13)

As you can see brother Keach is extremely clear. Equally so was C.H. Spurgeon, who’s catechism is very similar to Keach’s. So am I just at the end of a line of Baptist that need a good talking to!

Now you can perhaps argue that we are all wrong, but at least you must see that for the RB to use the terminology “means of grace” does not render him some weirdo half-presbyterian, but rather he is following in the footsteps of many previous Calvinistic and Reformed Baptists.

JP

]]> By: scott morgan http://shepherdtheflock.com/2007/05/13/the-lords-supper-is-the-warning-to-examine-yourself-abused/#comment-279 scott morgan Fri, 18 May 2007 12:02:31 +0000 http://shepherdtheflock.com/2007/05/13/the-lords-supper-is-the-warning-to-examine-yourself-abused/#comment-279 JP, First let me say that I'm sorry for not making my statement clear. First, my church uses the old Baptist Catechism for our children and adults. We teach the kids on Wed nights in a ministry we call TAG(Truth and Grace) Catechism club. I read this catechism each Lord's Day to our church and they respond with answer. We have fifty members now and they love it. Also, I don't agree with what you wrote at all ! Let me explain my day yesterday and what I left out with my statement to Nathan which will clear this matter up if you are a Calvinistic Baptist( Reformed Baptist). I offended a PCA brother the other day by not using their baptistry for our Baptisms. They use to be a Reformed Baptist Church and are now Presbyterian. Since we are a new church start we have used their baptistry for our baptisms. We just had a PCA couple to repent of their former beliefs of Baptism and other doctrines and we baptized them into our local church. So I contacted another Baptist church that let us use their baptistry instead of me making a major scene at the Presbyterian church with the former PCA couple. When that Pastor heard that I did this he became very upset that I did not call him to use his baptistry and felt like I was shunning him. Long story short: He and I are friends but we had a major blowup yesterday morning because he actually said that Baptism and the Communion were means (to) grace. They are not ! First, the person that is being baptized is supposed to be converted first(Acts 2) then they are to be baptized(Immersion) (Acts 2) and then they are added to the church and because of this they have the joy of taking the Lord's Supper now(Acts 2). The scripture is clear on order in the Acts 2 passage and other places. I fully believe that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are designed to motivate us in our sanctification.As you and I know that these are both for believers only and the Presbyterians baptize unconverted children and even serve the Supper to them as well. They are putting unconverted people into membership and allowing them the privlages of membership such as the Lord's Supper. Majority of Historic Calvinistic Baptist do not recognize the Presbyterians as a Visible church. So when this PCA pastor told me clearly that these are ordinances that are means (to) grace then that is heresy ! It's only by God's electing grace and making the gospel effectual that brings about salvation in one His elect ones and not because they belong to believing parents. I was greatly frustrated yesterday when I saw Nathans post and I blew off some steam. Sorry for the confuson ! I have also become aware of some Calvinistic Baptist who are serving the Lord's Supper to unbaptized people. One Founders church that blew my mind ! Love you brother and hope this clears this up ! JP,
First let me say that I’m sorry for not making my statement clear. First, my church uses the old Baptist Catechism for our children and adults. We teach the kids on Wed nights in a ministry we call TAG(Truth and Grace) Catechism club. I read this catechism each Lord’s Day to our church and they respond with answer. We have fifty members now and they love it. Also, I don’t agree with what you wrote at all !
Let me explain my day yesterday and what I left out with my statement to Nathan which will clear this matter up if you are a Calvinistic Baptist( Reformed Baptist). I offended a PCA brother the other day by not using their baptistry for our Baptisms. They use to be a Reformed Baptist Church and are now Presbyterian. Since we are a new church start we have used their baptistry for our baptisms. We just had a PCA couple to repent of their former beliefs of Baptism and other doctrines and we baptized them into our local church. So I contacted another Baptist church that let us use their baptistry instead of me making a major scene at the Presbyterian church with the former PCA couple. When that Pastor heard that I did this he became very upset that I did not call him to use his baptistry and felt like I was shunning him. Long story short: He and I are friends but we had a major blowup yesterday morning because he actually said that Baptism and the Communion were means (to) grace. They are not ! First, the person that is being baptized is supposed to be converted first(Acts 2) then they are to be baptized(Immersion) (Acts 2) and then they are added to the church and because of this they have the joy of taking the Lord’s Supper now(Acts 2). The scripture is clear on order in the Acts 2 passage and other places.
I fully believe that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are designed to motivate us in our sanctification.As you and I know that these are both for believers only and the Presbyterians baptize unconverted children and even serve the Supper to them as well. They are putting unconverted people into membership and allowing them the privlages of membership such as the Lord’s Supper. Majority of Historic Calvinistic Baptist do not recognize the Presbyterians as a Visible church. So when this PCA pastor told me clearly that these are ordinances that are means (to) grace then that is heresy ! It’s only by God’s electing grace and making the gospel effectual that brings about salvation in one His elect ones and not because they belong to believing parents. I was greatly frustrated yesterday when I saw Nathans post and I blew off some steam. Sorry for the confuson ! I have also become aware of some Calvinistic Baptist who are serving the Lord’s Supper to unbaptized people. One Founders church that blew my mind ! Love you brother and hope this clears this up !

]]> By: scott morgan http://shepherdtheflock.com/2007/05/13/the-lords-supper-is-the-warning-to-examine-yourself-abused/#comment-280 scott morgan Fri, 18 May 2007 12:04:25 +0000 http://shepherdtheflock.com/2007/05/13/the-lords-supper-is-the-warning-to-examine-yourself-abused/#comment-280 JP, First paragraph should say that I don't disagree with you rather than I do . Sorry I was in a hurry to get to an appt. Scott JP,
First paragraph should say that I don’t disagree with you rather than I do . Sorry I was in a hurry to get to an appt.

Scott

]]> By: JP http://shepherdtheflock.com/2007/05/13/the-lords-supper-is-the-warning-to-examine-yourself-abused/#comment-281 JP Fri, 18 May 2007 15:05:56 +0000 http://shepherdtheflock.com/2007/05/13/the-lords-supper-is-the-warning-to-examine-yourself-abused/#comment-281 Sometimes it's good to blow steam! Now all I don't understand is PCA churches having a baptistry! Anyway this makes things clearer. I'm still not sure what the PCA pastor means by "means (to) grace" or what I think of that. I think it could be interpreted many different ways, I have never heard it before. The question in my mind is this. Is the term "means (to) grace" much different from what Keach says when he says the ordinances are made effectual unto salvation, I don't know you would need to ask the pastor exactly what he means.....if he means the ordinances in themselves are salvific then that is error, the key thing that separates truth from heresy in this issue is what Keach deals with in Q98. "Baptism and the Lord’s Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them." And so the means of grace are only means of grace to those who believe. JP Sometimes it’s good to blow steam! Now all I don’t understand is PCA churches having a baptistry! Anyway this makes things clearer. I’m still not sure what the PCA pastor means by “means (to) grace” or what I think of that. I think it could be interpreted many different ways, I have never heard it before. The question in my mind is this. Is the term “means (to) grace” much different from what Keach says when he says the ordinances are made effectual unto salvation, I don’t know you would need to ask the pastor exactly what he means…..if he means the ordinances in themselves are salvific then that is error, the key thing that separates truth from heresy in this issue is what Keach deals with in Q98.

“Baptism and the Lord’s Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them.”

And so the means of grace are only means of grace to those who believe.

JP

]]>