Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Presbyterians are not the only ones that have Terms

Expand Messages
  • Ic Neltococayotl
    And here I thought that we Presbyterians were the only ones that spoke this way...Yes Truth is vital and credo-baptists are in a serious error in denying this
    Message 1 of 2 , May 8, 2007
    • 0 Attachment

      And here I thought that we Presbyterians were the only ones that spoke this way...Yes Truth is vital and credo-baptists are in a serious error in denying this important aspect of the Gospel.

       

      THE TERMS OF COMMUNION AT THE LORD'S TABLE
      R.B.C. Howell

      In this classic treatise on communion, Howell sets forth his thesis with the boldness characteristic of martyred Anabaptists of whose doctrine he was espousing. His Scriptural position, clearly expressed, is that the terms of communion are repentance, faith and baptism. Immediately, this demonstrates that Pedobaptists have deviated from the truth and are not qualified subjects for the Lord's Table. According to Howell, the Pedobaptists have severed themselves form the truth, and therefore they are schismatics because of their false doctrine. Howell charges that Baptists must separate from Pedobaptists over the doctrines of believer's baptism and close communion.

      The Terms of Communion at the Lord's Table is a refreshing and powerful apologetic for Baptist truth in a day of insipid and anemic Baptist teaching. Every Baptist who values the Lord's teaching for His Table needs this volume by Howell.

      SGCB Price: $3.95 (list price $5.95)

      Indeed can two walk together unless they are agreed?  Nor should we commune with them at the Table who deny this Covenant Truth of Infant Baptism found in the Word of God.

      Calvin was clear on this as well.

      -Edgar

       

    • puritanone
      ... Infant ... Quite right, Edgar. The church should excommunicate those who have fallen into the error of heresy and schism (I Corinthians 5:6-13, 11:19 ).
      Message 2 of 2 , May 9, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Ic
        Neltococayotl" <puritanpresbyterian@...> wrote:
        >
        > Nor should we
        > commune with them at the Table who deny this Covenant Truth of
        Infant
        > Baptism found in the Word of God.
        >
        > Calvin was clear on this as well.


        Quite right, Edgar.

        The church should excommunicate those who have fallen into the error
        of heresy and schism (I Corinthians 5:6-13, 11:19 ). These heretics
        and schismatics often then form heretical and schismatic
        denominations of their own. Under such circumstances, it is quite
        inconsistent for a believer to be partaking of the Lord's Supper in
        the heretical and schismatic church denominations formed, while
        recognizing the schism in Christ's visible church is due to their
        heresy and errors. For instance, the Baptist error has caused
        schism in Christ's visible church. It is an error against sound
        scriptural principle, which the Westminster Standards and other
        reformed confessions rightly condemn. Baptists should not be
        allowed communion in the reformed churches until they repent of
        their error. So it would be wrong for a reformed believer to
        partake of communion in a Baptist church, even a Calvinistic Baptist
        church. While a Calvinistic Baptist church is a true (not a false)
        church in its being, preaching a gospel by which men can be saved,
        it is not a church in well being. Thus, the esse / bene esse (i.e.,
        being / well being ) distinction among church denominations should
        come into play with respect to communion, even though one may be
        greatly profited by reading and hearing some of the sermons of the
        Calvinistic Baptist minister Charles Spurgeon. As discussed in the
        article at http://www.puritans.net/news/fpcs062804.htm , we should
        distinguish between allowing a Baptist to partake of communion in a
        reformed church (as well as partaking of communion in a Baptist
        church) versus the Reformation practice of allowing a member of the
        reformed Church of the Netherlands to partake of communion in the
        Church of Scotland, or vice versa. Let's give a somewhat
        hypothetical example which is more relevant today. Suppose a
        congregation in Northern Ireland is seeking union with but is not
        yet part of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland (FPCS). And
        suppose one of its communicant members is visiting a FPCS
        congregation during its communion season. And suppose this
        communicant member fulfills all the FPCS criteria of belief and
        practice required of communicant members in the FPCS. Under such
        circumstances, it would be appropriate that such a visitor were
        allowed access to the Lord's Table in the FPCS church. But this is
        very different from allowing a Baptist access to the Lord's Table in
        the FPCS church. The official FPCS policy (which I think is
        correct) is somewhat different from the historic Cameronian and
        Seceder communion policy, but it shares with it great care taken
        with respect to who is admitted to the Lord's Table as well as where
        one should partake.

        - Parnell McCarter
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.