Ask a Presbyterian

[AMR]

I'm thinking about the baptist / presbyterian argument concerning congregational autonomy vs the presbyterian position.Could someone direct me toward a good article or two about which position and why / comparing the two arguments ?I suppose beginning with the presbyterian argument.thanks

The following is a good starting point:

Lawful Ordination- Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

AMR

 

[AMR]

Hello, do most presbyterian churches practice closed communion still? Or do some presbyterians preactice an open table? Thanks

My denomination fences the table thusly:

1. Verbally - from unbelievers and anyone connected to churches that deny the Gospel

2. Believers that are members of other evangelical denominations that are presently not under any church discipline may partake

AMR

 

[kenrapoza]

My denomination fences the table thusly:

1. Verbally - from unbelievers and anyone connected to churches that deny the Gospel

2. Believers that are members of other evangelical denominations that are presently not under any church discipline may partake

AMR

Right. The way my Pastor always explains it before communion is that it is not "our" table or a "presbyterian" table, but it is the table of the Lord. Therefore, the entrance should not be wider or narrower than the gospel itself. It is a table for repentant sinners who confess their need for Christ and are a member in good standing of some church that properly teaches the gospel. In that sense, compared to some Christians, for example the Lutherans, we practice an open communion. However, compared to other liberal churches who will commune practically anybody, we practice a more closed communion.

 

[mannysee]

AMR,

Thanks for the link. Very helpful.

That website seemed familiar. Sometime ago I had come across his paper on adopting the child baptism position.

I liked his summary, in which though he mentioned that in exceptional circumstances Jesus as King may provide another way, that we must still strive for the position presented from scripture.

 

[JohnKnox87]

Right. The way my Pastor always explains it before communion is that it is not "our" table or a "presbyterian" table, but it is the table of the Lord. Therefore, the entrance should not be wider or narrower than the gospel itself. It is a table for repentant sinners who confess their need for Christ and are a member in good standing of some church that properly teaches the gospel. In that sense, compared to some Christians, for example the Lutherans, we practice an open communion. However, compared to other liberal churches who will commune practically anybody, we practice a more closed communion.

Thanks, a good balance! My church has the same policy.

 

[mannysee]

A question regarding the parallel threads of circumcision / baptism, and Passover observance / bread and wine observance:

Have you ever asked yourself why the bread and wine meal is taken often, but the Passover meal was taken once a year?

i.e. circumcision and baptism were/are a once-off act concerning coming into the covenant. Passover was a yearly remembrance, so why the often remembrance of the bread and wine?

The signs continue, but the frequency of the above changed.
The "harmony" has altered. Why?

 

[Anoetos]

Thanks, a good balance! My church has the same policy.

Just to clarify something Ken said: only the liberal Lutheran denominations practice open communion. Both the LCMS and WELS practice a communion even more closed than that in use by conservative Presbyterians.

In this model, communion is seen as a sign of confessional unanimity such that only members of that church may partake.

 

[kenrapoza]

A question regarding the parallel threads of circumcision / baptism, and Passover observance / bread and wine observance:

Have you ever asked yourself why the bread and wine meal is taken often, but the Passover meal was taken once a year?

i.e. circumcision and baptism were/are a once-off act concerning coming into the covenant. Passover was a yearly remembrance, so why the often remembrance of the bread and wine?

The signs continue, but the frequency of the above changed.
The "harmony" has altered. Why?

Somebody else may be better equipped to answer this question theologically than I, but I will give it a first start and then someone else can chime in with additional details. Recall that the Old Covenant sacraments are bloody sacraments because they pointed forward to the sacrifice of Christ. The Israelites didn’t yet know exactly how it would all pan out, so they didn’t see the Cross directly, they only saw it through bloody types and shadows. Therefore, the sacrament of covenant initiation (circumcision) and the sacrament of covenant renewal (Passover) both involved the shedding of blood and physical harm, at least in some sense and to some degree.

However, the New Covenant sacraments are bloodless. We are now baptized into the death and resurrection of Christ. This points backward to the Cross where Christ experienced the full covenantal judgment and wrath of God by being “cutoff” from his people and the blessing of God – which is the fulfillment of circumcision which warned that just as the foreskin was cutoff, so too would the Israelite be cutoff from his people and God’s blessing if he turned away from the living God. Similarly, Christ gave us the bread and the cup, pointing to the Cross by showing us his broken body and shed blood for our forgiveness. It is also at the Cross that we see the Passover fulfilled, where Christ became our Passover Lamb and the final sacrifice of atonement.

Now, your question is about the frequency of celebrating the New Covenant sacrament of renewal. I think that this bound up with the great advancement of Redemptive-History that Christ brought with his incarnation, earthly ministry, death and resurrection. It is this same advancement that requires an “update” of the sacraments, the new ones being bloodless, now that we have fuller revelation of God’s plan of salvation. The New Covenant brings with it promises of “nearness” of our hearts to God (Jer. 31). Christ inaugurated his kingdom with his first coming and will consummate his kingdom with his second coming. In the meantime, we are caught in the middle, experiencing great advancement and blessings over the OT people of Israel, but still awaiting the return of our Great King who will finally establish his kingdom in power in glory, not in weakness and through a Cross. I think that more frequent communion is intended to be a picture of the blessings of the New Covenant and a reminder that we are closer to the ultimate time where God says He will “’put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, “Know the Lord,” because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,’ declares the LORD. ‘For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.’” (Jer. 31:33 – 34).

Another main difference is feasibility. It would be completely impractical to slaughter a lamb every week in every worship service, but it is easy to administer bread and wine. Anyways, there is a very rich and deep vein of Biblical Theology there that I can’t begin to dig into in this post. But I hope some of this helps.

 

[mannysee]

Kenrapoza,

Thanks for your thoughts about the matter.
Closer to the returning King and blessings.

I only thought about this question recently when I was reading up on the sacraments. Perhaps the answer to this question will remain speculative for the time being.

I wonder if the old reformed / presbyterian writers commented on this question, at some time?

 

[Drew3110]

Hello there. Sorry if I'm interrupting any sonversation that might be going on here, but I was hoping I might get an answer to a question.

I am looking for a home church, and have been interested in the Presbyterian denomination. I am a little confused by the different groups of the denomination, however (PCUSA, PCA, ARP). The only one within a reasonable difference of where I am is part of the Associated Reformed Presbyterian Church, so I was wondering what makes that one different from any of the other ones? Is there any resource that sums up its views?

Any help is greatly appreciated. God bless and much love,
-Drew

 

[Willtor]

Generally speaking, I think the real common threads among presbyterian denominations are Calvinism and democratic governments. There are doctrinal differences among them as to, e.g., whether women can be ordained ministers, or how strictly they adhere to confessions (though, I don't believe any of them see the ancient creeds as negotiable). Other differences are simple historical differences -- which group of immigrants founded them.

I don't know anything about ARPC, I'm afraid, so I can't tell you what distinguishes them.

 

[Anoetos]

Hello there. Sorry if I'm interrupting any sonversation that might be going on here, but I was hoping I might get an answer to a question.

I am looking for a home church, and have been interested in the Presbyterian denomination. I am a little confused by the different groups of the denomination, however (PCUSA, PCA, ARP). The only one within a reasonable difference of where I am is part of the Associated Reformed Presbyterian Church, so I was wondering what makes that one different from any of the other ones? Is there any resource that sums up its views?

Any help is greatly appreciated. God bless and much love,
-Drew

The ARPC is a fine old church and a member of the NAPARC along with the larger conservative Presbyterian bodies, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Church in America. If it is typical it should be a fine church.

The PCUSA varies from fairly conservative to fairly pagan, with, unfortunately, the neo-orthodox to neo-liberal predominating as the better churches migrate to the EPC and other more conservative bodies.

 

[Willtor]

The ARPC is a fine old church and a member of the NAPARC along with the larger conservative Presbyterian bodies, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Church in America. If it is typical it should be a fine church.

The PCUSA varies from fairly conservative to fairly pagan, with, unfortunately, the neo-orthodox to neo-liberal predominating as the better churches migrate to the EPC and other more conservative bodies.

Pagan?

 

[Anoetos]

Case in point: the church which is now the First Korean Presbyterian Church in Royal Oak was, until recently the Stillpoint Mwditation Center, and before that it was just an ordinary Congregation of the PCUSA. Stillpoint was at one time also a congregation of the PCUSA but they eventually went completely over to Buddhism. But before they did they had Buddha statue in the sanctuary. It was, in fact, the Koreans who were sharing the facility who complained about it to Presbytery.

It is to the credit of the Presbytery that they did eventually lever the Stillpoint people out and give the property to the Koreans, but they did not do so until the hue and cry from the Koreans got to be too much to deal with (it is likely that they also realized that the Koreans were larger in number and therefore representative of a greater source of, erm, "stewardship"). Than the "Presbybuddhisterians").

Stillpoint is now a Zen Monastery in Detroit.

 

[Willtor]

Case in point: the church which is now the First Korean Presbyterian Church in Royal Oak was, until recently the Stillpoint Mwditation Center, and before that it was just an ordinary Congregation of the PCUSA. Stillpoint was at one time also a congregation of the PCUSA but they eventually went completely over to Buddhism. But before they did they had Buddha statue in the sanctuary. It was, in fact, the Koreans who were sharing the facility who complained about it to Presbytery.

It is to the credit of the Presbytery that they did eventually lever the Stillpoint people out and give the property to the Koreans, but they did not do so until the hue and cry from the Koreans got to be too much to deal with (it is likely that they also realized that the Koreans were larger in number and therefore representative of a greater source of, erm, "stewardship"). Than the "Presbybuddhisterians").

Stillpoint is now a Zen Monastery in Detroit.

Wow. I don't know how much I'd call Buddhists pagans, but it's pretty undeniably another religion. Wild. Now, you're pretty sure the fact that one was larger than the other entered into the decision-making process for which one to boot? I can't say I think much of such a presbytery. Are there cases where the Christian church was the one that got the boot in favor of the pagan one?

 

[Anoetos]

Wow. I don't know how much I'd call Buddhists pagans, but it's pretty undeniably another religion. Wild. Now, you're pretty sure the fact that one was larger than the other entered into the decision-making process for which one to boot? I can't say I think much of such a presbytery. Are there cases where the Christian church was the one that got the boot in favor of the pagan one?

Honestly Will, that's just my editorialization, I could have and should have left it out.

So I beg your pardon.

 

[Willtor]

Honestly Will, that's just my editorialization, I could have and should have left it out.

So I beg your pardon.

No worries, brother.

I've been in PC(USA) for a little more than a year and my experience from my own little church is that members range from conservative to liberal. But they all are devoted to Jesus, and they all show great love for one another. I am certainly aware of conservative and liberal politicking in publications and at the General Assembly level. My own analysis is that that is the pitfall of our denomination. I can't say I particularly care for either conservatism or liberalism, but the thing that really bothers me is the politics.

But it is a good denomination (spoken from my limited experience), and I would heartily recommend it. Certainly, it won't suit everybody. It takes stands on certain hot-topic issues, and it is in the process of resolving others.

 

[chunkofcoal]

I know churches have different ideas in regards to these things, but what do the Presbyterians think about -

1) women wearing pants?
2) listening to and/or singing to secular music?
3) drinking in moderation ?
4) smoking cigarettes?

Do the presbyterians consider these things sins?

 

[Willtor]

I know churches have different ideas in regards to these things, but what do the Presbyterians think about -

1) women wearing pants?
2) listening to and/or singing to secular music?
3) drinking in moderation ?
4) smoking cigarettes?

Do the presbyterians consider these things sins?

Although "presbyterians" incorporates a wide variety of views on various issues, I'm not aware of any that think any of these are sinful.

 

[chunkofcoal]

Thank you.