In the WCF concerning the Lord's Supper, it mentions that only in the corporate Church body should the Lord's supper be used. In the LBCF however it omits only partaking corporately. Basically because for people in good standing who can not make it to Church, an elder can go to them so they can partake. In his modern Expostion of the 1689 BCF. Samuel Waldren declares that he believes that the WCF is correct, seeing how the Lord's Supper is always a Church ordinance. During out men's group discussion on this matter. The men seemed to be split right down the middle. I for one although I certainly understand someone who is unable to get to Church wanting to partake. I still favour the WCF reading because individuals in and of themselves don't make up the local Church. One person used a Scripture verse that said "Where two or three are gathered, there I am in the midst of them. However I believe he used this verse out of context. Any thoughts on the issue, would be appreciated.
I have a question about the history of Covenantalism. I was talking to a Dispensationalists and after telling him that Dispensationalism was not around before Darby around 1830. He responded basically. "So what? Covenantalism was not around before the 1600s." My understanding is that he is wrong on this( though the name Covenantalism may not have been around before the 1600s; it was around way before this. Anybody know the history?
I just cracked open a new work for this year's study, entitled ''A Glorious Institution: The Church in History'' part one and two by Stanford E. Murrell,.. well, I really cant say its an actual book, its on my iPad, which is loaded with hundreds of ebooks to carry and enjoy. My question to the Highway is what is or one of the most influential works on Church history that you have read or are currently reading that I can add to my library when I complete this?
You may be shocked or at least mildly offended to find Ferguson agreeing with Thomas Boston’s criticism of Bunyan’s seemingly infallible allegory Pilgrim’s Progress. But hear him out. Boston thinks “Bunyan put the putting off of the burden too far off from the commencing of the pilgrimage. If he meant to describe what usually happens, he is right. But if he meant to show what ought to have happened, he was wrong. The cross should be right in front of the wicket gate” (59). Ferguson agrees, because “neither conviction nor the forsaking of sin constitutes the warrant for the gospel offer. Christ Himself is the warrant, since he is able to save all who come to Him. He is offered without conditions. We are to go straight to him! It is not necessary to have any money in order to be able to buy Christ” (60).
We need to get this right, because “Christians associate the character of God with the character of the preaching they hear—not only the substance and content of it but the spirit and atmosphere it conveys” (72)
"He does not love us if we love Him. He loves us with an unconditional love; therefore, we should love Him. The message of the covenant is one of God’s totally free grace to His people. Of course, it calls for a response of total commitment. But notice the order: God’s covenant love is not the result of our commitment; it is the cause of it. The pattern is, "I will, therefore you should;" not "I will, but only if you will first." -SF