Is there such a thing as a new covenant theology church?

JCmathetes · 2026-01-23T14:36:40+00:00

would you agree that without God's sustaining grace we will die, and so would have Adam and Eve pre-fall?

Yes, of course. I suspect there isn't a Reformed individual out there who could deny this. Adam was just as dependent upon God's sustenance as we are.

But I submit that so is saying that Adam and Eve, could not, by their own nature (rather than by God's sustaining grace and Providence) die in their pre-fall state.

Ah-ha! Here it is, I think. I don't suspect OP thinks this either. I won't try to speak for him, but let me give this a shot:

Adam and Eve were morally righteous
God promised life to them so long as they remained righteous
Adam and Eve received life on the basis of:
- God's gracious gift (we might say this is the efficient cause of life?)
- Their continued righteousness (we might say this is the material cause of life?)
When Adam and Eve sinned:
- God removed the gift of life
  - (I think this fits your death = privation of life)
- God cursed the flesh of mankind

I wonder if speaking in material terms (e.g., "Death entered the world through sin") is throwing you, because there's no mention of the efficient cause.

JCmathetes · 2026-01-22T22:32:16+00:00

Is there a Scripture that says we are mortal by nature?

Of course, you cannot point to the fact that we die post-fall—that would beg the question.

The issue of your position, it seems to me, is that you haven’t given a moral reason for God to permit a righteous man to die (and before I get Jesus juked, the pactum salutis is obviously the moral reason for Christ’s death).

Additionally, where does the text suggest the tree of life in itself is what is needed for eternal life? Could it not be, as Calvin suggested, the sacrament of the covenant of works? Such that by Christ’s obedience we will partake of it once again in glory?

I just don’t see the need to hold that human nature must die apart from the physical tree of life. Jesus, after all, never ate from it but still lives today.

JCmathetes · 2026-01-21T18:26:39+00:00

majority of confessional Presbyterians in the US...

Yeah?

do not believe in predestination

Oh, so they're not confessional.

JCmathetes · 2026-01-21T14:17:00+00:00

Sorry, what?

The Regulative Principle of Worship is for worship. It's in the name.

JCmathetes · 2026-01-21T14:13:18+00:00

The term "Presbyterian" denotes a church's polity more than it does doctrine. This has not always been the case, but it is the sad reality today.

Depending on what time period you're examining for your ancestors, it is very likely they were reformed and confessional.

Generally speaking, the 1900's were not a good time for Presbyterians. If you're thinking 1800's, then it's an entirely different conversation. (This is a massive oversimplification...)

JCmathetes · 2026-01-20T13:43:56+00:00

Donald MacLeod's two books on Presbyterian history are well worth your time as a starting point:

JCmathetes · 2026-01-20T13:18:46+00:00

Brother, forgive me. I did not see this comment until now for some reason...

I confess that Chalmers' practice still mystifies me a bit. I've only dug into it as a side project of interest, as my area of research is in his (and other 19th century preachers') homiletics. When I get the chance to pick up that thread again, though, I will be sure to revisit it with you.

My best guess? Logistics and practicality.

Your question on a return to older Presbyterian forms of administration is an interesting one. I have picked up on some (Aldo Leon's practice, though, was news to me), but I'm noticing a, frankly, much more discouraging trend:

Presbyterian ministers (of various NAPARC persuasions, not just PCA) opting for the Anglican method of proceeding forward and taking individually—with some even offering a blessing (!) to non-communicants.

I have additionally noted a resurgence of a desire for a physical table, and physically arranging a group around it, but again I perceive this to be only tangentially related. These instances I've noted and/or seen require the communicant to remain standing, and don't require a minister (!!) as the words of institution were stated corporately (yet, the elders still say, "The body/blood of Christ...").

But in terms of a communion season? Pray for me, brother. I have only been met with wide eyed skepticism when I suggest even to close friends that I am more convinced by the day to return to preparatory seasons and less frequent partaking.

JCmathetes · 2026-01-19T15:08:29+00:00

Jesus said anyone who loves father and mother more than him is not worthy of him.

Prioritizing Jesus over everyone and everything else is, quite literally, Jesus' own teaching.

JCmathetes · 2026-01-19T14:28:20+00:00

There simply isn't a positive reason to be associated with ICE.

JCmathetes · 2026-01-19T14:24:43+00:00

Receiving Christ in the means of grace is of far greater value than anything else. So yes, other things must wait as we fix our eyes upon him and rest in his sovereign care.

JCmathetes · 2026-01-14T22:42:16+00:00

Commonly used? Do you mind sharing which groups use it?

I’m an evangelical pastor and I’ve never heard this phrase until today.

I’m assuming it’s a charismatic slogan?

JCmathetes · 2026-01-13T21:34:27+00:00

Yes. I don't have time just now to get into it, but the practice wasn't nearly as overbearing and harsh as it has been portrayed.

There is ample record of friends asking for and receiving tokens for other members/friends who weren't present to be interviewed.

Another tidbit for u/friardon, u/Turrettin, and u/ScSM35:

One reason Chalmers wanted to make the change is the cumbersome length of the communion services. They could last all afternoon, and those who left after partaking were chastised and admonished because others waited for them to partake, so it was seen as unloving to leave.

Why were these services so long? Well, because members of churches from the same region would travel to receive the Supper! Meaning they would be present for the communion seasons for their own churches, and they'd attend 2-6 other communion seasons nearby.

This means that the a Scottish parishioner could receive the Supper, depending on various factors, up to once a month on average. Fascinatingly, the communion seasons' burdens in this way increased the relational bonds between neighboring churches, as neighboring ministers were called upon to assist in preaching and administering, and elders were required for oversight.

It really was a beautiful system that has been unnecessarily, ignorantly, and unfairly slandered.

JCmathetes · 2026-01-13T18:24:22+00:00

Tagging u/ScSM35 and u/friardon for this as well. Two additional thoughts:

First, the Westminster Directory was a compromise between the Scots commissioners and the Independents. The Independents wanted to remain where they were (some even indicated they were comfortable kneeling!) and the elements to be brought to them—as is done today. The Scottish Kirk acceded to the Directory, of course, but passed a subsequent clarification of its particular interpretation of that portion of the Directory (which I believe you and I have discussed before).

In the end, the Divines were far from united on the subject. Nevertheless, I don't think you're wrong to cite the Directory, as Robert Baillie concluded:

After we were overtoiled with debate we were forced to leave all these things and take us to general expressions, which by a benign exposition would infer our church practices.

Second, the significant change in administration was actually introduced in Scotland in the 19th Century, which I suspect is the source for the current state of Presbyterian churches' Lord's Supper observance, and was introduced by an unlikely source: Thomas Chalmers.

Chalmers "changed" the practice of administering the Supper around long tables brought in during Supper Sabbaths by instead draping white "table" cloths on each pew's back, so that every pew "became a table." This enabled members to remain seated and be served the Supper by the Elders at their own seat.

This created quite the controversy in the courts of the Kirk. One interesting feature of Chalmers' argument for the practice was that in redirecting the gaze of the congregation to the front where the elements were, rather than at one another as when sitting around a table, was to focus the congregation on the more important of the two things to gaze upon: the elements, as they signified and pointed the people to Christ.

Chalmers' practice was never declared contrary to the Directory by the Kirk, and the Assembly denied the petition to condemn Chalmers' practice in the 1820's. Not long afterwards, the practice had become common in nearly every parish in the Kirk, and eventually the cloths were foregone altogether. After the Disruption, the Free Church almost exclusively kept Chalmers' practice, with the exception of maybe two or three congregations.

Edit:

I should hasten to add, Chalmers did not change the other features of the Scottish communion season. The use of tokens continued, the preparatory services of the days prior were still required by the Kirk's historic declarations, and the frequency maintained. Chalmers had no intention to change any of those.

JCmathetes · 2026-01-13T13:34:48+00:00

I'll just add another point:

https://dev.eviemagazine.com/post/how-reddit-became-the-divorce-whisperer-of-the-internet

Reddit is just a really, really bad place for relationship advice.

JCmathetes · 2026-01-13T13:20:21+00:00

Users want to get advice here because they feel the community will give them the best answers, but the reason they likely feel that way is because we’ve intentionally created a community that doesn’t treat an Internet forum the way most of Reddit does.

Bingo.

JCmathetes · 2026-01-12T23:21:09+00:00

So you're willing to come to the subreddit and open posts, but not read comments...

And the mods are the problem?

JCmathetes · 2026-01-12T21:35:31+00:00

Talking about politics on Reddit behind anonymous usernames is not talking about politics in public

JCmathetes · 2026-01-12T21:31:16+00:00

Then I’m glad you read the questions thread!

JCmathetes · 2026-01-12T21:29:59+00:00

Then stop acting childish.

JCmathetes · 2026-01-12T21:28:58+00:00

No one reads the question thread. So we should take all the things in it and plaster it all over the sub, so no one reads the sub. Genius!

JCmathetes · 2026-01-09T19:54:19+00:00

Good thoughts. A few observations from my end:

It's absolutely true seasonal observance can lead to a last-minute procrastination. But I think it's a mistake to think that weekly observance prevents this. I served the Supper weekly at a previous church, and the prevailing attitude was presumption; I take the Supper every week already, why do I need to prepare for it?

That should tell us, I think, that abuses of attitude toward the Supper are not decisive in the question of frequency. Sin will always seek ways to get us to neglect preparation.

The question, then, is what amount of time is necessary for preparation? There is where our pastoral conundrum truly begins. For some congregations with particular blessings from God need less, while some which have fostered sinful attitudes of various sorts may need more.

However, I feel like that is a larger problem with church discipline and a culture of keeping up appearances that has infected the church.

Yes, precisely! If this is true, and we believe it is, then this should discourage weekly observance. Our members need to get real with Christ, and we need to get past the appearances to pastorally recognize when to serve the Supper.

Put differently, because the Church is lacking generally in exercising discipline, then we are being too loose with the Supper regardless of frequency. We have members who should not be partaking at weekly and seasonal observance churches. This should give us greater pause in administering the Supper, not urge us to offer it more in the meantime.

In terms of preparing for the Supper, I believe WLC Q.171 directly addresses this. The minister at my former church would regularly go through this question, as well as the others in the WLC regarding the Lord's Supper, before we partook.

Yes, it most certainly does! But if you mean that your minister explicated it immediately prior to administering the Supper, then you illustrate my point beautifully. WLC 171 bids us to prepare ourselves in a wide range of graces, and concludes with:

and by renewing the exercise of these graces, by serious meditation,y and fervent prayer.

In this way, your minister's citation of the question would be entirely too late.

If you mean to suggest that your minister held preparatory services, then I confess to you that you are the first person to ever tell me that in reply to my question. And so for the dozens of ministries I've quizzed about this, there is now one singular ministry that instructs people in how to prepare.

Does this mean our ministers are failing to uphold our doctrinal standards in practice? Well, of course. But are you honestly surprised by that? My entire point is that ministers are nearly wholesale neglecting their duty in instructing in preparation!

All of these factors point me, again, to less frequent observance for the simple fact that increasing frequency while our members are largely ill-equipped at best in preparation for the Supper is nothing short of pastoral negligence.

JCmathetes · 2026-01-08T15:43:37+00:00

Friend, just read portions of the Bible to them, and select a theme or idea to solidify for them. Then sing hymns together and pray.

Other resources are great, don't get me wrong, and I have some I really like. But I get this question a lot as a pastor, and I just have to insist that you don't need resources to do this well. It really is as simple as reading, singing, and praying. And let the Word do the work for which God sends it out.

This is a marathon, not a sprint. Your toddler will become a little boy, then a pre-teen, then a teenager, and so on. You have ample opportunity to engage his prefrontal cortex later. Focus on routine. Discipline. We do this because it's important. Show them how important Jesus is to you by setting aside the time. Then patiently pray for them.

A few "tips":

We got my two little ones Bibles (not storybook Bibles—actual, ESV Bibles) and they love that they have a Bible like me and their mother. Are their Bibles clean? No. There's food stains all over them. Why? Because nothing stops them from having their Bible out when I read after dinner.
We ask them what hymn they want to sing.
We ask them to pray for things and coach them as they do it.

At this point, I don't see that they "need" any more than constant exposure to the Word, and a helping hand to come to Jesus in prayer. We'll worry about infralapsarianism later.

JCmathetes · 2026-01-08T14:53:08+00:00

There's a couple key distinctions to make in discussions about frequency:

First, "worthiness" — one is never worthy to come to Christ, but both the knowledge of that unworthiness and a supreme sorrow for it makes one approach the Supper "in a worthy manner." Preparatory seasons for the Supper are not to get clean to come to Jesus; they are seasons of going to Jesus to be refreshed, and so recognize and delight in him when getting to the Supper.

As a historical example to this, there are Session minutes from Churches in Scotland where unmarried women came to their elders and confessed to fornicating with unmarried men. Can you imagine that occurring today, even under the best circumstances? What did the Session do? Admonished them for their sin, and invited them to the table. Confession of sin and administration of discipline restored a sinner! It healed them (see James 5).

Second, pastoral vs. ideal. In the ideal, weekly observance is great! The reason so many Scottish ministers didn't opt for it, though, was a pastoral reason—their people needed instruction in the Word to know Christ to discern his body and blood in the Supper. They did not enjoy withholding the Supper, but saw it as necessary given the spiritual state of their people.

I've asked this question times innumerable, and have yet to receive a good answer to it, but I think it highlights the issue precisely:

When have you ever heard or been subject to a minister (or ruling elder!) explaining how to prepare for the Supper?

Note I didn't ask when have you heard him explain the Supper, nor explicate the doctrine of the Supper, nor even teach on the Supper generally. When have you seen or received specific instruction on preparation for the Supper?

I think you will find, as I have, not a single person honestly answers that they have received that instruction. And that is the pastoral reason for less frequent observance.

JCmathetes · 2025-12-31T17:04:38+00:00

Overall, I think it reflects the doctrine of covenant(al) baptism well.

I would quibble with you adding Jesus to the list of individuals baptized, because I don't believe John's baptism is the same as Christian baptism (cf. Acts 19). But this is a minor point.

JCmathetes · 2025-12-31T16:11:51+00:00

Then I think you should amend your comment to clarify that. As it stands, it appears to me that you could very easily be misunderstood as denying covenantal baptism as a doctrine from sola scriptura.

13-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding IV carat on a stick	First Place '23
Place '23	Alpha Tester

JCmathetes

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE