The Insistence on Constant Communion: Legalistic?
Legalism claims faithfulness to the scriptures but
makes deductions, assumptions and conclusions equal to the written words of the
Bible.
One quick example of legalism is the insistence on
observing the Lord's Supper every Sunday. I want to say here at the start that
I believe observing the Lord's Supper each week is a proper understanding of
the scriptures.
My problem is that I cannot cite a verse in the
scriptures that specifically commands the observance of the Lord's Supper each
Sunday.
Because the Bible does not contain a specific in
command or example for the frequency of the Lord's Supper, everyone is free to
practice communion as often as they want.[1]
So
says Pastor Joe Bliffen of the Fourth Avenue Christian Church, Disciples of
Christ. Many others in the United
Methodist Church
seem to agree with him, especially in the Quezon City Philippines Annual
Conference-East. They have told me several times—despite my protests to the
contrary—that to insist having Holy Communion every Sunday is legalistic.
I
just fail to understand how a means of grace is perceived as equal to the
requirements of the Mosaic Law. I just cannot. And yet the numerous times I am
told this makes me wonder where some get the idea that insisting on the
necessity of a means for “the saving, enabling grace of Christ” as denying the
same, that the insistence on constant communion “embraces the cruelest of
Satan's lies, that a person can be righteous by keeping the law.”[2]
Indeed, I was told to my face at an earlier, unrelated time that constant
communion is more a “means of disgrace”.
[I]s FREQUENCY the issue here, or the SIGNIFICANCE?
… i still think the essential issue here is SIGNIFICANCE and not FREQUENCY per
se.
Yet
even though they tell me that one form of legalism “is the insistence on
observing the Lord's Supper every Sunday” because it is alleged that one “cannot
cite a verse in the scriptures that specifically commands the observance of the
Lord's Supper each Sunday,” I will maintain that the practice of constant
communion should not be considered legalistic because it CAN be shown that the
Scriptures DO say that the Eucharist ought to be celebrated AT LEAST weekly.
And if FREQUENCY of the Eucharist per se is not considered essential, then Holy
Communion itself would cease to be a SIGNIFICANT element of worship.
The
Case AGAINST Constant Communion
Nowhere in the scriptures does it say that the
disciples, Christians, came together the FIRST DAY OF EVERY WEEK TO OBSERVE THE
LORD'S SUPPER, THE LORD'S TABLE OR COMMUNION. Even the phrase "break
bread" or even "break the bread"(as in Acts 2:42 but not in Acts
20:7) may or may not refer to communion.
Yet when a legalist reads Acts 20:7 he says this
verse MEANS the disciples came together "the first day of every week to
observe the Lord's Supper". Maybe it does. And maybe it doesn't.
But the legalist insists "the Bible says we
are to observe the Lord's Supper every Sunday AND those who do not observe
communion every Sunday are disobeying the word of God."[3]
By
Pastor Bliffen’s definition, then, both Martin Luther and John Calvin, as well
as John Wesley, were all legalists,
“In conclusion, since we have now the true
understanding and doctrine of the Sacrament [of Holy Communion], there is
indeed need of some admonition and exhortation, that men may not let so great a
treasure which is daily administered and distributed among
Christians pass by unheeded, that is, that those who would be Christians make
ready to receive this venerable Sacrament often. … it must be known that
such people as deprive themselves of, and withdraw from, the Sacrament so long
a time are not to be considered Christians. For Christ has not
instituted it to be treated as a show, but has commanded His Christians to eat
and drink it, and thereby remember Him,” (Martin Luther, The Large Catechism,
39 & 42).
“That such was the practice of the Apostolic Church, we are informed by Luke in the
Acts, when he says that “they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine
and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). Thus
we ought always to provide that no meeting of the Church is held without
the word, prayer, the dispensation of the Supper, and alms. We may
gather from Paul that this was the order observed by the Corinthians, and it is
certain that this was the practice many ages after. … Each week, at
least, the table of the Lord ought to have been spread for the company of
Christians, and the promises declared on which we might then
spiritually feed,” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion,
Book 4, Chap. 17, 44 & 46).
“I am to show that it is the duty of every
Christian to receive the Lord’s Supper as often as he can. … First, that if we
consider the Lord’s Supper as a command of Christ, no man can have any pretense
to Christian piety, who does not receive it (not once a month but) as often as
he can. Secondly, that if we consider the institution of it, as a mercy to
ourselves, no man who does not receive it as often as he can has any pretense
to Christian prudence. Thirdly, that none of the objections usually made, can
be any excuse for that man who does not, at every opportunity, obey this command
and accept this mercy.” (From John Wesley’s The Duty of Constant Communion.)
The
above quotes seem to show just how legalistic Magisterial Protestants were in
their “insistence on observing the Lord's Supper every Sunday”. Bliffen then
notes that the “practice of the weekly observance of communion” is not really
Scriptural but “is based on four pieces of evidence:”
1) the extra-biblical histories of the early church
fathers and defenders (called "apologists") of the Christian faith;
2) the writings of protestant reformers;
3) the weekly collection of money in I Corinthians
16:2; and
4) specifically Acts 20:7 which says, "On the
first day of the week we came together to break bread".
Nowhere in the scriptures does it say that the
disciples, Christians, came together the FIRST DAY OF EVERY WEEK TO OBSERVE THE
LORD'S SUPPER, THE LORD'S TABLE OR COMMUNION. Even the phrase "break
bread" or even "break the bread"(as in Acts 2:42 but not in Acts
20:7) may or may not refer to communion.[4]
Firstly,
Bliffen holds that neither the writings of the early church nor those of the
Protestant Reformers are held to be authoritative. Secondly, he treats as
suspect the interpretation of Scripture by both the early church and Protestant
Reformers, especially the interpretation that the phrase “breaking bread” meant
the Eucharist. Some have indeed told me that the phrase “breaking of bread”
just meant a normal fellowship meal wherein believers would share food. A meal
at Jollibee or MacDonald’s would as much be “breaking bread” together if all
those eating together are believers. Thus, the interpretation of the early
Church and the Protestant Reformers that the term “breaking of bread” means
“Holy Communion” is according to Bliffen et al legalistic.
Yet when a legalist reads Acts 20:7 he says this
verse MEANS the disciples came together "the first day of every week to
observe the Lord's Supper". Maybe it does. And maybe it doesn't.
But the legalist insists "the Bible says we
are to observe the Lord's Supper every Sunday AND those who do not observe
communion every Sunday are disobeying the word of God."
Ask a legalist who is and who is not going to be
saved and very often they will tell you.[5]
Thirdly,
Bliffen questions why weekly communion is perceived by “legalists” as a
necessity, a Christian “duty” (as Wesley called it) to the point that one’s
salvation is in danger if one does not have constant communion, and yet “cannot
cite a verse in the scriptures that specifically commands the observance of the
Lord's Supper each Sunday,” but instead cite the probably erroneous
interpretations of the early church Fathers and the Protestant Reformers.
Legalists like to call themselves conservatives.
But they are not conservatives - they are legalists.
A conservative is one who takes exactly what the
Bible says, AND ONLY what the Bible says, as his rule of faith and practice and
morals and ethics, and no more.
I know a legalist when I see one because I used to
be one.[6]
And
so, according to Bliffen, and all others in Protestant, Evangelical churches,
unless there is a clear, direct, biblical command, “Thou shalt have Holy
Communion at the very least on every Sunday,” the requirement for constant
communion will always smack of legalism. As there is no command to celebrate
the Eucharist as often as every week, then for anyone to say it is a Christian
duty and necessity, even if he is Luther, Calvin or Wesley, the person making
the demand (forcing others to adopt “their way of thinking”) is being very
legalistic indeed and need not be believed. To even say that Holy Communion is
necessary to “stay saved” is even considered worse than legalism.
On
S. Paul’s Definition of “Breaking Bread” in 1 Corinthians 10:16
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the
cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whosoever, 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. [1 Corinthians
11:26-29]
Yet
notwithstanding Bliffen’s and others’ claim that there is no Scriptural warrant
for constant, weekly communion, it CAN be shown that the Scriptures DO say that
the Eucharist ought to be celebrated AT LEAST weekly. It all hinges on the
definition the Apostle Paul gave to the term “breaking of bread”:
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the
communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the
communion of the body of Christ? [1 Corinthians 10:16]
The
reason why S. Paul had to give this definition in chapter ten was because of
the situation described in the eleventh chapter, where many in the Corinthian
church did not follow any rules, especially pertaining to worship: women
worshipping without veils, divisions, people getting drunk at the Lord’s Supper
while others were left hungry. Especially the “eating in an unworthy manner”.
Bliffen, in another article, deals with the subject:
In 1 Corinthians 11:27-34 Paul gave some more
instructions concerning the Lord’s Table. First, Paul writes that those who eat
the bread or drink the cup “in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning
against the body and blood of the Lord.” For many believers, the word “worthy”
is interpreted to mean “being good enough to take communion.”
A preacher I know of in Kentucky would not allow communion in his
church until he decided that everyone who was going to partake was “worthy”.
And by “worthy”, he meant that those who were coming to the Lord’s Table had
cleaned up their lives sufficiently enough to be spiritually qualified to
partake.
Paul, however, defined what he meant by the word
“worthy”. He wrote, “A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread
and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the
body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.” (1 Corinthians 11:28-29)
“In an unworthy manner” then means to take communion without “recognizing”
(giving thought to) the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. If communion is just
a ritual of Sunday worship, or if communion has been given some other meaning
than to remember the death of Jesus, Paul warns, don’t harm yourself by eating
and drinking of the Lord’s Table.[7]
Bliffen
was correct in saying that “worthiness” has nothing to do with the goodness of
the person doing the eating but the manner of the eating. What he misses is
that “recognizing the body of the Lord” is not just “simply the means by which
Jesus told His disciples to remember Him.”[8]
If one takes note of the definition S. Paul gave in 1 Corinthians 10:16, what
the Apostle Paul literally meant was that the failure to
recognize the bread as the body of the Lord Jesus Christ WAS the unworthy
manner spoken of!
Think
about it: why would S. Paul say that anyone who eats and drinks in an unworthy
manner—the not recognizing the body of the Lord Jesus Christ—“will be guilty of
sinning against the body and blood of the Lord”? One eating and drinking
unworthily was not just merely sinning against the “memory” of Christ’s
sacrifice, but sinning against Christ’s body and blood! This is because, as S.
Paul wrote, the cup of blessing which we bless is the communion of the blood of
Christ, and the bread which we break, is the communion of the body of Christ.
Thus,
THE UNWORTHY MANNER that S. Paul was talking about was the Corinthians’
TREATING THE BREAKING OF BREAD AS A NORMAL MEAL. That is why S. Paul tells the
Corinthians to eat at home before going to the Lord’s Supper, so that the
Eucharist will not be treated as a regular dinner.
Those who argue that Jesus was merely speaking
metaphorically here point to the many seemingly metaphoric statements of Jesus
in John’s Gospel. The argument goes that since Jesus says He is the door to the
sheepfold (John 10:1-9) and that He is a vine with us as the branches (John
15:1-8), both of which must be metaphors because obviously Jesus is not a real
door or a real vine, then He must also be speaking metaphorically when He says
that bread and wine are His body and blood. The problem with this line of
reasoning is two-fold. First of all, the metaphors that Jesus is employing in
John’s Gospel cannot simply be dismissed as wordplay. Jesus really is a
vine and He really is a door. He may not be a wooden door like you have
on your house or a vine like you might have growing in your garden, but He is
absolutely serious when He says that we can only enter the Kingdom through Him
and that we can only be one with the Father if we are rooted in Him. More to
the point, though, the words that Jesus uses in the context of John 10 and John
15, when He is talking about something completely different, do not help us to
determine whether or not He is speaking metaphorically in His institution of
the Holy Eucharist.
Within the context of the institution narratives
themselves, there is nothing that would indicate that Jesus is speaking
metaphorically. The only reason that anyone can or would come to such a
conclusion is if they hold an a priori belief that it is impossible for
such a thing to be true, the same kind of a priori belief that has led
liberal Biblical scholars since the late nineteenth century to believe that the
Resurrection must be a metaphor since we obviously know that people do not come
back from the dead. In fact, the contextual indicators only reinforce the
understanding that Jesus is speaking plainly here.[9]
And
so this leads us to Acts 2:42, 46:
And they devoted themselves to the apostles'
teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. … Every
day they continued to meet together in the temple courts and breaking bread in
their homes…
Earlier,
Bliffen stated that “the phrase "break bread" or even "break the
bread"(as in Acts 2:42 but not in Acts 20:7) may or may not refer to
communion.” Yet S. Paul shows that among the New Testament Christians, the
phrase “break bread” and “break the bread” DID in fact refer to Holy Communion.
In fact, Acts 2:42 is the proof that the liturgy used by liturgical churches is
actually Scriptural! We find the Liturgy of the Word—the devotions to the
apostles’ teaching (preaching) and the fellowship (which would later be known
as the offertory, wherein the New Testament Christians “would sell their
property and possessions, and distribute the money among all, according to what
each one needed”). Then afterwards was the Liturgy of the Eucharist—where bread
is broken and prayers said—in fact, the precursor to the Eucharistic prayer
known as “The Great Thanksgiving”, which would be immediately followed by the
Lord’s Prayer and other prayers of thanksgiving after all had partaken of the
consecrated bread and wine. The Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the
Eucharist—every single day.
This
followed the pattern of the Jewish liturgy, wherein there were prayers before,
during, and after festal meals. In fact, the breaking of bread in Judaism from
the 1st Century BCE until today was not and is not a mere meal with
grace being said, but a religious act of worship. This became very important to
the Pharisees after the destruction of the Temple in 70 JCE, when they interpreted
Ezekiel 41:22:
The altar, three cubits high, and the length
thereof two cubits, was of wood, and so the corners thereof; the length
thereof, and the walls thereof, were also of wood; and he said unto me: 'This is
the table that is before the LORD.'
[Now the verse] opens with ‘altar’ and finishes
with ‘table’? R. Johanan and R. Eleazar both explain that as long as the Temple stood, the altar atoned for Israel, but now
a man's table atones for him. [“Tractate Berachoth 55a,” Babylonian Talmud]
… but this
is not a man's table, but the Lord's table; and Christ the sacrifice held forth
on this table does indeed atone for a man. [John Gill’s Commentary on the
Bible]
The
point is this: THE EARLY NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANS CELEBRATED HOLY COMMUNION
EVERY DAY. Once a week, by New Testaments standards, is infrequent! The
actual apostles of Jesus Christ himself interpreted the command Christ
gave to break bread and bless the cup in memory of him as a daily obedience.
Why else would the Apostle Peter and the rest of the Twelve have the newly
converted Jews at Pentecost celebrate Holy Communion every day, unless this was
sanctioned by the Holy Spirit himself?
If
daily Eucharist was the New Testament ideal, why should weekly Eucharist be
considered “legalistic”?
The
Practical Consequence of Infrequent Communion
Mrs. Rushworth began her relation. "This
chapel was fitted up as you see it, in James the Second's time. Before that
period, as I understand, the pews were only wainscot; and there is some reason
to think that the linings and cushions of the pulpit and family seat were only
purple cloth; but this is not quite certain. It is a handsome chapel, and was
formerly in constant use both morning and evening. Prayers were always read in
it by the domestic chaplain, within the memory of many; but the late Mr.
Rushworth left it off."
"Every generation has its improvements,"
said Miss Crawford, with a smile, to Edmund.
Mrs. Rushworth was gone to repeat her lesson to Mr.
Crawford; and Edmund, Fanny, and Miss Crawford remained in a cluster together.
"It is a pity," cried Fanny, "that
the custom should have been discontinued. It was a valuable part of former
times. There is something in a chapel and chaplain so much in character with a
great house, with one's ideas of what such a household should be! A whole
family assembling regularly for the purpose of prayer is fine!"[10]
The
most important reason constant communion should not be considered legalism is
because if FREQUENCY of the Eucharist per se is not essential, then Holy
Communion itself would cease to be a SIGNIFICANT element of worship. Like
preaching—if one only preached once a month, then preaching itself would cease
to be a significant element of worship. It would soon be considered
“legalistic” for one to insist on weekly preaching if preaching itself became a
once-in-a-month thing. And this has happened before.
In
the quote from Mansfield Park alludes to the custom that the Church of
England had of daily Morning and Evening Prayer which by the Regency Era
(1811—1820) was already being discontinued. Fanny Price, the heroine, laments
that the Rushworth family no longer gather for daily devotions, but Miss
Crawford saw the discontinuance of daily prayer as an “improvement”. And so,
when Miss Crawford heard Miss Price’s comment,
"Very fine indeed," said Miss Crawford,
laughing. "It must do the heads of the family a great deal of good to
force all the poor housemaids and footmen to leave business and pleasure, and
say their prayers here twice a day, while they are inventing excuses themselves
for staying away." …
"At any rate, it is safer to leave people to
their own devices on such subjects. Everybody likes to go their own way—to
chuse their own time and manner of devotion. The obligation of attendance, the
formality, the restraint, the length of time—altogether it is a formidable
thing, and what nobody likes; … Cannot you imagine with what unwilling feelings
the former belles of the house of Rushworth did many a time repair to this
chapel … —starched up into seeming piety, but with heads full of something very
different—…"
Edmund
Bertram, the cousin of Fanny, responds,
" We
must all feel at times the difficulty of fixing our thoughts as we could
wish; if you are supposing it a frequent thing, that is to say, a weakness
grown into a habit from neglect, what could be expected from the private
devotions of such persons? Do you think the minds which are suffered, which are
indulged in wanderings in a chapel, would be more collected in a closet?"
"The mind which does not struggle against
itself under one circumstance, would find objects to distract it in the other,
I believe; and the influence of the place and of example may often rouse better
feelings than are begun with. The greater length of the service, however, I
admit to be sometimes too hard a stretch upon the mind. One wishes it were not
so; but I have not yet left Oxford
long enough to forget what chapel prayers are."
The
point that Edmund Bertram wanted Mary Crawford to understand was that one does
not learn to worship properly by removing the “obligation of attendance, the
formality, the restraint, the length of time.” Rev. Sinclair Fergusson says the
same thing when he wrote,
You do not become a master musician by playing just
as you please, by imagining that learning the scales is sheer legalism and
bondage! No, true freedom in any area of life is the consequence of regular
discipline. It is no less true of the life of prayer.[11]
Indeed,
when I was learning the piano, I thought that playing scales was just some
meaningless ritual designed to chiefly occupy the student when the teacher is
not looking. I could not understand the passion the other pianists had for
practicing scales every single day. The result? I could not play the
piano even if my life depended on it, while those who passionately did their
scales are now doing concerts. All because I regarded playing scales as “just a
ritual”.
The
same goes for prayers, preaching and Holy Communion—they have to be practiced CONSTANTLY
for their having the desired effect of grace. Practicing only once a month will
benefit no one.
That
is why if FREQUENCY of the Eucharist per se is not essential, then Holy
Communion itself would cease to be a SIGNIFICANT element of worship, for like
if one only prayed or preached once a month, then both prayer and preaching
themselves would cease to be significant elements of worship. When [post]modern
Christians stopped singing hymns except on “special occasions”, hymn singing
lost significance in worship. That is what happens when something is not
regularly done during Sunday worship—it becomes treated as an “add-on”; yes, a
very special add-on, but one that is perceived as largely UNNECESSARY and
INSIGNIFICANT. Thus, for people to say that the FREQUENCY of Holy Communion is
not tied in to its SIGNIFICANCE is just plain ignorance.
Besides,
where in the New Testament is it DIRECTLY COMMANDED for Christians to worship
every Sunday? Is it therefore “legalistic” to require Christians to worship every
Sunday every week? Where in the Gospels are Midweek services and weekly Bible
studies DIRECTLY COMMANDED? Are they “legalistic” as well?
Where
in the Bible does it say that one is supposed to pray before eating a meal? I
guess saying grace before and after meals is “legalistic” too, right?
The Menace of Antinomian Supererogationism!
Tolerance is not a spiritual gift; it is the
distinguishing mark of postmodernism; and sadly, it has permeated the very
fiber of Christianity. Why is it that those who have no biblical convictions or
theology to govern and direct their actions are tolerated and the standard or
truth of God's Word rightly divided and applied is dismissed as extreme opinion
or legalism?[12]
When there's something in the Bible that churches don't
like, they call it 'legalism.'[13]
Too
often, the REAL reason why people call constant communion “legalistic” is
because they are antinomian, that is, they do not believe that Christians are
SUPPOSED to obey Christ. Occasionally, perhaps, once a month is already enough,
but every week? Nah, too “legalistic”. And yet these antinomians themselves can
be very “legalistic” in a sense.
A
true definition of legalism was given by Paul David Tripp,
Human legalism leads to human self-righteousness.
Human self-righteousness denies the need for the saving, enabling grace of
Christ. Human righteousness embraces the cruelest of Satan's lies, that a
person can be righteous by keeping the law. If that were true, there would have
been no need for the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Christ.[14]
So
one can see that although some of these antinomians would say that one form of
legalism “is the insistence on observing the Lord's Supper every Sunday,” they
themselves are acting hypocritically by denying “the need for the saving,
enabling grace of Christ” as conveyed by the Sacrament of Holy Communion, which
in itself is all about the “life, death, and resurrection of Christ.”
They
deny that they are rejecting this means of grace, however, and yet by what
means do they say they receive God’s grace? Do they not substitute for God’s
ordained means of grace for their own “means of grace”? For it is these
antinomians who are the REAL legalists, who substitute God’s ordained means of
grace for their own ways of acquiring God’s grace. Yet it seems oxymoronic to
call these “antinomian legalists”…
Article XI - Of Works of Supererogation. Voluntary works—besides, over and above God's
commandments—which they call works of supererogation, cannot be taught without
arrogancy and impiety. For by them men do declare that they do not only render
unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his sake
than of bounden duty is required; whereas Christ saith plainly: When you have
done all that is commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants.
Thus
I call them, for classification’s sake, antinomian supererogationists.
For many of them, a 24 hour “Praise&Worship” concert or a rendition of
Handel’s Messiah is more important than hearing the Word of God preached
and the Sacrament of Holy Communion. For people like these, it is better for a
preacher not to preach and have a choral competition during church hours. Yes,
so it is no wonder they oppose constant communion, for they have a low view of
preaching as well. They have Easter Sundays that is just one long choral
concert, and no sermon, no Holy Communion. So what if preaching and the
Eucharist are GOD’S ORDAINED MEANS OF GRACE? They would rather have their own
means of grace. Truly, their ways are “besides, over and above God's
commandments”.
The
problem is that many who deny the need for the means of grace believe that they
can never fall from grace. Out-Calvining John Calvin, many of these
hyper-Calvinists may claim to be “Arminian,” but still believe that “once saved,
always saved.” That is why for these, the necessity of the means of grace is
“legalistic”.
Well,
it matters not what they say. Firstly, it HAS been shown that the Scriptures DO
say that the Eucharist ought to be celebrated AT LEAST weekly, the norm and
ideal being daily communion.
Secondly,
and more importantly, if FREQUENCY of the Eucharist per se is not essential,
then Holy Communion itself would cease to be a SIGNIFICANT element of worship.
Instead, it becomes an insignificant “add-on”.
Bliffen,
like the rest of these “antinomian supererogationists”, tries to sound all
pious, saying things like, “I want to say here at the start that I believe
observing the Lord's Supper each week is a proper understanding of the
scriptures.” Well, Pastor Bliffen, if that was the case, WHY THE HECK DO YOU
CALL IT LEGALISM? If weekly communion “is a proper understanding of the
scriptures,” what the heck is so wrong with insisting upon it?
One
might as well say that while believing that Jesus Christ is the only way to the
Father “is a proper understanding of the Scriptures,” it is just plain
legalistic to “insist” upon it. Bliffen says, “Ask a legalist who is and
who is not going to be saved and very often they will tell you.” So if one said that only those who have faith in
Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior will be saved, while those who reject faith in
Christ will not be saved, does that make one legalistic?
[1] Joe
Bliffen, “Chapter 23: Legalism,” Theology For the Pew, The Fourth Avenue
Christian Church Website, http://www.fourth-avenue.org/chapters/23
[2] Paul
David Tripp, Age of Opportunity, p. 83.
[3] Bliffen,
“Legalism”.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Bliffen,
“Chapter 11: The Lord's Supper,” Theology For the Pew, The Fourth Avenue
Christian Church Website, http://www.fourth-avenue.org/chapters/11
[8] Ibid.
[9] “On The
Eucharist: This Is My Body… No, Seriously, It Is…” The Conciliar Anglican,
http://conciliaranglican.com/2012/03/02/on-the-eucharist-this-is-my-body-no-seriously-it-is/
[10] Jane
Austen, “Chapter IX,” Mansfield
Park.
[11]
Sinclair B. Fergusson, Grow In Grace (1989).
[12] John
Stott, Corporate Worship for the Church? Chevrolet and the Word of God, An
Open Letter to the CCM Community.
[13] Leonard
Ravenhill.
[14] Age
of Opportunity, p. 83.
No comments:
Post a Comment