Below follows the second part of excerpts from the speech by Rev. K.A. Kok on the practice of the Lord’s Supper in the OPC in relation to the vision of the church.
From: Rev. K.A. Kok: “Presbyterian or Reformed,” speech in Orangeville, Canada in 1986 (published in Shield & Sword) (see also: https://spindleworks.com/library/kok/presorref.htm)
(…)
It is not surprising, then, that the OPC allows into membership those who will not baptize their children, that members are not required to to hold to the confessions of the church, that minister and elders are required to hold only to the system of doctrine contained in the confessions,31 and that the OPC allows to the Lord’s Supper Table all “earnest Christians” even if their confession is incompatible with the confession of the OPC.32
As Charles Hodge makes clear, the “one fath” or Ephesians 4:5 cannot he predicated of any external society calling itself the church of God, but, is only realized in heaven.33
It should not surprise us to read Dr. Richard Gaffin arguing that there is essential unity between Reformed believers and other believers. Indeed, Reformed theology expresses the “deepest intentions” of the non- Reformed. The only difference is a matter of consistency.34
It is not surprising, also, that this attitude parallels the attitude of the synodical churches in the 1920′ and 30’s.35
Since the church is to be empirically determined, you should expect to find–just as you do find– that Charles Hodge argues that the “evidences of piety” are all that are required for admission to the Lord’s Table 36 , and that the OPC follows Hodge in this regard. All of this flows from the defective and non-biblical teachings in the Westminster Standards concerning the covenant and the church.
…. … … … … … … … …
I will limit myself to a discussion of the decision of the Fiftieth General Assembly regarding the complaint of Rev. Hofford, et. al., and I will rely on the evaluation given by Classis Ontario-South, December 9, 1987.59
The complaint, in simplest form, was against the session or the Burtonsville OPC for replacing a somewhat strict oversight of the Lord’s Table on the part, of the elders with a mere verbal warning on the part of the minister prior to the celebration of the sacrament.
The committee reporting to the General Assembly affirms that this verbal warning is allowed for by the “practice of the Presbyterian churches.”
This policy consisted of the following:
“The table will be verbally fenced but open to members in good standing with their churches. It will be requested that those who partake will sign communion cards. The visitors’ home churches will be notified of their participation. Continued eligibility of adherents of Covenant Church will be considered by Session on an individual basis.”60
This procedure, at best, allows for discipline after the fact and represents an abdication of the elders responsibility to guard the Table. Consider the opening or the Table to all in good standing in their churches : but which churches? The Baptist? the Roman Catholic? Are all churches equal in this regard? (Of course, given the OPC doctrine of the church, all churches are equal, more or less.) This committee also stated that it was up to each individual session to determine how the Lord’s Supper ought to be celebrated.61
Yet, here classes Ontario-South rightly notes:
Although it may he true that the Session must take into account the circumstances of the church, this may not have the priority. The priority must be what God says in His Word. This may run counter to what we consider to be the needs of the congregation. This point makes the circumstances the norm instead of the Word of God. This invalidates this point so that it cannot be a ground for denial of the complaint.62
The OPC General Assembly decided that a session may legitimately leave it up to the individual whether he shall partake of the Supper or not.
The answer to the complaint makes clear the pluriformity of the OPC view of the church. The committee observed:
Just as we risk abuse by limiting our requirements for church membership so as not to deny baptism to the weak who make credible profession of faith, so we may risk abuse of the Supper in limiting our requirements for visitors to members of evangelical churches, but we may do so in order not to deny the Supper to those who are joined to Christ and to His church invisible.
The privilege of offering to visitors the Sacrament of the Supper is not simply a gracious extension of Christian communion on the part of of the government of a particular church. Far less is it an irregular or unauthorized assumption of spiritual jurisdiction. It is rather a proper and requisite expression of the catholicicity of the church and of the character of church government presented in the New Testament. 63
It is clear that the OPC considers all evangelical churches, Reformed and non-Reformed, to be true churches. Indeed, the committee is critical of judging evangelical churches solely by the marks of the church and of judging an individual because of his church affiliation.64
Surely Classis Ontario-South was right to object to this equation of evangelical church with true church. And surely this Classis was right to judge that this approach takes “refuge in an invisible church concept, undermining covenant responsibility.65
The committee for the General Assembly also concluded that a verbal warning was in accord with the judgment of charity, because Christian love “believeth all things” (I Cor. 13:7). Thus, the verbal warning shows the “spiritual hospitality of welcoming love” and properly shows credit to the word of a brother or sister. Indeed, to demand “official certification” could easily compromise our witness to the Table as the Lord’s.”66
Such reasoning is the path to madness; this lifts the passage out of its context and has the net effect of negating the elders responsibility to guard the Table.67 In fact, it makes the elders direct supervision a thing to be avoided.
In the end, the committee argues that it is better to risk having the Table abused than to be too “exclusive.”68
Again, Classis rightly noted that this approach plays down the seriousness of God’s judgment: Classis considers that in this statement the Assembly shows more fear of displeasing men than of displeasing God. Our love for the neighbor may not exceed our love and obedience to Christ.
Moreover by speaking of “our witness to the Table as the Lord’s” the Assembly creates a false dilemma. The Table is indeed the Lord’s, and is therefore the Table which the Head of the Table entrusts to His ordained elders to guard and to keep. Removing the discipline connected with the Table from the elders and leaving it to the direct discipline of God is a pious fallacy.
Participation in the holy things of the Lord by those who have not “discerned the body” indeed brings the wrath of God upon the whole congregation. Witness Numbers 16:20 -24; Joshua 7:10 -15; II Chronicles 30:18-20; I Corinthians 11:29-30; Heidelberg Catechism Q.A. 82. It has therefore pleased God to charge the elders with the exercise of discipline connected with the Lord’s Table as is evident from many places in Scripture, e.g. I Corinthians 5; II Thessalonians 3:6,14.69
The method or celebrating the Lord’s Supper which is certainly allowed within the OPC and which this General Assembly seems to commend is out of accord with Scripture and the Three Forms of Unity. The covenant responsibility of the church to delight God and abide by His truth requires saying “no” as well as saying “yes. ” And a church which cannot say “no” soon loses its ability to say “yes.”
A church which distinguishes between the faith it confesses and the faith necessary for salvation has already set out upon the path from true to false church, because it has denied Christ’s presence and teaching in its midst.
We must conclude from this method of celebrating the Lord’s Supper that theOPC has lost the ability to say “no.” We must also conclude that the OPC does, in fact, distinguish between its standards and the faith necessary for salvation. So we must also inescapably conclude that, the OPC has set out on the path from true to false church.
——————————————————————————————————————
31 As the CEIR puts it, “A further consideration in this regard is the matter of subscription to the Confession of the Church. In the second ordination vow of the OPC the question is asked: ‘Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures?’ This vow and an affirmative answer to it, has never been interpreted by us as involving an ipsissima verba understanding of subscription. What is demanded is a sincere receiving and adopting as our own the confessional documents as containing the system of doctrine set forth in the Scriptures.” Report, p. 22.
32 Minutes of The Thirty-third General Assembly, April 25-28, 19661 p.94.
33 Charles Hodge, I and II Corinthians, Ephesians (Wilmington: Sovereign Grace, 1972), pp.71-73
34 Gaffin, op cit ., p .4.
35 Rev. De Jong notes the attitude of the synodical churches in “The Significance of The Liberation of 1944 for the Gathering of the Church Today,” Secession and Liberation For Today, ed. Rev. J. Mulder (London: I.L.P.B., 1986), p. 22.
36 Hodge, The Church and It’s Polity, pp. 218-224.
59 This decision is reported on in the press release, Clarion, voL. 37, no. 6, March 18, 1988, pp. 134-136,
60 Minutes of The Fiftieth General Assembly of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, June 2-9, 1983, pp. 12l-122.
61 ibid.. 62 “Press Release,” p. 135. 63 Minutes, 1983, pp. 123-124. 64 ibid., p. 123. 65 “Press Release,” p. 135.
66 Minutes, 1983, p. 123. 67 “Press Release,” p. 135. 68 Minutes, p. 123, passim. 69 “Press Release,” pp. 135-136.