Question “I have several questions concerning the Form for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper. “First of all, where did it originate to read the first part of the form for preparatory, and then just the second part for the actual communion service? It is true that the first part., dealing with the examination of ourselves, is a part dealing with preparatory, and that the form consists of two parts; but it is my feeling that they should not be separated. Have the Synod, Classes, or local consistories originated this?
From a Canadian reader I received the following letter which contains some questions which touch directly on our Reformed position and witness. I shall quote the entire letter both because it furnished background for the questions and because of its significant observations; and in this issue I will make a beginning with answering the questions. Here is the letter: Dear Editor:
From a part-time Floridian I received the following question, sent to me already about the first of the year: “The Christian Reformed Church since 1924 has stressed the so-called well-meant offer of the gospel. Did our forefathers also believe this? Was it ever an issue before this time? What does church history show?”
[Note: For the questions with which we are busy in this article, we refer the reader to the March 1 issue.]
Question From “A Reader in Holland” we received the following questions concerning the recognition of the baptism of those who come from other denominations: “On what basis do we recognize as valid the baptism of those who come to our churches from other denominations,—whether it be adult baptism or infant baptism? “Could we ever recognize a baptism which is not in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? For example, if Unitarians, who deny the Trinity, would baptize someone, could that, baptism be recognized?
Question From a reader in California I received a question via—this is a new one for me—long distance telephone. The question is as follows: “Is it ethical for a minister to criticize or to approve of a tape-recorded sermon of a minister of another denomination?”
Question Our readers will recall that one of our Canadian readers sent in a series of questions, of which we have thus far answered only the first. We are now up to the second question, which was put as follows: “In view of I Tim. 4:10, can we not say that there is common grace, or a favor from God for all men, believer and unbeliever alike?”
Question Mr. Editor: Would you please explain in the Standard Bearer why we speak of “close” rather than of “closed” communion in the Protestant Reformed Churches? A Reader Reply Briefly, the different possibilities with respect to admission to the Lord’s Supper are as follows:
From a Grand Rapids area reader I received the following question: “Pertaining to Genesis 3:22, how must it be understood? Various remarks and comments were made at a recent Men’s Society meeting as to its meaning; yet I find myself not satisfied with the answers.
Question From a Grand Rapids reader I received the following question: “What is the difference between a ‘trance’ and a ‘vision?’ This question arose in connection with a discussion of Acts 22:17. Is it possible for you to give us an idea or two in the Standard Bearer in a short article?”