By Farther Steps

Reformed and Reforming, semper reformanda to Christ's glory.

WordPress

I have to say that I really love WordPress! Everything about it has be excellent. I just finished importing not only the content from the blog on the .Mac account, but I was even able to pull in the content from Blogger.com! All of my blogging now resides in one database. This is excellent.

I still need to edit the data from both accounts (around 450 posts) but the data is here. I can now safely delete the Blogger blog and allow the .Mac to expire without losing a thing. Now I just wish I had written something worth keeping! :)

Oh yes, and this is still not the final version of the blog. I thought the other theme was a bit too effeminate. This on is boring but it is a bit more manly.

A Conscientious Objector

Joe Thorn has a great post on being a conscientious objector to the cultural war. I agree with all he says there and wish I had written something like it. I could add a few more items to it but instead, I’ll just paraphrase Hebrews, “But as it is, we desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called our God, for he has prepared for us a city.”

Now we live with tent pegs. We’re Americans or British or Canadians or whatever, but our citizenship is in heaven. We’re ambassadors here, not residents.

This doesn’t result in our apathy towards the world, listen to the news and hear how the big responders to Katrina is not the government or the Red Cross, it is America’s churches.

Paedocommunion Addendum

I did find a few quotes that seem to speak to the issue of paedocommunion. I think they demonstrate that paedocommunion is a departure from the historic Reformed faith.

The first is not explicitly about paedocommunion but it does show that there was a distinction between a baptized infant and someone entitled to the full membership in the church. This is from Jonathan Edwards’The Qualifications Requisite To A Complete Standing and Full Communion: An Humble Inquiry Into The Rules Of The Word Of God Concerning The Qualifications Requisite To A Complete Standing And Full Communion In The Visible Christian Church (my emphasis):

All that acknowledge infant baptism, allow infants, who are the proper subjects of baptism, and are baptized, to be in some sort members of the Christian church. Yet none suppose them to be members in such standing as to be the proper immediate subjects of all ecclesiastical ordinances and privileges. But that some further qualifications are requisite in order to this, to be obtained, either in a course of nature, or by education, or by divine grace.

The next comes from John Calvin in his Institutes, Book 4, Chapter 16, Paragraph 30 (my emphasis):

How, pray, can we require infants to commemorate any event of which they have no understanding; how require them “to show forth the Lord’s death,” of the nature and benefit of which they have no idea? Nothing of the kind is prescribed by baptism. Wherefore, there is the greatest difference between the two signs. This also we observe in similar signs under the old dispensation. Circumcision, which, as is well known, corresponds to our baptism, was intended for infants, but the passover, for which the Supper is substituted, did not admit all kinds of guests promiscuously, but was duly eaten only by those who were of an age sufficient to ask the meaning of it (Exod. 12:26). Had these men the least particle of soundness in their brain, would they be thus blind as to a matter so very clear and obvious?

My Problem with Paedocommunion

Part 3 in a series.

Paedocommunion (the act of giving baptized children and infants communion) is an outcropping of the Federal Vision . Since baptism places the individual in the covenant, unites them to Christ and makes them full members of the church, what reasons are there to not give them communion infant or not? Or so they reason (roughly).

In order to explain why I am saddened by paedocommunion, I need to explain my view of communion. The central text on the rite of the Lord’s Table is 1Co 11:23-31. Here Paul gives us the most detailed discussion of the ceremony and even then it isn’t as much as we might have hoped for. The phrase I feel is most important here is not “who eats and drinks without discerning the body” (v. 29) though it is important and will come in later. The phrase that I think says the most about the meal is “you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (v. 26).

There are then two time elements in the Lord’s Supper. There is the backward look in faith to Jesus’ death and a forward look to his return which also speaks of his resurrection. Communion is a gospel pronunciation.

One of the things the Reformed have said about Communion is that it is a “means of grace”. This means that God gives us grace when we take part in the sacrament. The 1689 London Baptist Confession speaks of it like this “The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls…by the administration of baptism and the Lord’s supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God, it is increased and strengthened” (BCF 14.1, similar to WFC 14.1). The grace that is communicated in the sacrament is not a “new grace” it simply feeds the grace we received that enabled us to believe to begin with.

There are, I suppose, a number of ways of formulating how this strengthening takes place. The way I understand it is that since the Lord’s Supper is a gospel proclamation in physical form, it communicates grace through the gospel. It isn’t subjective where the pastor has to do a really good devotional in order to get you emotional enough to receive the grace, the act of eating broken bread and poured out wine communicates beyond the devotion. It reaches your soul whether you’re paying attention or not.

The reason this won’t work with infants is that the saving faith that is to be fed is not necessarily present in them. Furthermore, for the meal to be the gospel communicated, the recipient must be aware of what the gospel is. I agree with Jonathan Edwards, this sacrament is not a converting sacrament. Conversion ordinarily takes place through the preached word.

At this point, the dire warning of verse 27 comes into play. Hebrews 10:29 pronounces a more severe punishment on those who trample under foot Christ’s blood and that is what would be happening. A person who does not believe the gospel eats judgement upon himself. Non-believers must not participate in the Lord’s Table but should use the time to reflect on what keeps them from closing with Christ, asking God to remove that impediment and to look forward to participating the next time.

So that is briefly my take on Communion. Notice that gospel is central to the rite and faith to apprehend this gospel pronouncement is essential.

There are a number of ways paedocommunionists respond. Passover was the precursor to the Lord’s Table and Passover was intended to include the children (Ex 12:26). They point to 1Co 10 and notice that all ate the same spiritual food which would necessarily include the children. Why then would be deny our covenant children this means of grace? Their response to 1Co 11:28, where self-examination prior to the meal is required, is likely to be that strictures such as these are not intended for children. For example, in 2Th 3:10 Paul commands “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.” Clearly this did not apply to the infants.

These objections seem reasonable, as far as they go. But they are lacking. While Passover was a precursor to the Lord’s Table, it is significantly modulated in Christ. Jesus didn’t simply change Passover, he fulfilled it (1Co 5:7, 1Pt 1:19). Passover was the shadow and while we can look back at it for the significance of the Lord’s Table we shouldn’t look to it as regulative for the Table. How do we determine which elements come forward? Instead we are best to stick with what we are taught about the Lord’s Supper in its fullness rather than in its shadow.

First Corinthians 10:1-6 is an important text for understanding redemptive history and I think it helpful in the discussion of the relationship of the Old Covenant to the New. There baptism is not linked with circumcision but with a passage through water. The “spiritual food” in that passage is not Passover but the manna. Jesus is not eaten or drunk, he is a Rock that follows them and provides. It seems to me that what the water may signify is the Holy Spirit (see John 7:38-39) that Jesus gives to his church.

Finally, while it is clear that 2Th 3:10 cannot apply to children, it is not equally as clear that 1Co 11:28 does not. One must presuppose that children are supposed to be given Communion in order to read the 1Co 11 passage the same way as the 2Th 3 command. Otherwise, there are no commandments that apply to children! Furthermore, there are explicit commands for a man to provide for his family (1Ti 5:8) and so children are provided for in the commandment via their father.

So why is paedocommunion sad to me? First of all, because it seems to lessen the impact of what communion is. In other Christian traditions that place a high value on communion (Anglican, Lutheran, Roman Catholic) there is a process of confirmation and First Communion. In other words, they have a similarly high view of the sacraments and yet recognize that there is something about communion that bears waiting. When children who haven’t a clue what communion is about partake simply because they are “covenant children” any distinction between those who have examined themselves and who discern the body and those who have not is lost. Even among the adult members of the covenant community there is supposed to be this difference, an adult who is “unworthy” or who does not “discern the body” (however we define those terms) is not to partake. Yet the children are ushered to the table without this distinction. Some of the exegetical gymnastics paedocommunionists do to get around 1Co 11:28 make me dizzy.

Next, and more crucial in my mind, is that the fulfillment of “covenant seed” is diminished and confused. Consider this quote from Tim Gallant’s book Feed My Sheep:

[Discussing Matthew 19.13-14] Covenant children are the epitome of the kingdom of God. And the kingdom of God must be understood in new covenant terms. Children of believers are received by Christ as His, notwithstanding all the language elsewhere about the necessity of faith. Covenant children, to the very youngest, are partakers in what the new covenant is all about. If it is correct to say that conversion is necessary for salvation, it is also correct to say that conversion is precisely becoming like a covenant child (Mt. 18:3). (pp. 25-26)

There is a lot I could comment on in that paragraph that I am going to let it slide and instead make my point about covenant seed. I have a lot to say about it but in summary let me point to this:

1. All of the promise of the Davidic Covenant, especially his seed, was ultimately fulfilled in Jesus Christ (Acts 13:23).
2. It is generally agreed that the Seed of Eve promised in Genesis 3:15 was a promise of the coming Christ.
3. Paul is explicit on this in Galatians 3:16, in at least one aspect, the seed of the Abrahamic is fulfilled in Christ.

The above observations show that the concept of covenant see can be fulfilled. It is my contention that the concept of “covenant seed” or “covenant children” was pointing toward and was therefore fulfilled in Christ. Yes, in God’s covenants there was a promise of and to covenant children but those covenants were all looking forward to a promised One who would come from amongst the covenant people of God. Now that Jesus has come, what other seed are we looking forward to?

Calling our children members of the covenant just because they are our children is to read the New Covenant as if it contained the unfulfilled promises of older covenants in their same unfulfilled form. Baptizing them makes the issue hazy but most Reformed paedobaptists don’t consider baptized children to be full participating members of all that the New Covenant (and therefore the Covenant of Grace) offers. They still look forward to a time when their children will offer signs of a genuine faith of their own. Admitting them to the Lord’s Table blurs the lines even worse.

Okay, this post is quite long enough.

Addendum

Baptistic Covenant Theology

Rich Barcellos is an old friend of mine. He’s a pastor of a Reformed Baptist church in California and a busy editor of academic Reformed Baptist publications. Reformed Baptist Academic Press is publishing Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ. It is largely a text written by Nehemiah Cox, one of the framers of the 1689 London Baptist Confession, that demonstrates that Particular Baptists in England at that time were Covenant Theologians. Rich has also included a section by John Owen on Hebrews 8:6-13. I found that curious since Owen was not a Baptist. It turns out that Cox began working on something along those lines but abandoned it because he agreed with and appreciated what Owen had written.

The book is on a special pre-publication sale for 50% off. I’ve already ordered mine.

Another book I am interested in getting is The Excellent Benjamin Keach. Keach likewise was an author of the 1689 confession and there is a Baptistic Catechism (inaccurately?) attributed to him. I have been interested in Keach for a while for a number of reasons. He introduced hymn singing in the church. At that time amongst the Puritans, singing was only psalms and there were no instruments. Keach believed so much in the necessity of congregational hymn singing that he wrote some hymns himself. Another thing I find curious about him is that he added some chapters to the 1689. This amended confession came to America and was adopted in Philadelphia. He added a chapter on singing which I think was a good idea and one on laying on of hands that I feel was inappropriate.

There is a story of Keach’s son Elias being converted under his own preaching!

Complementarianism Addendum

There are two thoughts that have come to my mind after I posted my thoughts on complementarianism.

First, the similarity I noted between the egalitarian hermeneutic and the pro-homosexual hermeneutic is not intended to imply that egalitarianism necessarily leads to either pro-homosexuality nor to license in general. I have never been fond of “slippery slope” arguments. What I wanted to show is that it is a faulty hermeneutic. It allows history, or at least a view of history that may in fact be wrong, to modulate the understanding of scripture. That injects a very subjective element into interpretation and that weakens it.

Second, I believe what I have outlined is Biblical and therefore to be believed. But an additional positive aspect to it is that it does not denigrate women. It shows that Holy Spirit does not say that women are gullible and therefore cannot lead or that they are easily mislead and therefore cannot teach. It does not subjugate women because of defect, instead it appeals to an authority structure. Adam was created and given the Law of the garden (Gen 2:15-17) and then Eve was created. Adam was then to teach the Law to his wife.

Complementarianism

I’m not sure why the issue of women in pastoral roles has been weighing on my mind lately but it has. I am a convinced complentarian, which means that I believe that men and women have different and complementary roles in the Church. Women are not to be elders or authoritatively teach men in spiritual matters. Here’s why I believe this.

My reason for being a complimentarian has to do with my view of God’s covenants. First Timothy 2:11-15 is the passage where the discussion usually comes down to. There, Paul expressly forbids “a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man” because “Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” I believe that in taking verses 13 and 14 together (they appear to be a single thought-unit) we see that there is more to the argument than just that Adam was created first (fact A) and that Eve was deceived (fact B). The key that draws facts A and B together is when Paul says that Eve “became a transgressor.” There is a lot of theological weight packed into that phrase, more than is obvious from a cursory reading. To burrow into that theology, we need to consider what the scriptures say about the fall.

The Bible says that mankind fell in Adam (Rom 5:12, 1 Cor 15:22) and yet Paul states here that it is Eve who becomes a transgressor. So why, then, is it not the biblical view that mankind fell in Eve since she ate first (Gen 3:6)? Her being deceived is no excuse (consider Israel’s covenant with the Gibeonites in Joshua 9) and Paul does not extend it as one here. I believe that humanity fell in Adam because Adam represented all of mankind (Rom 5:11-21) when he broke covenant with God (Hos 6:7) and that included his wife. Though Eve was deceived and broke the Law, mankind did not fall in her because she did not represent the human race, but we did fall in our federal head Adam.

The way this informs 1 Tim 2:11-15 is not so much that women are more easily deceived than men (personally, my wife has often rescued me from foolishness), but more that from the beginning of mankind the man was the head, the leader. True, Adam was formed first but the order of creation does not automatically invest authority or else the animals would be in charge! The divinely instituted arrangement was that Adam was given the role of leadership in the garden and in that role he represented all of mankind that came after him, Eve included. Adam’s existence prior to Eve is significant only in the same way it is significant for all of mankind: federal headship in the Covenant of Works.

Taking all this theology back to 1 Timothy we see that Paul does not allow a woman to have authority over a man nor to teach him because in the beginning it was the man who was considered the leader and was held responsible. Furthermore, this was not some arbitrary whim of God in creation; He did it to express the relationship between Christ and the Church (Eph 5:25-33, esp. 5:32). Christ represents the Church in the New Covenant (Luke 22:20 & Acts 20:28). The Church is not to have authority over Jesus nor are we going to teach him and so it is with the relationship between man and women in the Church. This situation is much more than just cultural.

My experience with egalitarian (men and women are equal in the New Covenant) hermeneutics has been “interesting.” At the time I was taking a class in which I had to study the issue, homosexual Gene Robinson was being promoted to Episcopal Bishop. These things seem unconnected till I heard Robinson being interviewed on the radio. In defense of his homosexuality, he said:

The other problem there is that homosexuality, as a sexual orientation, is a construct that’s only about 100 years old, so for us to take that construct and read it back into ancient texts just does not do justice to those texts. There’s no question that the seven very brief passages that are seen to be related to homosexuality, in scripture, both Old and New Testaments, are negative, but what I would maintain is that they do not in any way address what we’re talking about today, which are faithful, monogamous, life-long intentioned relationships between people of the same sex. The scripture simply does not address that issue.

When I heard this I recognized that the egalitarian hermeneutic was the same! Craig Keener in his essay in “Two Views on Women in Ministry” claimed that the issue was that women were uneducated and therefore easily deceived. Paul would never have envisioned a situation where women were just as educated as men.

But there are errors with this hermeneutic. The qualifications that Keener and Robinson place on the prohibitions they are responding to are not found in the Bible. History can help Biblical interpretation but it should not set a text on its head. What would happen to Keener’s argument if the ruins of a first century, all-women college were excavated in Ephesus? Even if we allow his premise, the qualifications prove too much. For Keener, are we to assume that all the women and none of the men were being deceived? For Robinson, are we to assume that “faithful, monogamous, life-long intentioned relationships between people of the same sex” never existed in biblical times? Once we embrace this kind of hermeneutic, anything is justifiable and nothing relates to us today, such as something like this:

Jesus and Paul were speaking to Jews who believed that they could be saved by following the Mosaic Law. That is not the situation in Roman Catholicism; they don’t think you can be saved by following the Mosaic law. You cannot take the biblical teaching of that time and apply it to them today, it just doesn’t apply.

In the end, we need to allow the Bible to stand on its own. It may seem archaic and dated, indeed I know some women who would be very good pastors. But God did not say these things to no purpose. If the Bible is authoritative and sufficient then we must abide by its teaching no matter what the conventional wisdom of the day dictates.

Addendum

Profaning Mammon

Another great quote from Hughes:

Theologian Jacques Ellul says that the only way to defeat the godlike power that money seeks to impose on our lives is to give it away, which he calls profaning it: “To profane money, like all other powers, is to take away its sacred character.” This destroys its power over us. “Giving to God is the act of profanation par excellence,” says Ellul. Every time I give, I declare that money does not control me. Perpetual generosity is a perpetual de-deification of money. – R. Kent Hughes, Set Apart, 33.

This is brilliant to me. When we turn money into a false god, an idol, in order to break its hold over us we must desecrate it. In 2 Kings 23:6 Hilkiah the high priest under Josiah’s command removed the Asherah from the temple, burned it at Kidron (a place that had become increasingly unclean) and then scattered the ashes in a grave yard. This didn’t defile the grave yard, it defiled the ashes. This was desecrating the false god.

Os Guinness has some great advice on recognizing idols in our hearts:

This is the ultimate moral challenge–that hope rests in complete and excuse-free dependence on God and His forgiving grace, plus nothing. The forgiveness is joyfully offered to us through Christ.

An idol is something within creation that is inflated to function as a substitute for God. All sorts of things are potential idols, depending only on our attitudes and actions toward them. If this is so, how do we determine when something is becoming or has become an idol? — Os Guinness, No God but God, 32

In other words, when there is something other than God that we run to to find comfort, to feel better about things, something we seek to “make it alright” and that is not God revealed in Jesus Christ, we may have created an idol. Guinness goes on to explain that this can be all kinds of things, even godly things. He lists the obvious ones of money, power and sex and some that are less than obvious like family and evangelism! The human heart is an idol factory that we must be leery of.

So how do we do that with mammon? Do we just burn our money and head to the cemetery? No, that is foolish. Besides, it fails to address the heart issue of desiring money. If we take it away and put nothing in its place, the hole grows bigger and hungrier. “Do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused. Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women?” – Martin Luther.

We need to follow Ellul’s advice and counter money’s grip on us. By giving it to the Lord, we begin to replace that false joy money offered with a real joy. It isn’t instantaneous nor is it easy. But by desecrating the idol in our hearts and erecting an altar to the Lord, we stand a better chance of being free.