Category: Church Page 1 of 4

top view of a family praying before christmas dinner

Notes on Venema’s “Children at the Lord’s Supper,” Part 4, 1 Corinthians 11

On December 4, 2024

In Bible, Church, Covenant, Reformed Theology, sacraments, The Basics

Venema builds his case for the ritual of Profession of Faith on one heavily contested passage.

As I walk through this discussion, I understand that many will not be convinced of my arguments and will still argue that some sort of profession of faith is helpful or necessary. My hope is that for these, despite my vigorous defense, they will respect my personal fidelity to scripture and be willing to receive paedo-communionists as brothers in the Lord, even as I do toward those who disagree with me on these matters.

The supposed division between communicant and non-communicant members is founded upon one passage in scripture. There are other passages marshalled up to confirm this division, but the interpretations of those passages depend on the interpretation of this passage.

Therefore, the ritual of Profession of Faith is built on one passage of Scripture, at least in Venema’s case. Venema is careful not to draw too much out of the other scripture passages. He understands that these do not work. They often assume a lot, such as the son who asks about the feasts, “What is the meaning of this?” in Exodus and Deuteronomy. Such a reading depends on a lot of assumptions brought into the text. Venema recognizes that.

But in turn, he needs to make a lot of 1 Corinthians 11, a contested passage if there ever was one, and turns that into a reason to keep children from the Lord’s Table. He admits repeatedly throughout the book that his observations do not prove credo-communion. They do so only in light of his understanding of 1 Corinthians 11.

The reason Venema has been so cautious about affirming the greatness and breadth and width of the New Covenant is all based on 1 Corinthians 11. And it boils down to an argument that the passage has a more general application than the paedo-communionists want it to; something that paedo-communionists, need not even deny.

Venema has other things to say about the text that can be taken or left. I don’t necessarily agree with everything he says about 1 Corinthians 11. For example, I think the word often translated as remembrance can be translated as memorial, the focus being, first of all, on God remembering us and, secondarily, on our remembrance of God, but that is not essential to my argument. It does, however, support the argument because the emphasis is less on each member remembering. But even if the general call to remembrance in the Lord’s Supper is more critical than I take it to be, this can be understood as I have already stated so often: according to the measure of grace given to each baptized member.

Venema’s key argument is that verses 27-32 have a broader and more general application than paedo-communionists allow for. Venema notes that Paul always follows instructions about particular controversies with more general observations that apply what is said to a broader and future audience. So Venema argues that the call in 1 Corinthians 11 to eat and drink in a worthy manner, examining oneself, and discerning the body are prerequisites to coming to the table. His implied conclusion is that the practice of Profession of Faith follows from that.

One thing I do appreciate in Venema’s approach is that he has a good view of what Paul means by examining yourself. He doesn’t fall into the neurotic approach that is all too common, especially in the Dutch Reformed tradition.

Yet, though he shows a better understanding than many of what these more general commands mean, he fails to understand the context of these commands and how they are generalized from the particular situation that Paul is speaking about. And the “how” is the key. Because I do not disagree with the general argument of his exegesis, it is that, in his general application, he has not only extended the application of the specific situation, he has completely untethered Paul’s exhortations from their original context.

Let me get into some of the details here; The common paedo-communion approach (and this is not merely a paedo-communion approach; many modern and ancient commentators recognize the point of this passage, though they do not adequately work it out in their practical sacramentology) to this passage emphasizes that the problem here is the divisions in the church. One can even bring in chapter 10, which compares the church’s shared participation in the body of Christ to Israel’s participation in manna and water in the wilderness or the participation of Israel in the altar that they eat. The force of the Lord’s Supper is that you are one body, and if you deny that by how you celebrate the supper, you cause division. This is not talking about the state of your heart, but the very physical way you celebrate the supper. Do you have proper table manners? Are you including all the Christians? Do you, as Paul concludes, wait for one another?

Of course, the heart matters; that can be gathered from other places in scripture. Particularly, if you deny the Lord by your actions or by promoting false doctrine, the church has a right to remove you from the table, so that you may not bring your evil leaven into the congregation. These things are not the first concern here in our passage, though they can be argued from the passage and even should be. If you deny the Lord in your life, you ought not be counted a body member.

The appeals to examining oneself, the worry over guilt over the body and blood of the Lord, and the question of discerning the body all have to do with recognizing the nature of God’s church, with counting all baptized believers as members of the body of Christ. The problem in the church is “that when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk.” And the final word on this problem is, “So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another – if one is hungry, let him eat at home – so that when you come together, it will not be for judgment.” The problem is their exclusionary practices and the exalting of one person over another. The general principles of verses 27-32 must be understood in light of these realities.

At the risk of repeating myself that doesn’t mean that people are wrong to bring in the matter of the man who slept with his mother-in-law in 1 Corinthians 5. This certainly also brings an abomination into the body of Christ. But that is already dealt with. Paul has said that they are to purge such a one from their midst if they persist in their sin, that is, excommunication, removal from the table of God. Now, the faithful Corinthians must learn table manners, and they must not set tables in which one Christian is made out to be greater than another, for as Paul gets into in chapters 12-14, everyone is part of the body of Christ.

In this sense, drinking the cup in an unworthy manner is due to how the Corinthians act toward their brothers in Christ. This is also the theme of chapters 8-10 and 12-14. A person is to examine himself. He is to make sure he honors his “brother for whom Christ died (1 Corinthians 8:11). In that, he is to discern the body. He, through the Spirit, understands who belongs to Christ.”

Of course, this has broader application to the knowledge of Christ in general and personal holiness. But as the Apostle John says, we can’t separate these. If you love God, you will love your brother.” A Pastor, Toby Sumpter, recently preached, if you want to grow closer to your brother and you don’t know how to start by growing closer to God. If we want to make the most of the Lord’s Supper, the whole church should be exhorting and encouraging one another to grow in holiness and in the knowledge of God.

Keeping in mind the context, that these words are given to the whole church of God, this instruction is given so that each one may fulfill it according to the measure of grace given to him or her. These are not prerequisites that we need to measure in one another in order to admit one another to the Lord’s Table. Rather, these are things each one of us are to grow in before, at, and after the Lord’s Table. The baby is to have faith according to the ability of a baby, the teenager, faith and discernment according to the ability of a teenager, the young man, faith, and discernment according to the ability of a young man, and the old man, faith and discernment according to the ability of an old man.

An example I have mentioned before is that Baptism binds us to righteousness (Romans 6); you are then bound to pray without ceasing. That is not something that comes naturally; rather, it is taught over time so that the baby fulfills the law to pray without ceasing, according to the measure of grace that is given him over time. You don’t force the baby to pray before he is able to speak, but you are excited to teach him to pray as soon as possible. You don’t force a baby to eat communion before he is ready, but you are excited to give communion to your baby as soon as possible, as soon as he is able.

Similarly, you are bound, “not to neglect meeting together.” Do we say a child doesn’t need to go to church, because he is not able to obey it? No, mothers and fathers bring their children to church and rightly so. Children are raised to follow the patterns of the Christian way as they are physically able to, and according to the measure of grace God has given to them, so that they may have every opportunity to grow in faith. Raise your children at the table not in order to receive the table.

In fact, their reception into the covenant of grace is important so that we do not think that somehow we are better or more favored by God than they are because of our accomplishments. In this way, paedo communion more properly reflects the biblical teaching on humility and against lording it over one another.

The thing is, even if I am wrong and the general application of Paul in 27-32 has more to do with discerning Christ’s work on the cross and some degree of mature examination such that a baby could not do it, I still would not follow Venema’s logic. Paul’s exhortations are given to the church as a whole, and still each one has to hear and follow according to his or her ability. These words are still given to a particular situation, one that still affects how these principles are to be applied.

He still has done nothing to prove that these are pre-requisites that must be measured in a youth before they come to the table. He cannot say how they are to be measured, he has no objective rule from scripture from which to determine a right of passage by which a member may move from a non-communicant status to a communicant status.

And yet, from this, Venema argues for the tradition of the Profession of Faith. And yet, even in this passage, which is the foundation for much of Reformed practice, there is not a whisper of a ritual by which children are added to those who commune at the table. Perhaps if the problem in Corinth was ignorance at the table, we might have a case, but the situation in Corinth is not mere ignorance. It is ignorance that results in infighting at the table of Christ. The onus is to recognize the body of Christ, to recognize those who belong to Christ and welcome them at the table, and then to teach each one as they are seated at the table of Christ to work out their salvation with fear and trembling.

Perhaps there is a prudential ground for the practice of Profession of Faith? Perhaps it is merely exemplary to encourage children to approach the table closely connected to faith? Perhaps as Luther or Ursinus might have said, small children don’t need communion, it is when they begin to have the inklings of faith they need communion. And in order to bear out that reality, they defended a more pragmatic or prudential Profession of Faith. I don’t think this bears out in practice. In my experience the strong connection between faith and the table is always found where that is taught in the churches. However, let’s grant that possibility. Then you still ought to fully embrace churches that practice paedo-communion because it is a difference according to prudence and not according to the clear word of God. And this is what Luther said about the Bohemians, holding nothing against their practice of infant communion other than questioning its helpfulness.

In conclusion, there is one thing that Venema has not found, and that is a pattern for Profession of Faith. It is an invisible institution in scripture and yet a highly important part of the life of most Reformed & Presbyterian Churches. It can’t even be reliably found in one of the most critical passages on the Supper, foundational to the very idea of Profession of Faith. Why the discrepancy?

Notes on Venema’s “Children and the Lord’s Supper,” Part 3, Children in the Old Testament.

By James

On December 1, 2024

In Bible, Church, Covenant, Holiness, Reformed Theology, sacraments, Worship

Venema fails to account for the nature of the transition from the Old to the New Testament.

I pass over some of Venema’s other work as it stands or falls based on other assumptions. However, it is worth examining some of Venema’s assumptions as he walks through the Old Testament. He mentions a number of things concerning the Old Testament that he believes paedo-communionists have not adequately thought through in applying the Old Testament to the New. I found it helpful that he points these out, because in reflection on these, we have a better basis for paedo-communion and how it ought to be practiced than we would otherwise.

I find Venema’s discussion of the Old Testament quite interesting because he recognizes the weakness of a credo communionist argument from the Old Testament. He continually appeals to New Testament realities. Much of his time is spent seeking to undermine paedo-communionist appeals to the Old Testament, but he doesn’t build much of a case for his beliefs in his chapter on the Old Testament.

Venema seems to believe that a great deal of the paedo communion approach is based on an understanding of the Old Testament, mostly focussing on the Old Testament practice around Passover. Considering the time in which it was written; this is probably fair.

However, I am surprised that Venema does not acknowledge that a prominent paedo communionist like Tim Gallant makes his primary argument from the New Testament.

Yet even so, if the Old Testament is paedo communion and the New Testament is credo communion, there must be clear evidence that the New Testament is breaking from the Old Testament. Meanwhile, if the Old Testament is credo communion and the New Testament is paedo, there must also be some good evidence for the move in that direction as well.

However, Venema gives us some limited arguments for his position from the Old Testament. Venema’s arguments focus on the natural limitations and exceptions that were prevalent among Israel; he also argues from the hierarchies of holiness that existed among Israel, allowing only priests to participate in some meals, along with laws about cleanliness that would have only permitted some to participate in various feasts, and finally, Venema argues from historical records, that demonstrate it was not necessarily common among the Jews to have small children participating in many of their festivals.

Evidence for natural limitations that caused exclusion

Israel’s men are commanded to attend the three main festivals in Deuteronomy, while the women and children do not have to come. This is important to Venema because the children are not commanded to come.

Venema fails to understand how communities work.

Sometimes, natural limitations prevent the immediate obedience of a command. God does not ignore the ability of individuals when he calls them to obedience. He does not assume that we are superhuman. The law of God assumes ordinary ability, the measure of grace that is in you. When Israel is spread throughout all the land, even though all have the right, they do not all have the necessity of coming. It is those who have the most natural ability to come to the feasts who are commanded to come. Yet all Israel still has the right to those feasts even if it is the men who are commanded to come.

It’s similar to a tiny suckling baby. The baby does have the right to the table, but not the ability.

Let me give an analogy. When you are circumcised, we are told that you are bound to the whole law, everything in it, yet some of the laws do not make sense to even command a two-year-old. “You shall not commit adultery” means nothing at that time, and yet the two-year-old is bound to the whole law anyway. He cannot tithe, and he cannot observe the Sabbath, but he is taught to tithe and observe the Sabbath as soon as possible, when he is physically able to do those things because he is bound to the whole law. I could go on.

The point is that there is not some special ritual he has to go through to participate in these things, but he is taught all along according to his capacity to obey these things. He is not barred because he does not entirely understand their significance yet. He does not need training to practice these things; he is taught to practice these things as soon as he can. He is taught through practice and participation, not in order to participate.

It is the same with Baptism. Paul says in Romans 6 that in baptism, we are bound to Christ and his righteousness. Therefore, we are bound to believe and to act according to belief. Therefore, babies are bound to the call “to pray without ceasing. We don’t force babies to pray before they can speak. But as soon as they can speak, we teach them how to pray. And we consider their prayers real. They matter to God.

It’s similar to the table: we don’t force the baby to eat or drink before he can drink, but as soon as he can eat or drink, we encourage him to come to the table. And yet that means something different to a 2-year-old, a 10-year-old and a 25-year-old. The 60-year-old potentially understands the significance of this far more than the 30-year-old and yet ultimately, each one is a baby in obedience compared to the fullness of the righteousness in Christ.

The question follows: We bind our children to righteousness in baptism, but we dare not give them the spiritual food God has provided, to strengthen them in the faith that produces righteousness?

The point is, God knows our human limitations when he binds us to himself. His instruction takes into account those human limitations. That is the point in the exceptions that are given for the feast in the Old Testament. We don’t need to travel to Jerusalem anymore to participate in temple feasts. Jesus is in heaven and is available everywhere through his Spirit, the same limitations do not apply. Yet even then, he is patient and tells us to live in obedience according to the measure of grace given to each individual and to the physical abilities that through his grace he has given to each member of the church.

The problem with the Jews’ historical application

The fact that Jews used these limitations later to refuse the children participation in various feasts is no point in the favor of a Profession of Faith. Yet Venema uses the history we know of the intertestamental Jewish people to demonstrate a line by which he will prove the good of Profession of Faith.

Do you ever wonder why Jesus had to teach his disciples to receive children in Matthew 18 and 19? It wasn’t because the Jews had decided to stop circumcising children. They knew they were in the covenant just as the reformed do. And it’s possible that just like the reformed, they were not taking that seriously. The reformed saw the natural limitations of a child’s expression of faith and decided they could not be at the table. The Jews saw the exceptions for limitations in the Old Testament and turned that into a rule.

Divisions of Holiness and Baptism

That brings us to our final point here, the way Venema uses the lines of holiness within Judaism to demonstrate his point. Holiness was hierarchical in Judaism. The priests had to go through endless washing and sacrifices to remain pure before God so that they could represent the people. God spoke through persons because the work of the Spirit and holy spaces and holy persons were more limited.

The New Covenant brought an end to these distinctions between groups. The priests’ food is now available to all. In Hebrews, we are even told that we eat of a sacrifice they (old covenant believers) had no right to eat. The author is likely referring to the offering on the day of atonement, which was a sacrifice that was not eaten. Christians have a right to that offering. Christians have a right to everything in Christ. The distinctions that divided high priests from priests from Levites and Israelites are gone. The distinctions that divided men from women and Gentile believers from Israelites are gone. The Eunuch and the Gentile, through faith and baptism, may find flourishing in Christ.

One significant aspect that Venema misses is baptism itself. He makes the same mistake that some paedo communionists make in too strongly correlating the Passover and the Lord’s Supper, with the institutions of circumcision and baptism. Yes, baptism replaces circumcision, but baptism has its own story in the Old Testament. Baptism is going through the flood and through the Red Sea. Baptism includes all the washings of the Old Testament. Baptism incorporates all the various anointings and purifications.

Thus, baptism is an anointing, “You have been anointed by the Holy One, and therefore you know all things.” You are a holy priesthood. That means even more now, than in the Old Testament, because, we are all priests now. There is no division between one group of people that is ritually more holy and another group that is less holy. We all have the anointing of prophet, priest, and king, though babies do not yet exercise it in the same way adults do.

Baptism is a purification that does not need to be repeated. While Israel had to go through all types of washings to prepare herself for various festivals, we only need one washing. Yes, we must continue to live in repentance, but objectively speaking we have the one washing that proclaims forgiveness for all our sins, and declares that we are part of the New Creation. Yes, we must respond in faith. That is something we must continue to do all our lives.

In Old Testament Israel, the need for cleansing was a limiting factor in attending feasts. The Israelite had to go through various washings in order to attend the feast. When we say that washing happens once ad for all in, that means that the one who is baptized into Christ is always clean, always ready to participate in the feast. What are we doing when we deny the full reality of that baptism by refusing those who have not expressed their faith yet to join in the feast. They are washed! In Christ, all things and all persons are clean! “As many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ!”

Yet Venema is very cautious in affirming these aspects of the New Covenant. And that seems to have more to do with his desire to preserve the ritual of profession of faith, rather than a desire to deny these aspects. He wants to use these Old Testament divisions to bring in some formal divisions into the new covenant, divisions between two groups among the people of God, albeit in a much milder form. With him, we affirm that there remains a division between those who are people of God and those who are not people of God, and with him, we affirm that those who, by their belief and practice, deny God ought not be brought to the table. The church is to purge the evil one from their midst.

Why does he need to add another division? We will shortly discover why in our last point, but for now, the onus is on him to find this other division in the pages of the New Testament.

So we see that reflection on Venema’s questions about the exceptions made for festivals, the holiness divisions in the Old Testament, and the history of the application of the Old Testament in Jewish Communities, actually strengthens the case for a fuller welcome to all members to the meal of God, including small children.

Another side note

Venema suggests in certain places that the paedo-communionist approach will produce a laxity of discipline in the church. I would argue that discipline will be more effective. For here, the discipline of the church, especially in separating you from the table, is questioning your status in Christ; that is what removing you from the table is. Yet in a church that practices Profession of Faith, you always have a group within the church who do not have access to the table and yet are marked as Christians. This is strange.

The significance of communicant membership means that the leaders of the church have to take it seriously and use it well. That means the man or woman who receives discipline has to take it seriously.

Too often people are disciplined for not being reformed when they should be disciplined for not being Christian. Discipline is not about whether you have access to one sect of Christianity, it is about access to Christ. It is the opening and closing of the kingdom of heaven.

From a paedo-communion perspective, removal from the table and ex-communication is far more significant than it is for many today. In a credo-communionist setting there is always a group who has some sort of halfway status, whether it is children and sometimes Christians from other traditions. The table is no longer Christ’s table but the table of some sect.

Notes on Venema’s, “Children at the Lord’s Supper:” Part 2, Faith and the Church Fathers.

By James

On November 28, 2024

In Bible, Church, Covenant, History, Reformed Theology, sacraments, Worship

2. Venema fails to consider the various ways the church fathers may have conceived of faith.

In line with this, he fails to account for other contextual readings, prioritizing his own reading as obvious because he has already assumed his conclusion.
As a side note, reading this response alongside the book is beneficial as I do not fully reproduce what I am responding to.

The quotes from the church fathers that Venema provides can be made to align with a paedo-communion position just as easily as the credo-communion position. Venema assumes his conclusion. To be fair, I do the same. In my estimation, I’m more honest about it.

Venema’s failure to understand the role of faith at the supper continues as he turns to the church fathers. He assumes that the fathers have the same account of faith that he takes for granted. Venema also fails to understand how the context of these quotes does not necessarily support what he wants to make of them.

The comment on faith should be clarified. It is common among the reformed to make intellectual assent a part of faith, and it is assumed that babies do not have the rationality to express faith. That is why the reformed, when speaking of faith in infants, preferred to use phrases like “the principle of faith,” “the root of faith,” or “an inclination to faith.” They often forget that the fundamental meaning of the word faith is simply trust, which babies, as well as adults, can express. This faith expresses itself very differently in the infant, whose reason is not yet formed, than in the adult. We can even say that in the adult, this rational or intellectual element is necessary, for as the scriptures say: let each act according to the measure of grace that is in him.

The worst effect of this sort of reasoning is that faith becomes ideological. Faith in Christ becomes equated with any number of propositional truths or system one must hold before the come to the table of Christ. While this is undoubtedly part of faith, the danger of the practice of Profession of Faith is that this faith becomes boiled down to an ideology.

This reality causes me to wonder whether the current state of denominationalism is not in part due to a natural working out of the doctrine of Profession of Fatih. Each denomination finds a way to quantify the level of ideological purity they need at their table, making the table no longer Christ’s table but that denomination’s table, to the degree that some will recognize that there are many other Christians out there but because of they do not hold to that particular denomination’s or federation’s ideology they are refused the table of the Lord. This makes the table the table of a particular sect of the church rather than the Lord’s table.

I am not denying the importance of knowledge or propositional truth in the church’s public confession. I am merely making a note of how the practice of Profession of Faith might have worked out the relative importance of that aspect of the church’s life sociologically. Paedo-communion suggests a different sociology that might even take a form that is more similar (it will never be the same) to how the 3^rd and 4^th century church functioned. I merely suggest. It may take a form not seen yet, as well. The latter is the more likely outcome.

Neither do I argue these things because I am anti-intellectual or I don’t love reason. These are wonderful gifts of God to us. I merely state that the reformed overemphasized the role of reason in such a way so that they could not see that faith could be properly attributed to infants. Here they failed to deal with the biblical evidence already offered above.

I admit to reading through the lines, but Venema’s assumptions about the meanings behind the quotes from various fathers of the church fail to account for the different ways in which they used the term faith. Justin Martyr says only those may come to the table who are living as Christ has called them too. If Justin Martyr is working with the assumptions I have argued for, this has nothing to do with Venema’s argument. Similar arguments can be made about the other quotes. Venema seems to assume that a call to faith and a call to examine is the same as making those prerequisites to the table. Similar things can be said about the more stylized quotes that reflect on the journey of the Christian to the table.

A second thing that Venema does not allow for is that some of these quotes are given to the congregation as a whole and, as such, are given to the whole congregation and received according to age and capacity. I looked up the quote from Clement in the Stromata, for example, and that is the very thing Clement is doing, arguing that in the Christian life, a man ought to continue to examine himself as he walks on the path of righteousness, and he uses the call to examine one’s self from 1 Corinthians 11 as such an example. If Venema is right about 1 Corinthians 11, he may be right about Clement. If Venema is wrong about 1 Corinthians 11, he is likely wrong about Clement.

Another thing that Venema does not make us aware of is the new adult members that are likely coming into the church of Jesus Christ at the time and are also in the mind of the fathers. They certainly would have needed to express an age and capacity-appropriate faith before coming to the Lord’s Supper.

Finally, Venema fails to understand the strong role of typology among the fathers. For example, the quote from Origen that refers to the status of the children in the Old Testament as one of being under a tutor. Origen is tying us, the Christians, into that history. Historically, we were once children, and now, in Christ, we are adults. If we were to take this type of typology and woodenly apply it to the Christian journey in the New Covenant, would we say that small babies are under the law and then when they profess their faith, they are under grace?

Similar things can be said about the quote from the author of the Syrian Didascalia. Once again, we have a stylized quote that summarizes the journey of the Christian life. I imagine that the author is thinking of Hebrews 5 and 6 in the background and equates participation in the meal as eating solid food. If we actually look at Hebrews 5 and 6, the author of Hebrews is speaking to a group of adults, and these adults are given the milk of the word. That does not mean that they did not participate of the sacrament. The sacrament pointed them toward the more solid food of good works. In fact, the author of the Syrian Didascalia here is thinking in the following terms: You are brought into the New Creation through baptism, and in the New Creation, you are fed by word and sacrament. Word first, and then sacrament. Here, we have a logical order that does not need to reflect a temporal order.

If we take this seriously regarding temporal order, are we to prevent baptized adults from being at the table for a while?

A second way to look at this quote is even more straightforward. It is simply a description or list of all the things that are begun in you and continue to happen, whether it is the making new through water or the feeding with the spirit and the word, or admonitions, or the sacrament. Again, Venema assumes a lot when deriving a logical and temporal order from this quote.

Even in his mild conclusions (Venema will qualify with things like “probably”), Venema is not careful enough. He doesn’t allow for the idea that the church fathers may speak out of a very different worldview than his own. I don’t say this proves paedo-communion in the very early church. I only say that Venema is far more free with his explanations of these quotes than he ought to be. He has already assumed his conclusion while working through these quotes.

My conclusion is that Paedo communion was likely common in the early church, as much as from other emphases in the fathers about baptism and the body of Christ and the connection between baptism and full participation in Christ, but I recognize that I believe that, in part, because the teaching is so evident in scripture.

I am also not bothered if I am wrong about one or two of these quotes. Scholars today emphasize the diversity of liturgical practice across the Roman Empire. If some groups did not practice paedo-communion, that does not surprise me. Christ, after all, had to remind the Jews of the central importance of children to his kingdom, it is not a surprise that many Christians throughout history had to be reminded as well.

As for the rest of Venema’s historical reconstruction, he is right to say that the move to credo-communion cannot be reconstructed through the lens of one issue. There are further complications. It is actually his account of a move from credo communion in the first couple of centuries to widespread paedo communion in the fourth century that stretches credulity. I can find the evidences of the first, there is very little evidence for the second. The first happened over hundreds of years while the West was torn apart and had to be rebuilt. A lot was forgotten. The second happened over a hundred years and we have little evidence of a fight over this liturgical change in churches that took liturgical change very seriously.

An addendum:

I want to talk a little more about this argument that is derived from the Origen quote: that some will say that the immature state of Israel before Christ reflects the state of the child. They continue: yes, he feeds on Christ, but not in the fuller sense symbolized by the meal. It follows that entrance to the meal reflects the time of maturity in which Christ has come.

This argument, in particular, really bothers me, for it creates all sorts of problems with the status of Children. Are children under the law? If so, why are they baptized into Christ? Do they necessarily have a less meaningful relationship with Christ? Why? How so? How can Christ then say, “of such are the kingdom of God!” The whole community, the whole tree, is renewed in the New Creation of Christ! Are children somehow barred from the age of the Spirit who cries “Abba, Father!” I do wish that credo-communionists would not use this argument as much for their own sake as for mine.

That is not to say that there are not lessons for us in training up our children, but these have to do with practical child-rearing, not what era an individual belongs in.

Notes on Venema’s, “Children At the Lord’s Supper:” Part 1, Faith and Paedo-communion.

By James

On November 27, 2024

In Church, Covenant, Reformed Theology, sacraments

Notes on Venema’s “Children at the Lord’s Table.”

I’ve received several recommendations to read Venema’s “Children at the Lord’s Table.” I have read articles and summaries of Venema’s argument, but it is not until now that I have sat down and read the book in its entirety.

It is often counted as one of the best defenses of Profession of Faith, the practice of having a child give an account of his faith before coming to the Lord’s Table. Having read it, I tend to agree with that estimation, not so much because he makes a strong case, but because he is more intellectually honest than most critics of paedo communion.

With some qualifications, I respect his attempt to present the Paedo-communionist position with a desire for truth and fairness in his dealings. Overall, he is careful to avoid resting on obscure passages of scripture, such as the theoretical question of the child as he sees the Passover; “What do these things mean to you.” Instead, he builds a compelling case for the importance of faith for worthy participation in the supper. Upon that basis, together with a collection of evidence from Scripture, Church History, and the Confessions, he argues that “Because the Lord’s Supper is a sacrament that nourishes faith, it requires a kind of faith that is able to remember, proclaim, and discern the body of Christ.”

However, the statement quoted above is not logically coherent on its own. It has an assumed premise that is missing. We can see this through simplifying the statement, “Because the Lord’s Supper is a sacrament that nourishes faith, it requires a certain kind of faith. One must then find some scriptural teaching that the sacrament can only nourish a certain kind of faith.

He fundamentally fails to adequately provide a scriptural basis for a ritual in which the young confessor must express his faith before admittance to the table. And if he does so on that point, it fails to establish that this faith must be qualified by remembrance, proclamation, and discernment as a requirement for admittance to the Lord’s Supper. Indeed, every Christian is called to remembrance, proclamation, and discernment in his or her faith, but there is nowhere in scripture where we are given a measurement of such faith as a requirement for admittance to the supper. Therefore, it is better to understand this call as something that is applied according to age and capacity rather than a prerequisite.

I’ve divided my critique into four: (1) Venema fails to understand the role of faith in the paedo-comunionist mindset. (2) Venema has a similar failure of imagination in his reading of the church fathers. (3) Venema fails to understand the nature of the transition from Old to New Testament. (4) Venema’s entire case is built on the contested passage of 1 Corinthians 11. There are other disagreements, but these four points, particularly points one and four, reveal the flawed assumptions that underly the case for Profession of faith.

Venema fails to adequately understand the role of faith in the case for paedo-communion. He especially fails to understand how the reformed paedo-communionist conceives of faith.

Venema states that for the paedo-communionist, there is “only one basis for admission to the Table of the Lord, namely, membership in the covenant community.” What he fails to understand here, is that for the paedo-communionist, membership in the covenant community, means to be counted as one who has faith, a believer. For one cannot be saved apart from faith. And this is very much a part of the reformed tradition. Here is a link to an article summarizing the reformed tradition on how the root or principle of faith is found in all believers, and therefore, we can say that children are counted as believers.

In the “Synopsis of Purer Theology” (a gathering of the best Dutch Theologians after the Synod of Dordt, in Leiden, to go deeper into the theological questions that were discussed at the Synod), it was even said, that repentance and faith were necessary before baptism. So here infant baptists embraced a form of believers’ baptism. It followed that children were to be counted as having repentance and faith, even before they were baptized. Similarly, while the Divines who put together the Westminster Confession of Faith, would not have used the same language (they would not have seen repentance and faith as necessary before infant baptism), they still would have counted children as believers, using, again, the language of the root of faith or the principle of faith.

And this can only be confirmed by the scriptures. The Psalms, written not just to describe David’s experience, but the experience the covenant believer, speak of such an infant faith. David says in Psalm 22, “Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts.” While David is still nursing, God teaches him to trust in him. Even more dramatic are the words of Psalm 71, “For you, O Lord, are my hope, my trust O Lord, from my youth. Upon you I have leaned from before my birth; you are he who took me from my mother’s womb. My praise is continually of you.” Here, we have faith in the very womb of the Psalmist’s mother, as the Psalmist already leans upon God there.

As I’ve already stated, this is not merely put in the mouth of David. The Spirit puts these into David’s mouth so that they may be the confession of Israel. Israel is taught to consider themselves believers from birth. We, the people of God, throughout all the world’s history are taught to count ourselves as believers even before we receive the covenant sign, whether it is circumcision or baptism.

To be a covenant member is to be a believer. The question of faith as a pre-requisite to the table is moot. Faith, in turn, leads to faith. The call to faith comes out through the word of God every Sunday, both to children and adults.

Naturally, a common concern comes up: the question of presumption. The answer is simple. Presumption is always wrong. 1 Corinthians 10 marvels at how Israel received all the blessings of the covenant and yet they died in the wilderness. Hebrews 4 tells us how the people did not enter the rest of God, because they did not mix the promises with faith. Nobody in the church of Christ may presume on their faith.

God brings us into his kingdom and we are called to a continual response of faith. The Heidelberg Catechism says that we baptize infants because they no less than adults have the promises of the gospel. The same goes for communion; we feed the children from the table of the Lord because they, no less than adults, need the assurance of their faith. It is not as if you come to the table and suddenly you just get the promises, no longer the warnings of the covenant. You always need both.

Therefore, presumption is wrong for young children. They are to be taught to increasingly take ownership of their faith. Presumption is wrong for young fathers and mothers; they must be taught to continue to draw near to God. And presumption is wrong for old men. They are not to forget God as the sun begins to set on life.

Again, not all who are in the covenant are of the covenant. Some of those circumcised did not believe. Some of those baptized do not believe. When the call to faith is not heard and the heart of rebellion begins to act out, that is where church discipline comes in. And a lack of faith will eventually lead to rebellion. That is the warning of the scriptures.

The desire to guard against presumption, whether by creating the ritual of profession of faith in response to baptism or putting baptism at a later age, does not deal with presumption. Presumption just becomes a problem at different times of life, and unfortunately, there is often an encouragement to doubt the reality of one’s faith, for those who do not measure well according to whatever local standard is decided on.

An argument can also be made that the practice encourages presumption. You have arrived to real faith once you come to the table and once you have true faith you are saved. Faith becomes, not just the tool that God uses so that we may receive salvation, but it becomes, practically speaking, the ground of salvation. Once one has professed, one has reached a higher level of spirituality and is therefore safe. This of course, goes against the theology of the reformed church, and I have observed the leaders of the church seek to fight against this type of attitude. Rightly so! I wonder if the problem is in the practice itself.

Or, if one can come to the table early or tests better than his or her peers, spiritual pride becomes a reality. I can only speak anecdotally, but I have seen the table become something by which some measure themselves better than others, especially for those who, through natural intelligence and early maturity, are able to come to the table earlier than their peers. Men use this as an argument against paedo communion, but really it is an argument for it, because it is the practice of Profession of Faith, that creates the opportunity for such spiritual pride.

While Venema fails to account for these realities in his own tradition, neither does he adequately account for how a paedo-communionist might account for the importance of faith. Yet I do think there are extenuating circumstances as to why Venema misses this. Early advocates of Paedo-communion failed to adequately explain the role of faith in their understanding, preferring to rely on more objective arguments. I then, have some sympathy for his lack of understanding here, for the paedo-communionist argument has developed overtime.

I don’t know if Venema had access to Rich Lusk’s book “Paedo-faith.” That book accounts for a lot of the discrepancies of Venema’s account. It fills in the holes where Venema suggests that some advocates of Paedo-communion fail to account for faith.

Even at the end of the book, where Venema, suggests that Lusk attributes more to baptism that is proper to allow for paedo-communion, he misses these realities. He quotes some relatively strong statements about baptism (admittedly, I might not use the same language), which emphasize the objective realities of the covenant which we are a part of. In his book “Paedo-Faith,” Lusk clearly highlights the importance of mixing faith with the glories we receive in baptism.

I’ll end this section by noting that there is a statement on paedo-communion in the CREC (It is in its first reading in Knox Presbytery and not in its final form, but in general, describes the position of those who hold to paedo-communion in the CREC). I have reproduced it below.

“As elders who hold the keys, we do not exclude baptized children from the Lord’s Table because God has incorporated them into His covenant and congregation through baptism. The covenant promises are theirs in Christ. We believe that in the sacraments God calls us to respond by faith in Christ according to our age and capacity. We affirm that faith is a necessary condition for worthy participation at the Table and that God gives such faith even to small children. Jesus said: ‘Let the little children come to me.’”

Political puppet master clipart, vintage

Politics and Power

By James

On December 27, 2023

In Church

The first article in the French Reformed Church Order is “Ministers ought not to Lord it over one another.” It is a warning against fleshly politics in the church of Jesus Christ.

We should discuss what the nature of politics is. People use the word politics without thinking of what it really means. Some define politics coercively as attempts to control and lord it over one another. This is what I understand the common phrase to mean “oh that’s just politics.” It is a reference to some person or group bidding for control over another person or group. Of course, we must also recognize that the There should be none of that sort of politic in the Christian view. Politics can also be defined as communal decision-making. This is the more common today, but the definition can ignore the reality of power dynamics that come within politics. People are given “rule” and that is power.

I like the definition that William Killbourn gives in his book, “The Firebrand” on William Lon Mackenzie. He defines politics as the “pursuit and direction of power to desirable ends.” This allows for all the various definitions that people give to the word politics. It reflects the reality of how people use power. Those desirable ends could be noble, the product of an ideology, or personal lusts.

For the Christian, politics are “the pursuit the direction of power to desirable ends through equally desirable means.” The pursuit of the power ought to be pursued through legitimate means. Once received, that power ought to be directed toward good ends through desirable means.

There is no grasping of power for the Christian, for he is called by God to never Lord it over another. That is the nature of the Gentiles or unbelievers according to our Lord Christ. The unbeliever is marked by anxiety, and his anxiety is subverted into a desire to dominate others. For the Christian, however, power is given, never taken. The Christian leader, whether ecclesiastical or civil, whether familial or whether he has power only over his own person, is called to use the power given to him for the good of the kingdom of God.

This does not mean that a Christian may not desire power. Paul says, “It is a good thing to desire to be an elder.” Elders have power in the church of God, the power of excommunication, the power of the Shepherd, as an ambassador for the Shepherd. If he may desire eldership, he may desire civil office as well, and may seek that by legitimate means.

The Christian must seek power legitimately, and he also must use power legitimately. Power itself is not evil, but it can be corrupting. We could compare it to Paul’s talk about money in 2 Timothy. “The love of money is the source of all sorts of evil.” The same can be said of power.

There is a deep desire to dominate one another that goes back to Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve grasped for the power “to be like God” to be like God.” From then on man wants to be God not only before God, but before his fellow man. Jesus warns his disciples, “Do not Lord it over one another as the Gentiles do.”

That is why the Scriptures encourage us in humility. It is not without reason that God chose Moses as leader for the people of Israel, “Now Moses was a humble man, more humble than anyone on the face of the earth.” Humility is a pre-requisite to fulfilling one’s office before God well.

That doesn’t mean there is no willingness to exercise power. It is humility that teaches us how to use power rightly. We humble ourselves, first, before God and bind ourselves to his word, and that can make truly humble men appear to fleshly men as full of pride. Paul is very certain in his office and in the authority he has been given. He is more than willing to use it against those who plague the church of God. One of the constant struggles in the New Testament church is against those “who would spy out your freedom” and enslave you to some type of law again. Christians are free. Supposedly, good ends are not an excuse for evil deeds to reach those ends. Paul and the other apostles fight fiercely against those who seek to destroy the freedom of the Christian.

Yet Paul, Jesus, and many other Saints of the Old and New Testaments know that this power is given and they continually humble themselves before God and his Word as the source, the content, and the boundaries of the power they exercise.

The Spirit and the Magisterium

By James

On November 9, 2023

In Church, History, Traditionalistic exegesis

These are my half-formed thoughts as I seek to understand the Spirit’s authority in the church.

When Paul’s ministry and authority is questioned, he does not rely on the voice of the church or the Magisterium. Instead he appeals to the Spirit, ” The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.”

Paul does appeal to tradition and to the voice of the church and to his apostolic authority, but passage above demonstrates that one of his main appeals is to a shared Spirit that testifies to his message. This is a spirit he shares with Apollos so that both are counted as servants of Christ and are not to be pitted against one another.

Similarly in 1st Thessalonians, Paul attributes the willingness of the Thessalonians to hear him to a shared Spirit. “Because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction.” Later he adds, “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of god, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.”

As protestants we do hold to a Magisterium, a tradition that speaks authoritatively into our lives. Many protestants deny this and act as if tradition has no authority, but this comes from fools who have no thought. If we believe in One God and one Spirit, who speaks the truth, then when this Spirit speaks through men who also have the Spirit, we also ought to listen, especially, when many who also share the Spirit respect and love these men and repeat their words through the Spirit themselves. Perhaps it is has more fuzzy lines than the Eastern Orthodox or the Roman Catholic Magisterium, though it has a clear center, that being the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed. I am not convinced that it has more fuzzy lines, however, because of the number of interpretations and just the amount of doctrine that counts as tradition in those two churches.

Yet alongside this we hold to the work of the Spirit. Christ has promised to be with us by his Spirit. Christ has promised that Christ will guide us in all truth. A Magisterium without the Spirit and Word as a norming norm will eventually quench the Spirit’s work of unity. Any church that simply appeals to the authority of the church without also appealing to a shared Spirit that illuminates that word in each one of us and is the ultimate judge of each heart is obscuring that important work and is itself undermining the Magisterium of the church. They too become fools without thought.

Further, if we fail to receive those who share in the Spirit, becoming judges that go beyond what is clear in the word of God, we also undermine the work of the Spirit.

“And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.”

two people reading bible while sitting on a sofa

CREC and the Reformed Baptist

By James

On November 4, 2023

In Church, Covenant

The Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches holds the unique distinctive of allowing for paedobaptist and credobaptist churches within the denomination. A church may hold to the Three Forms of Unity or the Westminister Standards, among other reformed standards, or it may hold to the London Baptist Confession of Faith. This means that the elders of that particular church may refrain from any requests to baptize a baby, whereas their fellow elders or ministers in another church would happily baptize that same baby.

The Logic of our Communion

How on earth does that work? Can it work? Some have told me that it can’t work, but there is a certain logic to how we, as members of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, work together in this way. The reasoning is in understanding what reformed Catholicity should be like and then applying that understanding to a mutual agreement to receive each other in the Lord. Throughout, we seek to respect the conscience as much as possible.

Whether it practically works in our world is a different matter. It remains to be seen whether a credobaptist church can have a long and multi-generational partnership with the CREC, for our communion remains overwhelmingly paedobaptist and paedocommunion. Yet, we are attractive to many from the Baptist world because of our faithfulness in the culture wars. Perhaps we are also attractive because we have many shared cultural values with the Baptist world, for many of our best ministers and leaders are from that world.

However, there is a certain sense to it. We desire to be as small-c catholic as possible, recognizing all our brothers and sisters in Christ who share the same Lord. We are willing to do what we can to accommodate those, even in leadership, who might differ from us. Within our communion, we allow a breadth of doctrine within the bounds of the various historic reformed confessions we recognize. A given church must hold to one of several reformed confessions to become a member of our communion, and its leadership must hold to that confession (generally membership in local churches has a much lower bar, for we wish to recognize all those who confess Christ). Technically, this is quite broad, even if it doesn’t always appear so. For example, our communion is associated with postmillennialism. Still, there is no formal expression of a millenarian position in the CREC.

Fundamentally, we seek to practice reformed catholicity. We believe that our reformed catholicity ought to extend to our Reformed Baptist brothers and sisters. Therefore, among the reformed confessions that a church may hold, we also have the 1689 London Baptist Confession. The culture of our communion allows anything from a Reformed Baptist on the one end to a Lutheran-inflected reformed thinking on the other end.

This broadness doesn’t take away from our calling to a depth in our knowledge and love of scripture. Only through deep study of scripture can we move toward sharing in the mind of Christ. That is why we expect our ministers to at least adhere to the fundamental reformed doctrines in our various historical confessions. This adherence gives us boundaries as we dig into the scriptures and seek to grow more and more united in the mind of Christ.

Reformed Catholicity

What do I mean by reformed catholicity? It is two things: guarding the deposit of sound words that the church has always held to and recognizing all who serve Christ as Lord.

I first mean a desire to uphold the central teachings, always taught by the church of Christ as Messiah and Son of God and his historical resurrection for the redemption of our sins. The doctrine of the Trinity defends the first, and the doctrine of the inspiration of the scriptures protects the second. All church doctrine defends either the reality of these truths or refutes false doctrines that obscure or distract from the effect of these realities for the average Christian. We all (in any denomination, federation, or communion) practice a form of theological triage in prioritizing certain doctrines as first, second, and third importance.

Reformed Catholicity is also about recognizing all those who serve Christ as Lord. “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me.” I must offer the ministry of reconciliation to all men. That means I must receive into the church all those whom God defines as church. God defines the (social) boundaries church through his gift of baptism. Therefore, I will receive as brothers all who have been baptized into the name of the Trinity so far as they do not deny him in confession or life. I must recognize the church as God constitutes it, not as I would constitute it.

Reformed Catholicity in the local church.

How does this apply in a local CREC? I can only speak to the Presbyterian-minded CRECs. While it is not a rule in the CREC, the vast majority of churches allow families to join that do not hold to infant baptism. They are not required to baptize their children. Within Presbyterian-minded churches we allow for this because we understand the cultural significance of changing from one mindset to another. It is not a matter of showing someone a verse. We desire to respect the conscience of these families. Interestingly, it can create interesting scenarios in which some of the children in the church take communion, and some do not, but this is how we bear with one another.

In my understanding, it is within the authority of the minister and the elders to call a member to account who fails to recognize the status of their children and present them for baptism, but I believe it is better not to use this authority in this case lest we break something. If you exercise this authority, it is unlikely that the family will remain in which case the status of their children will not be recognized anyway, or you may push them into making a decision they regret, and they will resent you for it, causing division in the church. It is not always right to exercise a given power. So, we seek to follow the example of the gentleness and humility of Christ. In a different scenario, we could use this authority if a Baptist-minded member were to keep his grown son from baptism when that son desires to be baptized and also presents the evidences of a faithful Christian life. This, of course, is an extreme scenario. It also represents a scenario in which the Baptist goes against his own beliefs. However, in most cases, Baptist-minded members who participate in our churches tend to present their children for baptism at a younger age.

Baptist churches within the CREC are expected to have a similar approach albeit from a Baptist perspective.

Reformed Catholicity Across our Communion

So how does that work out in the relationship with the Presbyterian-minded and the Reformed Baptist-minded in the CREC? Presbyterians would argue that the Baptist denies that reformed catholicity, while the Baptist would see the Presbyterian as improperly washed. They both have to give something. For this it’s helpful to go through the fundamental commitments that Council 2023 adopted for the preamble to the CREC constitution.

It means that we receive each other’s ordination. God has given the church the keys of the kingdom. The pastor is entrusted with these keys for the sake of the church. These keys open up the kingdom of heaven and close it through the preaching of the word and through discipline. The ordained pastor recognizes and receives the one who belongs to the kingdom of heaven and refuses the one who does not belong to the kingdom of heaven, as evidenced by that person’s life. At its most basic, a communion, if it to be meaningful, however much they might disagree on various issues, must receive and recognize that their colleagues legitimately exercise the keys of the kingdom of heaven. They do their basic job well.

That means within the CREC, we must receive one another’s baptismal status. The Presbyterian must receive that the son in a Baptist family is not baptized and bear with the fact that he receives this family even though they hold back their children from this gift of God. He can rest knowing that he is not the one who refuses them. The Baptist must receive the Presbyterian son as baptized, even though he is not appropriately baptized. Joe Rigney, in his studies on the London Baptist Confession of Faith has discovered that there has always been a group of Baptists that received infant baptism as “valid but improper.” It is not merely a new teaching among Baptists today. So, there has historically been room within the Baptist understanding to receive an infant baptism.

Accepting the ordination of the ministers in the CREC means that we also receive the communicant status that the elders of a given church confer. If one minister opens the door, the other church cannot close the door unless the man or woman is living in rebellion against God and his church. Again, this is derived from recognizing the ordination of the other ministers and elders in the church of Christ.

While there are difficulties in working this all out in a practical way, I believe this is a good step forward in recognizing that the boundaries of the church and the church’s ministry are God’s to decide, not ours. I don’t know if this system can work. I can still spot tensions within it. However, we are trying to be objective about the church’s current situation while remaining principled in our approach to our ancient and catholic faith.

close up photography of concrete tombstones

How to be Lords of the Universe, Part II

By James

On November 4, 2023

In Church, Witness

Here I seek to apply the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 3 to the church today. Do we live as if “all things are ours?”

I must recognize James Wood’s work on Hoedemaker here, as well. He pointed out the importance place of several of the slogans that I use from Hoedemaker and further contrast them with Kuyper. You can find his article here.

Here is the video:

How to be Lord’s of the Universe, Part 1

By James

On October 21, 2023

In Church

I will be posting my speeches from the Canadian Theopolitan’s conference on my blog. To look at the other speeches (They are not their yet, but will be soon) go to canadiantheopolitans.ca.

Here is my first speech:

Why submit to the civil magistrate?

By James

On August 13, 2022

In Church, Freedom, The Basics

A fourth installment of my series on Romans 13.

Why is it good to submit to the civil magistrate? Our text gives several reasons: because he is established by God, because he provides a particular service to society, because he is there for my good, and because if we do good, we will receive his approval. These are four distinct reasons we can find in Romans 13. Paul wants to establish that the civil magistrate is a good thing, just as the church is a good thing, and marriage is a good thing. If the civil magistrate is a gift of God, it is good for the Christian to recognize the civil magistrate’s proper function in society. We cannot simply reject the place of the civil magistrate for his failures, as our situation tempts many Christians to do.

We’ll look at the meat of Paul’s teaching on the civil magistrate by digging into three questions: “Why is Paul defending the civil magistrate?”, Why submit to the civil magistrate?”, and “What about a civil magistrate that does not approve of what is good?”

Why is Paul defending the civil magistrate?

The history of the exegesis of Romans 13 is a history of over-exegesis and under-exegesis. On the one hand, we magnify the civil magistrate to such an extent that we turn Christians into people without a voice or other ways to resist oppression. Here we argue from the word “submit” and apparently, “submit” means counting every government law as worthy of total submission. Unless it explicitly contradicts Christian teaching. Because, after all, God established him, so to obey his every whim is to obey God.

Suddenly, the Christian becomes the slave of the civil magistrate. And even though the New Testament recognizes that some might have the status of the slave, it does not teach that the Christian ought to arbitrarily let himself be enslaved. This view fails to see why God wants us to submit to the civil magistrate or what the civil magistrate is for. It fails to allow for God’s providence in giving individuals specific responsibilities derived from God and not from the civil magistrate. Finally, it fails to understand that the total submission they demand toward the civil magistrate only belongs to God.

Or we under-exegete the passage and end up ignoring or rebelling against the civil magistrate. We use every little mistake or weakness we see in the civil magistrate as something to cry out against. We forget that he is a gift and primarily view him as an enemy. Or we use his mistakes as an excuse to sin, not only against human law but against divine law. We allow envy and pride to dwell in our hearts, and we begin to curse man, whom God made in his image. That leads to further sinful actions such as lying, stealing, and murder until we are worse than the civil magistrate.

The fact is, we need the rest of the teaching of scripture to fill out our relation to a particular civil magistrate. God gives many and varied examples in the Old Testament of how Israel related to her leaders, and we need the wisdom to apply it. We must also keep in mind the ultimate goal, the kingdom of God. And the means for pursuing that kingdom, which is doing good according to our calling.

Paul is not arguing for a particular type of government. Paul teaches that God ordains the civil magistrate as a gift to man. He argues against Christians who minimize and reject the civil magistrate. He wants the Christian to look to the civil magistrate as protection against evil and support the civil magistrate by doing good.

It is important to see here that Paul is relying on general truths. He is not exploring every avenue of the question of government. He is not investigating every situation a Christian might encounter concerning his civil government. Instead, he demonstrates the importance of working within the status quo that God gives, transforming from within rather than seeking to inaugurate an earthly kingdom of God in opposition to the powers that be. These general promises are why the promise is here: the authorities will reward those who do good. He also demonstrates that God gave the civil magistrate for the good of society. Like other leadership positions such as the Pastor or the husband, Paul views the civil magistrate as a gift from God that fulfills a particular purpose.

Why submit to the civil magistrate?

It’s easy to look at the negatives of what the civil government has done, even to focus on it in an unhealthy way. We love to dwell on the injustices we experience. However, it is crucial in approaching the role of the government to begin with Paul’s perspective: that God intends the government, whatever its failings, for something good. Further, if we believe in the resurrection, the civil magistrate is not irredeemable. Rather, we have a job to do in relation to the civil magistrate to demonstrate the way of redemption through good deeds.

Paul has very positive things to say about the civil government. God gives them the authority to bear the sword as an avenger. They are there to reward good and punish evil. They are keepers of virtue. God has appointed them in this role, even if they might not recognize the appointment of God. That appointment is made through his providences.

God appoints them for his service. They are not just another service like a shoe salesman. The shoe salesmen may serve God, but he is not God’s minister in the sense that the civil magistrate is, or for that matter, the church officer. He does not speak for God. The civil officer and the ecclesiastical officer directly represent, respectively, justice and the mercy of God.

In the providence of God, God provides for all sorts of leaders in society. The civil magistrate is vital in bringing peace and order so that the wicked do not take over and attack and destroy the righteous. For the Christian, the civil magistrate is to be loved and honored because he is from God and ideally should reflect God. He is honored so that he might be encouraged to see who is truly an enemy of the land: not the Christian, but the one who seeks to destroy the good order of God.

They are ultimately a gift. Dealing vengeance according to one’s personal law or a sort of “might makes right” is not healthy for society. God gives the civil magistrate to adjudicate evil and good, not according to any law, but according to his law. Even an unbelieving civil magistrate can (the word can is important; many do not and many Christian civil magistrates do not) understand what sort of person provides stability for society and what creates instability and disorder. In that light, Christians have an important role in demonstrating that subjection to God’s Law is what is best for society.

Ideally, in such a situation, the Christian will also receive commendation from the civil magistrate for doing good. If the magistrate cares about justice and order for all, he will see the valuable life and the excellent example of the Christian even when they must not obey the demands of the magistrate.

What about a civil magistrate that does not approve of what is good?

The fact that our civil magistrate has lost this ability to distinguish between good and evil makes our society so unstable. Citizens who lawfully protest (I speak generally for there are exceptions)) unjust Covid regulations are jailed and mocked, while Black Lives Matter, an organization dedicated to overthrowing good order, is praised. What do Christians do in this sort of situation?

One line in Romans 13particularly helps us. Romans 13:4 says, “For rulers are not a terror to good conduct but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do good and you will receive his approval.” That good is ultimately not defined by the government; the word of God defines it. If we took this statement in some absolute sense, we would almost have to conclude that Paul is lying or is incredibly naïve. However, Paul is neither. Paul is speaking in more proverbial terms.

Doing good will bring reward from the civil magistrate, but not necessarily immediately. If Christians are in a situation where they suffer for doing good, they ought to persist in doing it. Ultimately God sees that, and God sees the civil magistrate. And we trust that eventually, God will work the heart of the civil magistrate in our direction as long as we persevere with faithfulness. Sometimes that takes generations, as it did with the Roman Empire. But suppose we have Christians willing to suffer for righteousness’ sake, who are firm in their duties and firm in standing strong for the gospel and the kingdom of God? In that case, we will produce good order among ourselves and beyond us. Finally, we trust that we will earn the commendation of the civil magistrate.

In his own life, Paul didn’t always have an easy time with the civil magistrate. He was jailed, he was beaten, and he was mocked. However, he had moments where he did receive the approval of the civil magistrate. The Philippian jailer, for example, was moved to come to Christ through Paul’s example. King Agrippa and Festus were both profoundly impressed with Paul.

On a smaller scale, we have an example from the Covid pandemic: Pastor Stephens, who was jailed for his willingness to worship during Covid, had the opportunity to preach the gospel to the Calgary Police Force at a funeral for one of their members who attended his church.

So, we are to give the magistrate due obedience because they are a gift from God, appointed by God for the good of the peace and order of society, and in general, if we continue to do good, even when we suffer for doing good, there is a promise here of the magistrate’s eventual approval for persevering in obedience to God. The suggestion here is that we want not just a passive submission to the civil magistrate but an active submission that seeks the good of the country and the community. Ultimately in the hopes that the civil magistrate might see the goodness of Christ in us. May his name be glorified.