Respondeo

Reflections on order

Respondeo

Category: Reformed Theology Page 1 of 2

top view of a family praying before christmas dinner

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

By

On December 4, 2024

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

  1. 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?

top view of a family praying before christmas dinner

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

By

On December 1, 2024

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

  1. 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. 

top view of a family praying before christmas dinner

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

By

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 3rd and 4th 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.

top view of a family praying before christmas dinner

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

By

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.

  1. 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.’”

North east view of Westminster

The Problem with Federal Theology.

By

On November 21, 2023

In Covenant, Genesis, Reformed Theology

Covenant is used in a particular way in scripture. It is used of God’s work of establishing a relationship with fallen man. The one possible reference to a Covenant with Adam is difficult to prove. And considering the use of covenant in scripture, it is difficult to say that Adam was in covenant with God, except by analogy to other covenants. So we argue that this is an implied covenant.

How is covenant used? I would begin with an analogy. Marriage is a covenant. While a mere relationship is not a covenant. So covenant involves a formalized relationship, that is, a relationship that did not exist, but through promises set out with obligations given, something new is formed that was not their before. That is not the relationship with God and Adam, where Adam’s relationship with God is established simply in being made by God and functions more as an analogy between father and son, rather than husband and wife. Later covenants are made in order to establish a relationship with God’s people (Abraham) or are made to restore God’s relationship with his people (God restores covenant with his people after the exile).

So why we can’t we simply extend the word covenant by analogy to other relationships? The problem is that the scriptures already use covenant in a certain way. We either then empty covenant of its content and context until it just means “relationship,” especially when it comes to the next step, an inter-Trinitarian covenant. In this case, succession of covenant is flattened. Or, the scriptural definition of covenant begins to leak into other administrations. The Adamic administration becomes a covenant of works by which Adam must merit eternal life. Or, a covenant between the persons of the Trinity, where the language moves more and more toward a social trinity, even a tri-theism.

page of a holy bible in close up photography

Am I a Theonomist?

By

On October 19, 2023

In Covenant, Hermeneutics, Reformed Theology

I take God’s law in the Old Testament and I believe that the civil magistrate ought to use that law to inform his role as God’s servant.

Does this make me a theonomist? To many the answer is “yes, of course.” And many around me will say that they are theonomists because they believe something similar. This includes the rather strange animal, the theonomic baptist. I do not object to that being a thing. I just find it a strange thing. But the point here is not theonomic baptists per se, but how theonomy has come to mean something like “I want to take the Old Testament Law of God seriously for our civil institutions.”

A prime example (back to the Presbyterian world) is my fellow presbyter, Douglas Wilson in this recent blogpost where he argues that theonomy is one of the things that makes his work and the work of those connected to him attractive. His point is correct. His theonomy is attractive. I’m just not sure you can call it Theonomy.

Perhaps I helplessly push against the winds of history on this point. Words come to mean very different things than the word-coiner’s intentions. This transformation of the word theonomy has been going on for a long time. Perhaps, I am a theonomist.

Perhaps I am too precise about the joists and beams in my intellectual architecture. In my understanding, RJ Rushdoony and Greg Bahnsen see a theonomist as one who holds that the civil law is to be directly applied to the civil magistrate’s role today. I do not agree. I believe in what the WCF calls a “general equity.” That has to be defined, but it is not theonomy. Therefore, the word is historically conditioned by a particular movement in time. I like my theology done decently and in good order, just like my worship, so I prefer to respect that historical moment. Therefore, I am not a theonomist.

For now I prefer to distance myself from the word theonomy, though I happily admire those who might not agree. Without a doubt I also admire Rushdoony and Bahnsen. They brought an important light on a forgotten topic. They are the reason I am much more sanguine about the benefits of Deuteronomy for the civil magistrate than the early reformed may have been. Let the civil magistrate have a Bible. Let him use his Bible to define his task. However, Rushdoony and Bahnsen are not careful in seeing what changed in the light of Jesus Christ. Further, they defined their project in a way that excludes certain ways of approaching this question. Therefore, I am not a theonomist.

Resist the Civil Magistrate God’s Way.

By

On August 6, 2022

In Freedom, Reformed Theology, Witness

As we have worked through the context of Romans 13, we have assumed that Christians are allowed to resist evil in general and evil from the civil magistrate in particular. The immediate context of Romans 13 gives us the way of resistance. We are to put away a desire for vengeance and use the opportunities that God gives us to do good to our enemies; as Christ says, “love your enemies.” And so cause “coals of fire” to be placed on their head. Resistance, according to God’s way, is overcoming evil with good.

Now, this would seek to contradict the call to the Christian “to not resist” the civil magistrate in Romans 13. Yet, Paul says do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. This teaching suggests that there is a way to resist evil. Further, Paul speaks of putting coals on the enemy’s head, another image that is suggestive of what we might call resistance. These contextual clues suggest that what Paul means by “resist” in Romans doesn’t necessarily stretch to the meanings we mean by “resist” in English.

Initially, to speak of resisting the Civil magistrate seems to contradict Romans 13 directly. Part of that is simply a language problem. The resistance that Paul is talking about is an insurrection. Paul preaches against actions that seek to overthrow the existing order that God has established rather than seeking the good of the city. God had quite clearly told the Jewish people in Daniel that they would be part of the Roman Empire, and it was foolish to seek to overthrow it. Romans, though they could be cruel, had a strong sense of fairness in their justice system. For the early church, the Romans were very important for their protection from the predations of fellow Jews. It was necessary then to look at the civil magistrate as appointed by God to protect the righteous, even if the individual magistrates may not have been particularly virtuous. 

Because of the Jewishness of early Christianity, there probably was a portion of early Christians that the zealots attracted. These men sought to bring the kingdom of God by physical violence. And this strain has always continued to be a part of the Christian story, especially at times of great social unrest. Some, for example, will accuse my position of being anabaptist. They fail to understand that the anabaptist position is not merely a theory of resistance but a rejection of the very idea of the civil magistrate. The fact that this accusation can stick demonstrates the failure of our awareness of church history. 

I imagine that some hold to an Anabaptistic position today, perhaps secretly, hiding behind Protestant resistance theory, or more openly. I haven’t come across too many. This reality may be because of the circles I interact with. Some may also sincerely hold to legitimately reformed resistance theory but do not always act in line with it. Though I do not see explicit anabaptistic thought, I believe it is out there. I certainly come across attitudes I am uncomfortable with, even if I cannot pinpoint a bad world and life view.

The sum of this discussion is that there is an attitude toward the civil magistrate that all Christians are called to reject. We are not called to insurrection in order to bring in the kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God does not come by the sword. We do not reject the civil magistrate, but we submit to him as someone who God ordains. 

So then, how do we resist evil? First of all, we put away our desire for vengeance and ensure in our own hearts that we desire the good of our enemies. At the same time, we must instill in ourselves the courage (a better word might be fortitude) to live according to our calling through good times and bad times. Through the Spirit, we can overcome. Through pursuing the goodness fo God, we can overcome. 

A little note on the side, this attitude does not preclude acts of self-defense. Paul speaks of acts of vengeance or places where self-defense is impossible, unrealistic, or ill-advised. Christians may certainly defend themselves and certainly those who they are charged with.

On the other hand, Christians may also recognize through the Spirit that self-defense is not the right choice in a given situation. I think of men like Nate Saint, who, with his fellow missionaries, refused to defend himself against the tribe he was sent to as a missionary. He understood that in his role, his death would be more effective for the sake of the gospel than self-defense. 

So, we want to overcome evil with good. We are granted the right to take vengeance, the civil magistrate has that right. So we take our “vengeance,” through doing good to our enemies   

If that is the Christian way of resistance, what does that look like? What does that look like when the authorities over us work evil against us? 

What does Paul mean by “Don’t be overcome by evil?”  We can think of Cain, who is warned by God, “sin is crouching at your door: its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it.”  When we receive evil in our lives, we want to respond with envy, anger, and malice. Our automatic impulse is to respond to evil in a way that satisfies our evil lusts. And so we become the very evil we war against. We end up mirroring our enemies in our desire to overcome them.  

Another way to be overcome by evil is submission to it; becoming, if you will, “a doormat.” When the government gives evil commands, for example, forbidding us to fulfill our calling before God, we cannot submit to it. Sometimes we have no other choice but to submit to a wicked law and if such is the case, we need not worry; we can be confident in our freedom before God, even if we are not physically able to exercise it. However, when we have a choice, we ought to do what is right to the best of our ability. Being a doormat is just as dangerous for your spiritual well-being as mirroring your enemies. There is nothing holy about foolhardiness. There is nothing sacred about cowardice.

To all this, we can again apply the questions of prudence we discussed last time. We need to begin with the disposition of Christ, gentle and humble. The word “gentle” does not mean without offense rather, it means something closer to self-controlled, well-managed, motivated by faith, hope, and love. The result is that the gentle person is careful not to give unnecessary offense but courageous to offend when necessary. Like Christ with whips in the temple, Christ name-calling Herod, Christ condemning the Pharisees, and Christ who was willing to die for his enemies. 

Regarding Covid, my desire here is to defend my approach and others’ approach to this situation. I cannot read hearts. I do not seek to condemn others for their decisions before God (though I have an exception to this when others bind the conscience of those in their care). However, I believe that I have sought to do good in response to a tyrannical government with evil rules. I do not even consider the various individuals in government as particularly evil, but they did uphold evil and destructive laws. 

We overcome evil, including evil from our government, with good. So, let us do the good that our God has called us to. That brings us now to the main body of Romans 13. Next time we will dig deeper into the role of the civil magistrate.  

Love the Brotherhood. Honor the Emperor

By

On June 22, 2022

In Church, Reformed Theology, The Basics, Worship

(This is the first of a series on Romans 13. The Covid regime has pushed Romans 13 to the front of conversation between Christians. I am working on putting out several articles on the issues that surround Romans 13 to shed more light on the big picture of what God is doing through his instruction in Romans 13.)

Many of the regulations our government put forward during the Covid-19 crisis undermine the fundamental duty of Christians to love one another. While keeping peace with all men, Christians should continue exercising this divine instruction as much as possible. In this sense, I agree with the many memes that say, “to resist tyranny is to obey God.”

Our duty to demonstrate an embodied love is a higher duty than that of honoring the civil magistrate. In fact, honoring and submitting to the civil magistrate is, in Romans 13, subsequent to the call to promote peace. Such an attitude allows the church to do the necessary work of proclaiming the gospel among men. The nature of the civil magistrate is such that it is good for the church to submit to them, for God has established them to bear the sword of vengeance. But the embodied love of the saints for one another remains a higher calling.

The word “embodied” is essential here. “Glorify God in your body,” God says to the Corinthians in the context of warning them about sexual immorality. The way we use our bodies is vital to God. If it is crucial, then the church’s authority as an expression of the power of Christ is an authority that affects the body as well.

I seek to prove this in two parts. First, I will demonstrate that the love of the brotherhood is the highest calling after the love of God. After that, I will seek to illustrate the importance of that love being embodied instead of projected through letters, phones, or screens. 

Before I get to Romans 12 and 13, I will bring in several passages that more clearly point to the priority of the love of the brotherhood. (I assume, of course, that the most important love is the love of God. Brotherly love flows from the love of God and demonstrates that love.)

The most striking passage in this regard is John 13. There Jesus, having washed his disciples’ feet and having expressed his love toward his disciples through the love feast of the Lord’s Supper, says this: “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.” The unique expression of Jesus’ love defines the Christian brotherhood’s love for one another. There is a constant willingness to give oneself for one another, just as Christ gave himself for us on the cross, just as Jesus expressed his love by washing the disciples’ feet.

Christ gives this command to the brotherhood, the Christian church. Jesus is speaking to his disciples, giving them instructions on what it is to be the new Israel. Significantly, this is the central commandment he gives his disciples before going to the cross. This command marks out the church as an alternative community, an alternative community that is defined by the self-giving of Christ. 

Another place where we see the priority of brotherly love is in 1 Peter 2: 17, “Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the Emperor.” Notice the gradations of command. “Fear God.” Obviously, God is first. God is the only one we ought to tremble before truly. God is the only one whose opinion matters in the end. “Love the Brotherhood.” We owe the brotherhood the sacrificial love of Jesus Christ. “Honor everyone… Honor the Emperor.” These deserve honor because of God’s image and their office. The commands of Peter demonstrate priority, however. We owe God, the brotherhood, and then we have duties to others in society. 

The teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians reflects this on a practical level.   In the opening chapters, Paul calls on the Corinthians to prioritize Christ over their attachment to various Christian leaders, but even more the world’s wisdom. Then, in 1 Corinthians 5-10, Paul warns Christians about attachments to the world, especially regarding the temptations of sexual immorality and idolatry. 

One passage that particularly stands out for our purposes is in the first part of chapter six, where Paul warns about settling civil matters before the ungodly civil magistrate (in other places, Paul clearly sees the benefit of the civil magistrate for criminal matters). A deduction from this passage might be that the church ought to oversee her own civil affairs as much as possible, especially when the civil magistrate is ungodly.

The remainder of 1st Corinthians defines the love of the community, especially as it pertains to the practices of worship and the use of each person’s gifts for the sake of the community. Again, we see the priority of the love of the community of Christ.

Now we come to Romans. Romans 13 is sandwiched between calls to love the brotherhood. Romans 12 begins with personal transformation, but that personal transformation turns into the service of love toward the community of God, calling each member to use the gifts of grace given to them for the sake of the community. It all culminates in the words of verses 9 and 10, “Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.” 

Similarly, after the teaching on civil government in Romans 13: 8, Paul goes back to the love we owe one another, “owe no one anything except to love one another.” The teaching on the civil magistrate is sandwiched in the primary commandment of Christ, “just as I have loved you, so you also are to love one another.”

We can make our case even stronger in Paul’s theology of the church in Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians. All emphasize our priority in connecting to our head as the body of Christ. In Ephesians, we are told that we are “raised up with him and seated with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” In Colossians, “you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God,” and “you died to the elemental spirits (a reference to the social order) of this world.” Finally, in Philippians, “But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.”

We are citizens of heaven who do not truly belong to this earth. The order of our affairs is distinct. According to that reality we have the calling that is only second to our fear of God to love one another. 

And in this love of one another, we have Christ as our example, which brings us to our second part, where I seek to demonstrate the importance of embodied love. 

The very act of Christ in washing the feet of his disciples as a demonstration of his love shows the importance of bodily presence in our love of one another. Christ shows his love in a very personal and human way. The fact that Christ has sent his Spirit upon us allows us to call the kindness we do to one another in visiting and sharing good works that we have done to him.   We see this in the teaching on the sheep and the goats before the judgment seat of Christ in Matthew 25. “What you have done to the least of these, you have done to me.”

There is also what we noted in our introduction, the call to glorify God with one’s body, which affects most prominently sexuality, but we can also note, again in 1st Corinthians, how the use of one’s body brings glory or shame to the church of Jesus Christ. Particularly, we can think of the Lord’s supper, where the way the Corinthians have organized themselves is so offensive to God that God tells the Corinthians that it is not the Lord’s Supper they are eating. The way they use their bodies demonstrates their service of God. 

Neither can the body be replaced by letters or other forms of distance communication. Most prominent in this is the example of Jesus Christ, who demonstrated himself through a love that could touch, that could become sick, that could be maimed. God did present himself to his people in the Old Testament at a distance, necessarily behind a veil and through mediaries. However, in his most significant act of love, God becomes flesh so that he can be physically present with his people. Christ has the fullness of the glory of God within him. If we are to imitate Christ’s love, our love should also be physical.

The Christian has the Spirit of Christ. He is a temple, like Christ. That is why corporate worship is so important; we come to see Christ in one another. The church has always taught, based on a chapter like Hebrews 12, that Christ is present in a unique way in the corporate worship of the church. Long-distance communication, whether letters or live streams, cannot take the place of this corporate worship. In the same way, private Bible Study cannot replace membership in the body. We need the body.

Of course, we must take circumstance and necessity into account. I cannot be present with my father and mother at this time, so I use other means. But in the community where God put me, where I am fully able and willing to go, I ought to be a part of the communion of saints. Sickness can take us away from the body, weather, coercion, and persecutions, and God gives us strength in these times. Nothing can keep us from his love, even if our bodies are somehow unable to make it to the communion of the saints. However, if possible, I ought to search out the body and join it regularly for my spiritual health. The arm does no good to the heart if it is not physically present. 

I ought to make a caveat here that some regulation is helpful in a pandemic. There are regulations  I would be happy to follow. There are excellent resources demonstrating a different and wiser path our government may have taken, which considers the flourishing of all parts of society and respects the historical rights of individuals and institutions. One example is the Great Barrington Declaration. But, since the government chose the road of tyranny (as best I understand it), we must figure out how to self-regulate according to the best sources we have on Covid, which isn’t always ideal. Yet even then, we still ought to prioritize the communion of the saints as much as possible.

Therefore, if I owe love to the brotherhood more than I owe submission to the government, and if I that love I owe ought to be embodied, then when governments undermine my love for the brotherhood through mandates, I still ought to fulfill what I owe to my brothers as much as possible. This love can be shown in visiting brothers when we are not allowed to visit. This love can be in showing equal kindness to vaccinated and unvaccinated. This love can be my presence in church for the joy of assembling before the Lord. Because of the importance of the love of the brotherhood, the possibility of fines, mockery, and jail time (all of which have proved relatively low risk if you choose to be non-confrontational and respectful), should be a small price to pay for reflecting Christ in our love toward one another.

In conclusion, the church should count her duties to one another as more important than her duties to the government. There is, however, a big “however” here. Paul notes the importance that as much as possible we ought to have peace with all men. Even where we must obey God before men, we are do so out of a desire for the good of our country, even out of love for our enemies. There is the critical question of prudence in these things. I hope that in our next blog post, we can deal with this question. We also not that we do not dismiss the government entirely even when it acts in a tyrannical fashion. Paul also notes that, properly speaking, the civil magistrate does have a vital role to play which we are called to recognize, submit to, and obey. We owe the civil magistrate for certain services, but that cannot take away from what we owe one another.

A Review of “Aiming to Please” by Rev. Wes Bredenhof

By

On January 21, 2021

In Reformed Theology, Worship

It is good to see another book on the worship of the church.   When we consider the importance the scriptures place on worship, it is an area in which we ought to examine ourselves continually.  Over time we can pick up attitudes toward worship or certain elements of worship that we are not even aware of.  We use the light of the word to uncover our biases in our worship of God continually.

In “Aiming to Please,” Rev. Bredenhof argues that we ought to take into account both the elements that God calls us to observe in his word, and the order God demonstrates in his word with regard to those elements.  Arguably, in our history, the conversation about worship has narrowly focussed on the elements at the expense of thinking about order.  Rev. Bredenhof rightly emphasizes both.  After all, as reformed, we confess that worship is dialogical, and even the most basic dialogue has a recognizable order to it.   

Another critical point for Dr. Bredenhof is the Regulative Principle of Worship; basically, we ought to worship according to the Word of God.  He spends a fair bit of time defending it and arguing that it is foundational for Reformed worship.  I’m not exactly sure why he puts such emphasis on this principle. Those whom he singles out for not emphasizing the Regulative Principle of Worship, would have few problems with the remaining content, of the book.  In fact, they end up arguing for services, which are very close to his proposal. Regardless, he views a conscientious confession of the Regulative Principle of Worship as foundational to his work. 

There is a lot to appreciate in his work. I especially note his work on the confession and absolution in the worship service, his work on the psalms, and his attention to detail.

Unfortunately, the confession and absolution was largely lost in the Dutch tradition, so I am happy to see Rev. Bredenhof bring back a heavy emphasis on it.  While the denomination I grew up in, the United Reformed Churches, have largely regained the practice, the Canadian Reformed churches still have many churches that do not make this a regular part of their worship.  If we are going to grow in our understanding of God’s holiness and the real challenge of our remaining sinfulness, we need a regular confession and absolution.  The practice also helps anchor our identity in Christ, as we weekly deny ourselves, crucify the old man, and find full righteousness in our true identity. 

Rev. Bredenhof’s work on the Psalms is fantastic.  He didn’t fall into the trap of exclusive psalm-singing, which in my opinion is grounded in a juvenile hermeneutic of scripture.  At the same time, he fully lays out the case for why the psalms are so essential to the Christian life.   He calls for ministers to set up a system for singing the psalms so that they can be regularly sung through every year.  It is too bad he is somewhat dismissive of the church calendar later on, for the Anglican and Lutheran liturgical years have resources that would give us a good place to start for such a project. 

Finally, I appreciated his attention to detail.  The scriptures give us a bounty of worship details and teaching for worship.  Therefore it is good to ponder the details of worship.  This does make me wonder why he fails to urge a greater frequency in communion. For we certainly have far more precedent for communion, at least weekly, than for many of the smaller details that he commends with high certainty. Nevertheless, the detail is appreciated and is often thought-provoking. 

That brings me to a couple of negative criticisms.  I did find the book overly reliant on abstractions, especially in its fundamentals.  The simplest definition of the RPW is “the Bible forms our worship.” Or if you like, “You shall not make for yourself a carved image… you shall not bow down to them or serve them.”  In this sense, every church will claim that they are following the RPW. 

In fact, I would argue that historical Reformed, Lutheran, and Anglican worship are all faithful to the RPW to varying degrees.  A case could be made that worship service in a Conservative Lutheran Church is more faithful to the RPW than our own services. I am particularly thinking here of the structure of their service as found in the “Lutheran Service Book” of the LCMS.  Ultimately the RPW is an abstraction and doesn’t really prove anything until you actually examine concrete “orders of the service” through the lens of scripture.

Another example of this is how he uses the rubric of “guilt, grace, and gratitude.” He argues that this order is foundational to the order of the service.  Again this is another abstraction. It is helpful because it helps us see a common pattern. But it doesn’t really find a concrete reality until it finds a form in a sacrifice or the Lord’s Supper.  On its own the pattern does nothing because it could merely be applied to a sermon structure.  The entire liturgy could be the minister talking.  That is actually where Rev. Bredenhof goes for that rubric, the “sermon” of Romans. 

Another negative comment is regarding the lack of scripture.  I was hoping for a robust Bible Study that allowed me to see how scripture forms our worship.  I was somewhat disappointed.  Like my comment about abstractions, this judgment is more of a comment on emphasis than a statement about the entire book.   While Rev. Bredenhof does a good job of pointing to scripture, it ends up feeling somewhat piecemeal. He gives little insight into how our whole liturgical practice is an organic outgrowing from the whole of scripture. 

That being said, I found value in the book.  We live in a time, where, with regard to worship, every man does what is right in his own eyes.  The commands of scripture and the witness of the church stand such an approach.  The scriptures ought to form our worship.   “Aiming to Please” is a good reminder of the importance and necessity of true biblical worship. A reminder, in a time when that is often questioned.  

Grotius and Natural Law

By

On May 13, 2019

In Reformed Theology

It was interesting to find this quote in Ruben Alvarado’s book, “The Debate that changed the West: Grotius vs. Althusius.” I found it very telling. When men like Cornelius Van Til inveighed against natural law, it was this interpretation of natural law that they fought against. I find this reason enough to give Van Tillians some charity when they fight against the new natural law.

“Another fundamental change takes place in Grotius’ definition of natural law. Recall that in the De Jure Praedae Grotius equated the natural law simply with the will of God. In the De Jure Belli et Pacis, however, he makes the natural law totally independent of God’s will; in fact, God’s will becomes a subset of law, which cannot contradict he natural law. He specifically states that his ideas about natural justice and law would not be different even if God did not exist, which he however hurriedly affirms is an idea which involves the gravest sin in entertaining. Now this expression, one of the most famous in the whole work, is not new to him but was often repeated by natural law philosophers and theologians to emphasize the immutability of natural law. However, because Grotius infuses the natural law with an entirely different content, this kind of affirmation makes his teaching revolutionary: natural law becomes totally divorced from the will of God.

Instead, God’s will is another only secondary source of law, distinct from the natural law. Grotius adds some further qualifications concerning the relation of the will fo god to natural law. Reason teaches us to obey it unconditionally; the natural law can be considered the creation of god in the sense that God willed that it be planted in our hearts; in divine law God makes the properties of natural law better visible and more easily executable. Biblical history also confirms the doctrine of the inborn desire for community, by showing that we all spring form the same forefathers, and that parents are to be upheld with special honor and given special (non-absolute) obedience.”

Among the reformed there has been a resurgence of support for natural law theory. This is good. I believe it provides another pillar to strengthen our overall understanding of the world around us. It also provides a useful polemic against those who seek to champion a twisting and warping of nature through homosexuality and other perversities. But I have some qualifications to my support. What I don’t see is the careful work developing a theological language around that tradition that guards us against past failures of the natural law tradition.

Natural Law is a wide-ranging phrase that suggests all sorts of traditions and meanings. It can be a bit of a wax nose in the hands of a theologian who wants to defend his beliefs according to natural law. It’s easy to point out the historical failings of the Van Tillian tradition. He read a form of Grotius’ natural law into the natural law tradition of the reformed. He rejected natural law as Grotius’ natural law. Let’s clarify what he was fighting against. Van Til made errors in his reading of history, but he was no fool. Let us carefully distinguish Christian natural law from other forms of natural law. That likely means that we can’t take the natural law structures of the 16th-century reformers verbatim. We have work to do.

Page 1 of 2

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén