Blogs

This post is not an essay, and is not intended to be cohesive in the least. I am preaching on the Lord’s Supper tomorrow (Lord’s Day 28 of the Heidelberg Catechism), and in connection with that I have been going over this passage again in 1 Corinthians. These are thus simply my rough notes on the passage (early on much is not even complete sentences), and I don’t have time or inclination to set them into more orderly form at the moment. Still, I thought someone might find them of benefit even in their present form.

(more…)

It’s interesting that a lot of evangelical churches do stress participation in worship. But usually they don’t mean participation which everyone can engage in (and certainly not all at once, i.e. together). They mean “doing something at the front” – e.g. a skit, playing an instrument etc. It’s not said directly, but to be part of the congregation is not considered participatory.

What therefore happens is that the congregation becomes an audience, and inclusion in “the action” requires getting up on stage (and yes, that is actually what the platform is frequently referred to as, which I think is telling). But all this means is that (1) people are performing, many of whom aren’t really qualified to lead worship in a meaningful way; and (2) those not semi-skilled enough to do that are essentially non-participants; they are “outside the action.”

But worship is something that the whole congregation actively does, and giving bit parts “at the front” is a poor substitute for understanding that “the action” doesn’t happen on stage. The action occurs within the dialogue between God and all His people. When the proclamation of forgiveness, the sermon, and the benediction are given, that is God’s time to speak, and we all engage in hearing Him; when we pray, sing, and confess our faith, it is our time to speak, and He hears us. And when we commune, we eat together with one another and with God. In short, biblically speaking, we are all involved in the action, and for the whole properly-ordered service.

Just an observation triggered by a blog comment by my friend Rogers, as well as by a discussion we had last night in Bible study.

If the fourth century were the twenty-first century….

My former prof has a recent book on paedocommunion – I don’t have it yet myself, though Doug Wilson and Lane Keister are going at it on their respective blogs.

Yesterday, William Hill of the online Covenant Radio did an interview with Venema on the subject. The audio is available here.

In turn, I’ve written this response. Enjoy.

In our worship services recently, the liturgical leader has been explaining various facets of the service, one per Lord’s Day. This Sunday, it’s my turn, and I thought I’d share my outline (if for no better reason than that this blog has been rather inactive of late). (more…)

I am conversing with someone who asked me where infant baptism can be found in Scripture. Here is what I wrote in response.

Thank you for your question. I am glad to see that you are concerned to
follow the Bible in this way. I hope you don’t mind if I take a few
paragraphs to talk about this.

Paul mentions baptism which includes infants in 1 Corinthians 10.2. Of
course, he is referring to an Old Testament event, but as he continues, we
find that he says that the Red Sea and wilderness partaking of water from
the rock and manna were of the same pattern as baptism and the Lord’s
Supper. To be more precise: he uses the language of “tupos” in verses 6 and
11, which is more than “example;” it refers to a pattern or matrix. And this
pattern of Israel was set for “us” (new covenant believers, including
Gentiles), who partake of the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 10.16-22).

(more…)

[Originally posted on my Rabbisaul blog May 26 2007]

I don’t have time at the moment to deal with this document of my alma mater at length. But for now, I’d like to offer a handful of very brief points….

1. Douglas Wilson has engaged the Mid-America faculty on the issue of the ninth commandment, and how the Testimony violates it. This doesn’t seem all that clear to the MARS folk, which I find a bit mystifying. If one identifies a group or groups, and then proceeds to identify a series of errors, surely it is natural to assume that all the errors in view are indeed held by real people, and indeed by the preponderance of the best-known representatives of said groups. Yet the document in question names things that I’m not aware of ANYONE holding, much less anyone among the so-called FV (“big guns” or not). And that is the underlying issue with the failure to name names. Yes, you can omit specifics if everything you say is clear and universal – but that is far from the case. And the result is, of necessity, the defaming of real men with real ministries. How is that not a violation of the ninth commandment?

(more…)

[Originally posted on my Rabbisaul blog Jan 11 2007]

It is interesting to read this attempt at an alternative reading that will supposedly deflate the paedo case.

I have devoted an entire chapter to 1 Corinthians 11 in Feed My Lambs, as well as articles online, so I won’t explore all the facets here. But there are some pertinent things to say with regard to Clark’s post that I think I should address.

Note first of all that Clark frames things in a vertical versus horizontal/sociological cast. Now, this places a certain colour upon the discussion from the outset, since the implication is that the Church is simply a horizontally related body, an object of “mere sociology” (Clark’s own dismissive phrase).

But of course his opponents do not think that way at all. We believe, as Paul himself writes in the preceding chapter, that the bread and cup shared are our mutual participation in Christ Himself. The whole vertical/horizontal structure is suspect to begin with. While we clearly must distinguish Christ from His people, nonetheless Paul writes, the Church is Christ’s body, “the fullness of Him who fills all in all” (Eph 1.22-23). To speak of a Church-oriented interpretation as having to do with “mere sociology” is an affront, not merely to paedocommunion advocates, but to the Church of the living God.

Second, Clark correctly, but nonetheless rather astonishingly, writes this: “In its nature, the Supper is Christ’s covenant with his people.” That is exactly right, and follows very nicely from the analogy to Genesis 17. But I say it is astonishing, because if this is the case, Clark’s anti-paedocommunion position entails the denial of the covenant to the children of believers, whether elect or non-elect, regenerate or not. In effect, the covenant is for adults, or at least, those old enough to profess faith to his satisfaction. This is not the Reformed position, and never has been.

(more…)