Eyes on Heaven - A Poem

If satan should come again and again
And beat me bloody, still
It would all be worth the death of sin
For in Christ I have my fill.

Dramatic endings matter not
When crossing into heaven,
Truly the fight of faith was fought
When victory’s strength was given.

So peacefully call me home, I pray,
And make me stronger yet,
Herd me with the sheep to stay
That I should not forget,

That You my Lord are all in all
The best that I could know,
And always upon You I will call
Until You bring me home.

So if I should die while not yet old
Please don’t cry for me,
For in His presence I am bold,
And freed from misery.

Longing for a Spouse with a Focus on God

Loneliness is perhaps on of the most deplorable human emotions. Loneliness itself is one of the factors that led God to give a spouse to Adam in the first place. “[…] God said, ‘it is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.’” (Gen. 2:18) So even in our design there is a healthy element within us that can and naturally does long for companionship. As a result many exist in this world emotionally longing for that deep satisfactory bond that can only be found in a good biblical marriage. Certainly, for most, the dream of marriage is inbred into our very core; especially in women who have dreamed about the details of their wedding day and their knight in shining armor since they were young girls. But though this desire can be an appropriately good thing, it is well advised to consider all of our longings through the prism of Scripture and to be able to balance the difference between a healthy longing for a spouse and a sinful preoccupation with that same desire.

To bolster the point that mankind is built to desire marriage: there was a study done a few years back that showed that out of those polled 86.3% of all people that had never been married desired to be so one day (Dr. Norval Glenn, “With This Ring… A National Survey on Marriage in America,” http://www.fatherhood.org/Document.Doc?id=137) Now there were some odd findings in the study such as 19.4% who claim no religion at all but only 8.3% don’t consider themselves religious. But that doesn’t detract from the fact that a vast majority of single people, men and women, are looking forward to marriage one day. A large chunk of those polled do not have the privilege of a godly perspective; this paper is to help those that do.

I have personally known people that looked for a spouse for years, well into middle age, and then in a panic jumped on the first person that would say yes and wound up in horrible marriages that undoubtedly failed to live up to either partner’s expectations. For women specifically, I have seen a tendency that once they start creeping towards their mid twenties they take on some warped view that they are old maids and how are they ever going to get married now? But with this, as with all things, the Bible leads the way; God is sovereign in providing us with a spouse as He is in all other things and to have a healthy view of this we must break away from self-imposed logic and societal expectations and see what God has left us in His word.

To Become Married or Remain Single?

Marriage is a good thing given to us by God and is everywhere commended as such in the Scriptures. But it is not the only option presented to us by the word of God, a fact too many aren’t even willing to consider. We can’t imagine in the midst of our desires and dreaming that our God could have other plans for us then the ones we have for ourselves. This is not a condemnation of marriage, but it is important for the single person with desires for marriage to at least consider the proposition that perhaps God has other plans for you. I wish to say that it is not the common experience that you will never be given a spouse by the Lord; but without considering that you are one of those blessed in another area other than marriage, you may never know.

The passage that will be the focus of our study is 1 Cor. 7:32-35. If you should so decide to study deeper into this passage you will find that vs. 33, 34 have some translational debate over the word divide or it is also translated there is a difference. But I see no reason to distract us with that consideration now as the heart of the passage is hardly affected either way, in my opinion, and after having read the opinions of a number of others in regards to this debate; but, just the same, if you find the two verses holding slightly different emphasis or wording this is the primary cause of the issue.

Next, there is an important reason why Paul is giving this direction. “The recurrence of the formula ‘now concerning…’ at 8:1, 12:1, 16:1 indicates that he is dealing in turn with the points they (the church in Corinth) had raised… The present chapter contains Paul’s counsel concerning various queries in connection with marriage and the home [such as]… ought a Christian to marry?” (Dr. Philip E. Hughes, The Biblical Expositor, I Corinthians, vol. 3, pg. 269) This is why we too are coming here. A young church struggling against the influence of the world they were a part of, yet who desired to be pious, asked these questions of the Apostle in order to know what was best for them in their lives and in service of God. Certainly the modern church can say they face the same uncertainties and assaults while living in the world and should be asking the same questions which are now clearly answered for us in the word of God.

1 Cor. 7:32-35, “I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: but he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.”

¨ He returns to the advice which he had spoken of (vs. 25) but had not yet fully explained, and in the outset he pronounces… a commendation upon celibacy, and then afterwards allows everyone the liberty of choosing what he may consider to suit him best. It is not, however, without good reason that he returns so frequently to proclaim the advantages of celibacy, for he saw that the burdens of matrimony were far from light. The man who can exempt himself from them, ought not to refuse such a benefit and it is of advantage for those who resolve to marry, to be forewarned of those inconveniences, that they may not afterwards, on meeting with them unexpectedly, give way to despondency… The meaning is this: “Marriage brings along with it hindrances, from which I should wish you to be free and exempt…” Mark the kind of exemption from anxieties that he desires on behalf of Christians – that they may devote to the Lord all their thoughts and aims. This, he says, belongs to celibacy; and therefore he desires all to enjoy this liberty… Observe the Apostle’s moderation. Though he knew the vexations, troubles, and difficulties of the married life, and, on the other hand, the advantages of celibacy, yet he does not venture to prescribe… [rather,] taking into view their ability, he here declares in express terms, that he points out, indeed, what is most advantageous, but does not wish to impose a necessity on any one. And here you have two things worthy of observation. The first is, for what purpose celibacy is to be desired – not on its own account… but that we may cleave to God without distraction – that being the one thing that a Christian man ought exclusively to look to during his whole life. The second thing is, that no snare must be put upon men’s consciences, so as to keep back any one from marriage, but that every one must have liberty allowed him. (John Calvin, Commentary on 1 Corinthians)

¨ Take heed that neither lust nor rashness thrust you into a married condition before you see reasons to invite you to it as may assure you of the call and approval of God. For… it is God whom you must serve in your married state, and therefore it is proper that you take His counsel before you rush upon it, for He knows best what belongs to His service… If the consent of parents is necessary, much more is the consent of God… Every man is bound to choose that condition in which he may serve God with the best advantages and which tends most to his spiritual welfare and increase in holiness… By these conditions you may know what persons have a call from God to marry and who have not His call or approval. First, if there is a peremptory will or command of parents to children that are under their authority, and no greater matter on the contrary to hinder it, the command of parents signifies the command of God… Second, they are called to marry who have not the gift of continence and cannot by the use of lawful means attain it and have no impediment that makes it unlawful to them to marry (1 Cor. 7:9)… Third, another cause that warrants marriage is when upon a wise casting up of all accounts it is apparently most probable that in a married state one may be most serviceable to God and the public good, that there will be in it greater helps and fewer hindrances to the great ends of our lives: the glorifying of God and the saving of ourselves and others…. Here it must be carefully observed, first, that the two first reasons for marriages, sexual desire and the will of the parents, or any such like, have their strength but in subordination to the third, the final cause or interest of God and our salvation. This last reason… is of itself sufficient without any of the others, but none of the others are sufficient without this. If it is clear that in a married state you have better advantages for the service of God and doing good to others and saving your own souls than you can have in a single state of life, then it is undoubtedly your duty to marry; for our obligation to seek our ultimate end is the most constant, indispensable obligation. (Richard Baxter, “The Godly Home,” pp. 19-22)

¨ […] the reason why I have advised… a single rather than a married life, for those to whom God hath given the gift of continency, is, that those who are Christians might live as free from such cares as divide and distract men’s and women’s minds…, the single person that hath a spiritual heart, disposed to pious performances, being free from other distractions and cares, caused by worldly occasions, will spend all his thoughts about his duty toward God, and how to please Him… [H]usbands and wives are under some obligations to please each other by [various amusements], which, though not in themselves sinful, yet take up time, which those free from such relations may spend more religiously. (Matthew Poole, Commentary on 1 Corinthians)

Marriage is a beautiful thing given to mankind, for a variety of reasons, as a gift from the Lord; let’s not allow that fact to go unnoticed here. But let us also see that, if possible for the individual, being single is not only a gift from the Lord as well but a preferable one. Not many are able to forge this life alone, not many are able to free themselves from the burden of sexual desire, not many feel equipped to handle the burdens of this life by themselves; but, for those that can it is a blessed gift you have been given. How many of you that are struggling with the idea of marriage and the overwhelming desire you may be experiencing in your life towards that end have stopped to consider that the Lord may have given you this gift of single living that you may live with uninterrupted focus on Him? You must consider it, for it may indeed be your calling! That Puritan giant Richard Baxter gave some very good terms with which to test that against. And if you test this against your own life and find that you are able to confirm a calling to a single life then it is not a curse but a blessing as is clearly evidenced here by the Apostle Paul.

Now, as I have said, it is not the common gift or expectation that most men and women will be able to productively live outside of the confines of marriage. So, even if, upon testing the will of the Lord and spending some time in prayer over the matter, you are still convinced that your calling is in marriage, let not your heart be troubled by your current predicament. For right now, at this moment, the Lord is affording you the time to prepare yourself for the life to come. He is blessing you with a moment of your life wherein your primary focus is Him and you are not encumbered by other concerns. Be thankful for what He has given you now and wait patiently on what He will provide for you down the road. Don’t consume yourself with the details of how you will ever manage to meet a spouse and get married when you see no hope of such a reality right now. For we serve a sovereign Lord and He is not just in control of all other things with the exception of a spouse for you; but indeed, if He has determined you should be married, He has already selected the perfect mate for you and will in His time provide the means for you two to be together. Paul tells us in Romans 8:25 that “if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.” Be patient, trust in the Lord in this matter as with all others and take advantage of the time He has graciously given to you now. Simon Kistemaker, in his commentary on these verses, says that one of the focuses of the entire passage is that whether married or single we “must leave [our] worries with the Lord.” And I pray that it be so!

You may be called to be married or you may be called to be single; but, in whatever your calling, make sure your focus is on God and His glory. Trust in Him to show you the direction He has chosen for your life and that He will provide the means to make that direction happen. Wait patiently on the Lord; He knows what is best for you and what the best time to reveal it in your life undoubtedly is. You can obsess over the details and kick against the goads, you can force your will into the matter tired of waiting for a result; but be careful in such an instance that you don’t end up in the belly of a great fish being disciplined by the Lord. Consider this though, should you wait and submit yourselves to the Lord and His will alone, I can promise with no reservation that your life will blessed beyond expectation and it will all have been worth it in the end. If you are struggling here, I pray your burdens be lightened and your faith invigorated that you may know that the tunnel of despair always leads to bright sunshine when it is the Lord that directs your path. Amen.

Being Theologically Minded

This is an excerpt from "Biblical Theology" by Geerhardus Vos. In it he discusses the attitude of his time towards theology. As I read it I was convinced that like things can be said of our own time. He says,

"In the words of Thomas Aquinas, Theology 'is taught by God, teaches God, leads us to God.' After suffering much from the anti-intellectual and anti-doctrinal temper of our times, Theology is perhaps in somewhat better repute now than in [recent history]. This change of attitude is to be welcomed, even though it must be confessed that even in conservative Protestant circles Theology is still far from receiving the attention and respect which, as the knowledge of God, it ought to have."

Now I readily confess that this is not true in Christianity in general. But I do see an element of this coming to light in the Reformed church. More and more people are leaving their blissful ignorance behind and seeking a deeper understanding of God and what He has revealed to us in His word. Undoubtedly it will be clear that we may only be in the infant stage of such an appreciation for theology, but we are seeing evidence that among Reformed men there is a push to return to our theological roots. Vos goes on to speak as to what theology is and in his description also provides us with proper motivation to study Theology.

"According to its etymology, Theology is the science concerning God. Other definitions are either misleading, or, when closely examined, are found to lead to the same result. As a frequent instance, the definition of Theology as the 'science of religion' may be examined. If in this definition 'religion' be understood subjectively, as meaning the sum-total of religious phenomena or experiences in man, then it is already included in that part of the science of anthropology which deals with the physical life of man. It deals with man, not with God. If, on the other hand, religion be understood objectively, as the religion which is normal and of obligation for man because prescribed by God, then the further question must arise, why God demands precisely this and no other religion; and the answer to this can be found only in the nature and will of God; therefore ultimately, in thus dealing with religion, we shall find ourselves dealing with God.

From the definition of Theology as the science concerning God follows the necessity of its being based on revelation... All spiritual life is by its very nature a hidden life, a life shut up in itself. Such a life we can only know through revelation... The inward hidden content of God's mind can become the possession of man only through a voluntary disclosure on God's part. God must come to us before we can go to Him... He is a Being infinitely exalted above our highest conception... This emphasizes the necessity of God's opening up to us the mystery of His nature before we can acquire any knowledge concerning Him.

Still a further reason for the necessity of revelation preceding all satisfactory acquaintance with God is drawn from the abnormal state in which man exists through sin. Sin has deranged the original relation between God and man. It has produced a separation where previously perfect communion prevailed. From the nature of the case every step towards rectifying this abnormality must spring from God's sovereign initiative. This particular aspect, therefore, of the indispensableness of revelation stands or falls with the recognition of the fact of sin."

So then, Theology is God's revealing Himself to us and our studying of that revelation is a result of a merciful God condescending to the elect that we may know who He is, what He requires and, where possible, why that is. Theology, which has been so criticized in shallow Christian circles as too complex and cumbersome, is actually an act of divine love and a part of His redemptive plan for mankind that we may return to the harmonious communion we had with Him before sin had created a chasm between us. With that understanding, may an appreciation for Theology, and the study of it, be ever more prevalent in the Church today.

Pr. 29:18, "Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint; but happy is he who keeps the law."

The Biblical View of Paedocommunion

There is an ever growing segment within the Reformed church advocating paedocommunion. Among its more noted supporters we find men like RC Sproul Jr., Peter Leithart, Douglas Wilson, R.J. Rushdoony, James B. Jordan, Gary North, Steve Wilkins and N. T. Wright. Granted a large chunk of those listed are aligned with the Federal Vision crowd, but they have a following in the Reformed churches just the same. So, with this voice growing, it behooves all of us to not merely agree or disagree with what we have presupposed to be true but to do a little research into what our Bibles say, what the position of the Reformed Church has been historically, and what our Reformed Confessions say as well.

The Commentaries

Part of the argument in favor of paedocommunion is that we as Reformed Christians believe in infant Baptism, if we do that should we not also include them in Communion? We will start our answer by considering the biblical text of 1 Cor. 11:27-30, although it is most appropriate to read and study 11:17-34 for the whole context given here; yet for brevity’s sake we will confine our consideration to the four verses mentioned. It is said that this passage is dealing exclusively with the particular sins of the church in Corinth. Thus to use it in terms of whether or not it would be appropriate to admit a child, based on whether or not they are able to examine themselves, is incorrect. But, as I will show, it is almost universally accepted in the Reformed church that this passage specifically is to be applied not just to the specific situation in Corinth, not just to adults, but also to children. Let us look at some commentaries on this issue.

John Calvin says in discussing these verses, “Some restrict it to the Corinthians, and the abuse that had crept in among them, but I am of the opinion that Paul here, according to his usual manner, passed on from the particular case to a general statement, or from one instance to an entire class." Calvin goes on to paraphrase the examination command as follows, "If those that eat unworthily are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, then let no man approach who is not properly and duly prepared. Let everyone, therefore, take heed to himself, that he may not fall into this sacrilege through idleness or carelessness… If [a communicant] aspires after the righteousness of God with the earnest desire of [their] mind, and, humbled under a view of [their] misery, dost wholly lean upon Christ’s grace, and rest upon it, know that [they] are a worthy guest to approach that table…" Calvin’s Commentaries, vol. 20, pp. 385, 387 – 388

Simon Kistemaker says, "[In dealing with the specific sins of the Corinthians,] Paul confronts them. But the text has a message for the universal church, too. Christians should never regard the celebration as a mere ritual. Rather, sincere believers ought to anticipate the Lord's Supper." He goes on to say, "Is Paul counseling the Corinthians to conduct self-examination before coming to the Lord's table? Should a pastor exhort the parishioners to examine themselves before they celebrate Communion? The answer to these two queries is a resounding yes… First, with the adversative but Paul prescribes self-examination for everyone who desires to partake of the bread and the cup of the Lord. He understands the word man generically to exclude no one… The present tense of the imperative verb to examine indicates that anyone who partakes of the Lord’s Supper must examine himself regularly… After due self-examination they must approach the Lord’s table with genuine love for both the Lord and their fellow man. This holds true for all Christians everywhere. They are to come to the Communion table with hearts attuned to God and the Scriptures… In brief, the table of the Lord tolerates neither unbelief nor disobedience. It is for those people who express true faith in Jesus Christ and proclaim His death in expectation of His return." New Testament Commentary, vol. 7, pp. 400 – 401

Thomas Watson says on 1 Cor. 11:28, “It is not enough that others think we are fit to come, but we must examine ourselves… before we come to the Lord’s table, we are to make a curious and critical trial of ourselves by the word.” The Lord’s Supper, pg. 41

As far as Reformed commentaries go, I could continue listing them here but it is easily known that the comments would be in agreement with each other just as the three I have included are (granting that there may be, as there usually is, some dissenters to be found). It is apparent that if there is a need to examine oneself when coming to the table then it is a necessarily prohibitive requirement for most young children. They are morally immature at best and devoid of any real understanding in life beyond whatever self-interest they are momentarily caught up in. To assume that a young child has the capability of giving a credible profession of faith or has the ability to adequately self-examine in preparation for the sacrament of Communion runs contrary to common experience and violates the clear command given to us in Scripture.

Systematic Theologies

Here too the issue of who is to be admitted to the Lord’s table is dealt with by most. And they too sound off in accordance with all of the other resources we may study. Let us see what they say.

“It is plain from the… nature and design of this sacrament, that it is intended for believers; and that those who come to the table of the Lord do thereby profess to be His disciples…, so those who partake in the Lord’s supper, do thereby profess to be Christians. But to be a Christian a man must have competent knowledge of Christ and of His gospel. He must believe the record which God has given of His Son. He must believe that Christ died for our sins; that His body was broken for us. He must accept of Christ as He is thus offered to Him as a propitiation for sin… Our Church… teaches that it is required of them who would worthily partake of the Lord’s supper, that they examine themselves, of their knowledge to discern the Lord’s body, of their faith to feed upon Him, of their repentance, love, and new obedience… It is no valid objection to the doctrine that faith, love, and new obedience are the qualifications for an acceptable approach to the Lord’s table, that under the Old Testament all the people were allowed to partake of the Passover. This only shows the difference between what God demands, and what fallible men are authorized to enforce. It cannot be doubted that it was required of the Jews in coming to the paschal supper that they should believe the fact of their miraculous deliverance out of Egypt; that they should be duly grateful to God for that great mercy; and that they should have faith in the promise of that still greater redemption through Him of whom their paschal lamb was a divinely appointed type.” Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, pp. 623-625

“What do our standards teach as to the qualifications for admission to the Lord’s supper…? Children born within the pale of the visible church, and dedicated to God in baptism, when they come to years of discretion, if they be free from scandal, appear sober and steady, and to have sufficient knowledge to discern the Lord’s Body, they ought to be informed it is their duty and their privilege to come to the Lord’s supper.” A.A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, pg. 644

“[…] the Lord’s supper was… instituted… only for those who earnestly repent of their sins, trust that these have been covered by the atoning blood of Jesus Christ, and are desirous to increase their faith, and to grow in true holiness of life. The participants of the Lord’s supper must be repentant sinners, who are ready to admit that they are lost in themselves. They must have a living faith in Jesus Christ, so that they trust for their redemption in the atoning blood of the Savior. Furthermore, they must have a proper understanding and appreciation of the Lord’s supper, must discern the difference between it and a common meal, and must be impressed with the fact that the bread and wine are the tokens of the body and blood of Christ. And, finally, they must have a holy desire for spiritual growth and for ever-increasing conformity to the image of Christ.” He goes on to say as to those that are excluded even within the church that the following exception must be noted, “Children, though they were allowed to eat at the passover in the days of the Old Testament, cannot be permitted to partake of the table of the Lord, since they cannot meet the requirements, for worthy participation. Paul insists on the necessity of self-examination (1. Cor. 11:28)…, and children are not able to examine themselves. Moreover, he points out that, in order to partake of the supper in a worthy manner, it is necessary to discern the body, 1 Cor. 11:29…, And this, too, is beyond the capacity of children. It is only after they have come to years of discretion, that they can be permitted to join in the celebration of the Lord’s supper.” Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 656 – 657

“It is absurd to speak of... heathens and infants, who from the order of Christ are removed from this sacrament, both because they are not capable of the examination (which is required here, as infants) and because they are not Christians and in the covenant (as… the heathen, to whom, therefore, the seals of the covenant do not belong).” Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 3, pg. 451

The Confessions

Now let us look at the Reformed Confessions and see what they say on the matter. To start with, all of them cite 1 Cor. 11 as a text for showing what is required in order to come to the Lord’s table. This, in and of itself, is sufficient to show that the text has never been considered to be exclusive to the church at Corinth and has application to the church universal.

The Belgic Confession says, “[…] we receive this holy sacrament in the assembly of the people of God with humility and reverence, keeping up amongst us a holy remembrance of the death of Christ our Savior with thanksgiving, making there confession of our faith and of the Christian religion. Therefore no one ought to come to this table without having previously rightly examined himself, lest by eating of this bread and drinking of the cup he eat and drink judgment to himself.” Article 35

The Westminster Confession of Faith says, “Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament; yet, they receive not the thing signified thereby; but, by their unworthy coming thereunto, are guilty of the body of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Him, so are they unworthy of the Lord’s table; and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto.” 29.8

The Westminster goes on to say in the Larger Catechism that those that receive the Lord’s Supper must “[…] heedfully discern the Lord’s body, and affectionately meditate on His death and sufferings, and thereby stir up themselves to a vigorous exercise of their graces; in judging themselves, and sorrowing for sin; in earnest hungering and thirsting after Christ, feeding on Him by faith, receiving of His fullness, trusting in His merits, rejoicing in His love, giving thanks for His grace; in renewing of their covenant with God, and love to all the saints.” Q. 174

Then, lest anyone should still think that a young child should be able to perform these duties required of all those coming to the Lord’s table, it goes on to say, “The sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper differ, in that baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the Lord’s Supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in Him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.” Q. 177

The Heidelberg Catechism says, “Who are to come to the Lord’s table? Those who are displeased with themselves because of their sins, but who nevertheless trust that their sins are pardoned and that their continuing weakness is covered by the suffering of Christ, and who also desire more and more to strengthen their faith and to lead a better life. Hypocrites and those who are unrepentant, however, eat and drink judgment on themselves.” Lord’s Day 30, Q. 81

Zacharias Ursinus writes this in relation to question 81, “[Only those should be admitted] 1. Who acknowledge their sins, and are truly sorrowful for them. 2. Who trust that their sins are forgiven them by and for the sake of Christ. 3. Who earnestly desire to have their faith more and more strengthened, and their lives more holy… It is in these things that a true examination, in order to a profitable approach to the Holy Supper, consists. Paul speaks of this in… 1 Cor. 11:28… Those who have the consciousness that they possess these things; or, to express it in other words, those who have faith and repentance, not only in possibility, but actually, ought to come to, and partake of, the Lord’s supper. Infants are not capable of coming to the Lord’s supper, because they do not possess faith actually, but only potentially and by inclination. But here actual faith is required, which includes a certain knowledge of what God has revealed, and an assured confidence in Christ; it also requires the commencement of a new obedience, and purpose to live godly; and also an examination of ourselves, with a commemoration of the Lord’s death.” Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, pp. 424 – 425

The notes in the 1599 Geneva Bible agree with this all when it says in relation to 1 Cor. 11:28, “The examination of a man’s self, is of necessity required in the Supper and therefore they ought not to be admitted unto it, which cannot examine themselves: as children, furious and mad men, also such as either have no knowledge of Christ, or not sufficient, although they profess Christian religion; and others such like.”

One of the things you can see becomes a contingent part of self-examination is a base knowledge which is required for a credible profession of faith. Thomas Watson addresses this well and says, “There ought to be a competent measure of knowledge, that we may ‘discern the Lord’s body’. As we are to ‘pray with the understanding’ (1 Cor. 14:15), so ought we to communicate at the Lord’s table with understanding… They that know not the mystery, feel not the comfort. We must know God the Father in His attributes, God the Son in His offices, God the Holy Spirit in His graces. Some say they have good hearts, yet lack knowledge; we may as well call that a good eye which lacks sight.” The Lord’s Supper, pg. 42

Summary

As has been clearly evidenced in this paper it is the summary position of the Reformed faith that paedocommunion is wrong. It is also to be readily admitted that while there is nothing in the New Testament that nullifies the practice of baptizing our infants as the Old Testament Jews circumcised them, that 1 Cor. 11 is a clear mandate that children are not to be admitted to the Lord’s table; which does nullify the previous admission of them to the Passover meal. If it be said that 1 Cor. 11 is misapplied in refuting the practice of paedocommunion, then it is sure that the Reformers, the Puritans, Reformed theologians, and our Confessions alike are all misapplying the same verse. A more unreasonable proposition I can hardly imagine. To practice paedocommunion goes against the Bible, the Confessions, our clear historical evidences, our greatest theologians, and our greatest Systematic Theologies. The issue is not that the Church has not always been firm in the practice of keeping children from the Lord’s table; it has. The issue is when men try to reconcile, apart from the word of God, things that cannot be reconciled. All of our study here was firmly rooted in the Bible and 1 Cor. 11 was quoted in every instance specifically. To dismiss the passage because it doesn’t agree with a position we have embraced is dangerous. All of the evidence points to the fact that children are not to be permitted to the Lord’s table until such a time as they are able to give a credible profession of faith which requires that they are knowledgeable and cognitive enough that they are able to examine their own hearts to see if they are living with unrepentant sin or not.

I don’t doubt that some of the motivation for churches and parents wishing to include the children stem from a good place. They want to see the children nourished by this sacrament. But good intentions can still be dangerous. Uzzah had good intentions when he reached his hand out to steady the ark as it looked as if it was falling. Yet God had commanded that he was not to touch it and when he did he was killed on the spot (2 Sam. 6:6-7). Please don’t forget the warning the Apostle Paul has given us here, and which is reaffirmed by all who we have looked to in this study, that the Lord will bring judgment upon those that partake in an unworthy manner. “For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many are dead.” (1 Cor. 11:30) Not that the Lord has instantly killed every person that has ever violated this command. But why would we, parents of covenant children, seeking their good in the Lord, test His mercy on our children? His wrath is nothing to be trifled with and it is clear that by leading our children to partake in an unworthy manner we are putting them in danger of facing the wrath of God. What we had hoped was for their good can be for their ruin; as I said before, good intentions can be dangerous.

I don’t find it even a little odd that the men that have embraced that heresy known as Federal Vision or that heresy known as New Perspectives on Paul would also embrace leading their children to ruin. The Federal Vision crowd are sacramentalists and over-esteem the salvific benefits bestowed upon those that participate in the sacraments. It is no great wonder to me that a defrocked minister with radical opinions in a variety of areas such as RC Sproul Jr. would embrace such thought. But the cry of semper reformanda, which so many use to justify any radical shifting in the position of the Church, isn’t advocating change for the sake of change or following heresy down dangerous paths. If we have erred and the Lord shows us we have erred then we must change. But where everything we have depended on for the last five hundred years is in basic agreement, and is verified by the word of God, then we must hold strong to biblical truth and insist that those that call themselves Reformed do so as well. If our logic seems to fail us as to why we would baptize our children but not admit them to the Lord’s table then let us study each of the sacraments to see why that is so. Switching the administration of one or the other simply to match the two together in a form that is palatable to our feeble understanding will in this case, and in all others, lead to ruin. If there appears to be issues in passing from the Passover to the Lord’s supper then we must do the same, not come to a conclusion simply to reconcile the two. If we fail to do so we become like the world and we make the word of God to be a liar, which it is not. The word of God stands true and where we cannot reconcile apparent contradictions we must pray to the Lord to show us the correct position, study, and wait patiently for Him to answer our prayer. Therein are the keys to orthodoxy, which is essential to the health of the Church.

May the Lord use this to His glory and the edification of any who may read it I pray, Amen.

Irenic Christianity

Irenic is a word that until a year ago, or maybe a year and a half, I wasn’t familiar with. It’s certainly not a common word that we would run across in our day to day lives. In fact it’s probably a little archaic at this point as a look at the etymology will show that it was in use from around 1660 to 1860; it is no wonder that most of us haven’t heard of this word! But as out of date as it may be to the common language of the masses, it is not so within Christianity, or at least it shouldn’t be. As a matter of fact Webster’s New World Collegiate Dictionary Fourth Edition gives the following as a definition of Irenics, “The doctrine or practice of promoting peace among Christian churches in relation to theological differences.”

So, to be irenic is to promote peace among your fellow Christians in spite of whatever theological disagreements we may have. Do some further research and you will see that peace is a synonym for unity. Do still more and you will find the word peace some 400 times in our Bibles (at least in the KJV). I am not saying every single instance it may be used as synonymous with unity, but the concept exists prevalently throughout the word of God.

Let me start this discussion by saying that this concept is not advocating peace at all costs. We are seeing today a trend where that is exactly what is being promoted, including where heresy is abounding. Unity in place of truth isn’t worth anything. But, wise and mature Christians, with the word of God leading the way, can readily see that a great number of the differences between Christians are not spiritual essentials. In cases such as those it is vital to the health of the church that we be irenic.

Far too often though we are not irenic at all, we are flat out hostile to one another. The problem exists purely because of sin. Whether it is a legalistic overestimation of some personal preference, or legalism in the true sense of the word, or a particularly nasty disposition that seeks to dominate others through useless debate, it is all sin. Who can say that at some point they haven’t been viciously attacked over such a spiritual nonessential? We all have, perhaps many of us have been the ones viciously attacking, even if only sporadically or over one specific pet issue.

My fellow Christians, this should not be so! Ps. 133 is dedicated solely to this issue. It says,

“Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious oil upon the head, running down on the beard, the beard of Aaron running down on the edge of his garments. It is like the dew of Hermon, descending upon the mountains of Zion; for there the Lord commanded the blessing – life forevermore.”

John Calvin, in his commentary on this verse, sets the stage for what it was responding to. He says,

“He sets forth the goodness of God in exalted terms, the Jews having by long experience of intestine feuds, which had gone far to ruin the nation, learned the inestimable value of union… We…, who were naturally brethren, had become so divided, as to view one another with a more bitter hatred than foreign foe…”

Oh how it would behoove the modern Reformed church to gain the same wisdom so bitterly gained by the Jews of old! We are separated by chasms that are filled with so many frivolous things! I would guess that, other than someone whose job it is to know such things, most of us can’t even name all of the Reformed denominations in the USA alone, yet alone the world. Do we not yet see the cost of such disunity? Have we not seen the spiritual fall of Germany, Geneva, England, Scotland, The Netherlands, and now America too? Are we blind to such things? Did we miss the fall of Princeton that is now a disgusting example of secular religion falsely parading itself around as a Christian seminary school? The same can be said of Harvard and many others. We see the current decline of Erskine and Covenant. All because of disunity, and we have now seemingly lost once great bastions of faith and truth to liberal ideology. The Church is no different and continues to splinter into smaller and smaller groups. Radical opinion and unbiblical foundations are being laid because the orthodox are allowing themselves to be marginalized over trivial disagreement. The Church is not irenic, it is schismatic.

Calvin goes on to say,

“There can… be no doubt that the Holy Spirit is to be viewed as commending in this passage that mutual harmony which should subsist amongst all God’s children, and exhorting us to make every endeavor to maintain it. So long as animosities divide us, we may be brethren no doubt still by common relation to God, but cannot be judged one so long as we present the appearance of a broken and dismembered body.”

What Calvin is speaking of here we have seen and are seeing happen right now in front of our eyes. And his point is entirely valid, how do we call ourselves one body figuratively when we are so broken physically? We are separating ourselves from one another, no doubt the devil himself rejoices every time there is another church split. Not that there may not be good cause at some point to leave an apostate denomination. But why then do we splinter into smaller and smaller groups? In such cases leave, that is fine, but join another denomination that has a good reputation for faithfully preaching the word of God and living by what they are taught. Seek to be united with other Christians always! But even more than that we must seek to be reconciled to those we had to leave behind. Calvin says what many today would almost certainly be unwilling to say in dealing with this issue.

“As we are one in God the Father, and in Christ, the union must be ratified amongst us by reciprocal harmony, and fraternal love. Should it so happen in the providence of God, that the Papists should return to that holy concord which they have apostatized from, it would be in such terms as these that we would be called to render thanksgiving unto God, and in the meantime we are bound to receive into our brotherly embraces all such as cheerfully submit themselves unto the Lord.”

We are to seek unity as fellow brothers in Christ; it must be a primary objective that we discipline ourselves to achieve. When we fail to do so it is a sin and we must confess it like all other sins and pray the Lord will give us an amiable spirit that is irenic both individually and as a Church. When division is unavoidable then we must remain irenic to the point that should it please the Lord to return the offenders from their apostate condition we are willing and ready to receive them back in brotherly love, the Catholics included.

Lest we think as laymen that this is a condition of Church leadership and academics alone we need but look around at the every day treatment of others over the slightest disagreements to see it is a sin that has infected us all. The Social platforms that are so prevalent today readily show this to be true. But, more than how we act with strangers and fellow Christians in general, look at how we treat each other in our families. It takes less to cause division in a family than any other type of relationship on this earth. Remember the last real argument you had with your spouse and with shame, as I do, remember the evil things that were said in anger, almost assuredly there was no sense of irenic love in that moment. The harm we can do in such a little amount of time! Whether our family or our fellow Christians, irenical dispositions would solve a multitude of sin. It would do us all well in disputes to remember such passages as Jas. 3:2-12 and 1 Jn. 2:9-11.

In the opening of this paper I said it was about a year or so ago that I learned this word. The reason it left such a lasting impression on me was because it was in the midst of a debate over a fairly controversial issue and all the parties involved remained irenic, which at the end of the discussion one of the participants thanked everyone for. I was reminded of it recently because I was starting a discussion with a brother over an equally controversial topic, if not more so, and he was repeatedly going out of his way to be specifically irenic and gracious in his interaction with me. We all have examples where we have seen the opposite of this, but may we all remember the times when we have seen this practiced and then endeavor to do the same in all of our interactions. I leave you with the exhortation from the Apostle Paul found in Eph. 4:1-6.

“I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”

As Matthew Henry has said in his commentary, this is the proper motivation for being irenic with one another. Let us all pray the Lord grow us so that when others think of the character we have we may be said to be truly irenic.

Unity of the Species

One of the fundamental tenets to the Evolution Theory is that man, or specifically the genus Homo from which we get the word Human, existed in multiple species or subspecies. Those species evolved independently of each other in various geographical locations, which is common to multiple theories such as Multiregional Hypothesis and ROAM (Out of Africa theory), and that through interbreeding the species as we know it today eventually replaced some of the others to make them in effect extinct. They all have the multiple species, multiple points of origin, and an eventual disbursement out of Africa in common.

More than the disputed opinions are to be considered here though. The more important consideration is what has been the prevailing motivation for this theory and its growing popularity for the last 150 years? It seems to me that the real thought that motivates their theory is an attack on God and the record He has left us in the Bible. We have in the Scriptures a clear unity of origin and unity of species that stands clearly opposed to the now prevailing world view of Evolution. Can one seriously consider the view presented by these men and not see a consistent attack that answers directly against the word of God? Even the location is intended to stand apart from the word of God if we are to believe, and we do, what the Bible says in Gen. 2. For there it places the location of the Garden of Eden somewhere in the Middle East. It is there that mankind was made, flourished, and proceeded forth to dwell on the rest of the earth.

But I don't believe that it is just a general opposition to God that is the whole motivation. It seems to me that if they deny the creation account and they deny the unity of origin then they start to find reasons to deny original sin and the curse of total depravity. This is why the protestant liberals find it so easy to embrace such thought, they already deny the biblical truth of original sin and find comfort and refuge in evolutionary theory. Charles Hodge says this,

"It is indeed principally for the sake of disproving the Scriptural statement that all men are the children of Adam, and to break up the common brotherhood of man, that diversity of species is insisted upon... It is, however, the direct testimony of the Scriptures on this subject, with which all known facts are consistent; and the common apostasy of the race, and their common need of redemption, which render it certain to all who believe the Bible or the testimony of their own consciousness as to the universal sinfulness of humanity, that all men are the descendants of one fallen progenitor." Systematic Theology, vol. 2, pg. 91.

You see, if what they believe were to be true, then they are not naturally fallen as a result of God's judicial punishment of mankind through the sin of Adam. If they are right then Rom. 5 in general is a lie and specifically Rom. 5:12 which says, "[...] by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." And if all of those things be false then there is no reason to admit to a need for Christ. For there is a chance that you were not descended from Adam and thus imputed guilt never touched your species. The implications of what they believe are far more serious than the illogical arguments they pose in favor of their theories. Christianity continues to try and debate erroneous theories pawned off as facts when in no other realm would we do so. Their foolishness lies not, ultimately, in the error they overlook to accept the theory of evolution, their foolishness lies in the fact they overlook error in order to deny God; that we were created by Him and for Him and in His likeness; that we are fallen and helpless and inclined to sin from the day we are born and that we are in need of the Savior Jesus Christ.

Disputing illogical facts has failed, for the scientific viability of their argument has never been their concern and thus evidence avails nothing. Treat the theory from a purely theological vantage point; denounce their lies confident that the a priori knowledge of the origin of mankind is clearly evidenced by nature and inbred in all of mankind (Rom. 1:19-20). Evangelize them with a sure reliance on the Spirit to apply the truth of the word of God to the hearts of every elect man or woman that you may be led to share the Gospel with. Therein lies victory, a guaranteed victory, and if they fail to listen then shake off the dust from under your feet and move along. We can only state the truth, we are powerless to apply it to their hearts. Let us be faithful and obedient to fulfill our calling to the glory of God.

Principles to be Deduced From Facts

Here Charles Hodge explains one of the key deficiencies in the vast majority of Christianity today. Truth is not subject to preconceived thought. Truth must form our thought and when shown what we have believed is wrong we must abandon such thought and give place to the revealed truth we have been shown.

Speculations on matters of science, unless sustained by facts, are worthless. It is no less unscientific for the theologian to assume a theory as to the nature of virtue, of sin, of liberty, of moral obligation, and then explain the facts of Scripture in accordance with his theories... It is plain that complete havoc must be made of the whole system of revealed truth, unless we consent to derive our philosophy from the Bible, instead of explaining the Bible by our philosophy... It would be easy to show that in every department of theology... men, instead of taking the facts of the Bible, and seeing what principles they imply, what philosophy underlies them, have adopted their philosophy independently of the Bible, to which the facts of the Bible are made to bend. This is utterly unphilosophical. It is the fundamental principle of all sciences, and of theology among the rest, that theory is to be determined by facts, and not facts by theory. - Charles Hodge, "Systematic Theology", vol. 1, pgs. 13-14