Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani

There is not a lot that needs to be said here as Iranian Muslims are about to execute a Christian pastor for sharing the Gospel in their land; or perhaps there is, but the words are not necessary to reveal the wickedness that is being perpetrated against this man. Please be praying for this brother that the Lord might see fit to spare his life and protect him from the hands of evil.

John 7:7, "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."

Ps. 2:1-4, "Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision."

The History of Reformed Eschatology

I am writing this paper because it has become all too apparent to me that there is a great deal of confusion within the ranks of Calvinist churches as to the history of the various eschatological view points and where the church has historically been found. For instance, it was John Macarthur who declared at his Shepherd’s Conference in March 2007 that only Dispensationalists were truly Reformed and "while it is too late for Calvin, it is not too late for us." (You can listen to his accusations against A- and Postmillennialists here at Grace Church.) Then I have heard repeatedly in the midst of eschatological debate from advocates of Post-millennialism that the only Reformed view is the one they hold. In fact recently the suggestion was put to me that the adherents of Post-millennialism were, “ALMOST ALL THE PURITANS, Jonathan Edwards, Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, B.B. Warfield, Thornwell, and Dabney… the Westminster Assembly, to a degree, have held to it (or significant variations of it). So, say it ain't so, but it's so. "Reconstructionism" has a long and healthy pedigree in the Reformed churches! Amillennialism is NOT Reformed orthodoxy... it's part of Reformed orthodoxy.” With such proud declarations being made I think it necessary to look at whether or not this is indeed the case. With that said, I want to make it clear this is a not a paper dealing with the merits of each point of view, only the history of those points of view.

Princeton and Dutch Reformed Eschatology

I would like to start with an excerpt from Louis Berkhof that sets the tone for this consideration. He says, “Some Premillenarians have spoken of Amillennialism as a new view and as one of the most recent novelties, but this is certainly not in accord with the testimony of history. The name is new indeed, but the view to which is is applied is as old as Christianity. It had at least as many advocates as Chiliasm among the Church Fathers of the second and third centuries, [which is] supposed to have been the heyday of Chiliasm. It has ever since been the view most widely accepted, is the only view that is either expressed or implied in the great historical Confessions of the Church, and has always been the prevalent view in Reformed circles.” (Systematic Theology, 4th Edition, Eerdman’s Publishing, 1968, pg. 708) In the same section dealing with the various millennial views he clearly lays out that the vast majority of the Dutch Reformed crowd were Amillennial and cites specifically Abraham Kuyper, William Hendriksen, and Herman Bavinck (see “Reformed Dogmatics” or “The Last Things” which is taken from those volumes and clearly espouses an Amillennial view) as well as the Princetonian Geerhardus Vos. Berkhof lays the whole thing out in such a manner that it seems inconceivable to him that a view other than Amillennialism would even be considered as substantially the Reformed view and says, “There are some who connect with the advent of Christ the idea of a millennium, either immediately before or immediately following the second coming. While the idea is not an integral part of Reformed theology, it nevertheless deserves consideration here, since it has become rather popular in many circles.” So well beyond the merits of each point of view it is obvious that he finds no overwhelming historical evidence or authority for either the Post or Premillennial view as being Reformed.

I will also say that it is odd to me to hear over and over again that all of the Princeton giants were Postmillennialists. To be certain there were some Postmillennial views espoused by these men, but it would probably be more accurate to call them optimistic Amillennialists than to call them Postmillennialists (at least when compared to the current manifestation of that view). To hear men such as B.B. Warfield cited as such is especially odd to me. If we look at Warfield’s treatment of millennialism he cites the Amillennial position precisely. For instance he says repeatedly that the thousand years “is the whole of this present dispensation” and says that the thousand years in The Revelation is purely symbolical, in fact if anyone has read William Hendriksen’s Amillennial masterpiece “More Than Conquerors” they may notice the language is almost identical. (See “The Works of B.B. Warfield, vol. 2, pg. 643-650 which is taken from an article which appeared in The Princeton Theological Review, vol. 2, 1904 and can be viewed here: Princeton Theological Review.) The reason this is important is twofold in our look at historical evidence for what was supported by these men.

1) If we are to interpret Princeton then we must look at the few places where they are explicitly clear on whether they were Post- or Amillennial. The reality is that there is not a great deal of distinction leveled in their writing between the two with only brief moments of clarity. The cause for that is, I believe, that in their day there was no reason to be distinguishing between one view or the other for the assumed position was in fact, at the very least, optimistic Amillennialism and the real distinction to be sought was in dealing with the assault being waged on the Church by the Premillenarians. For instance Charles Hodge lays out the case that 2 Pet. 3:6-11 is to be understood as a regeneration the result of which is the “introduction of a new heavens and a new earth,” not a Post-mill point of view. He then goes on to say, “[…] in the interval between the first and second advents of Christ, is said to be like a field in which the wheat and the tares are to grow together until the harvest, which is the end of the world.” So with clear examples of his belief in the matter it is impossible to interpret a statement such as “The common doctrine of the Church… is that the conversion of the world… [is] to precede the second coming of Christ” as being expressly Postmillennial without divorcing it from everything he has said to get to that point. (C. Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, pg 851-855, 857-858, 861) No, it is more appropriate to view it through a statement like his son’s which explains, “The Scriptures… clearly reveal that the gospel is to exercise an influence over all branches of the human family, immeasurably more extensive and more thoroughly transforming than it has ever realized in time past.” (A.A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, pg. 568) So, if we are to claim that these men were avid Postmillennialists then we must ignore a great deal they have said, believe that there was a radical shift in eschatological opinion, even in the orthodox Reformed professors, after the very late 1800s. For it is sure that Archibald Alexander and Samuel Miller held great influence over the belief of Charles Hodge, which we have seen, who in turn held great influence over his son, and men like B.B. Warfield who held particular influence on others such as his dear friend Geerhardus Vos, and others such as Machen that came after. So if we are to assume a radical shift I would be interested to know which of these men are to be considered the culprit? For as Geerhardus Vos proclaimed it was the burning question of the time, “[…] which of the two, pre-millennarianism or post-millennarianism, has done or bids to do more good to practical Christianity, or which of the twain can be trusted to do less injury to the cause of religion..” (Pauline Eschatology, pg. 226-227) Notice the understood qualification is not concerning the cause of Amillennialism, only its counterparts. Now, I am not proposing that some of the men mentioned here (particularly the Hodges and Warfield) can be called specifically Amillennial for they seem to have been a hybrid of the two, but they were definitively not specifically Postmillennial either; in fact, Warfield himself detested being called Postmillennial.

2) Now, lest the Premillennialists think the fight within Princeton was between Post- and Amillennialists, I hope I have made it clear that all of these men directly address the historical fact that the Reformed Church has never been Premillennial since the second or third century; though with little or no exception they do not address the other two views. Just as we have seen before, it is said, “The Apostolical Fathers of the Jewish Christian branch of the church, such as Barnabas, Hermes, and Papias, adopted [Chilianism]. It prevailed generally throughout the church from A.D. 150, to A.D. 250, being advocated by Irenǽus and Tertullian. Since that time the doctrine [just presented] has been the one generally recognized by the whole church, while Millenarianism or Chilianism has been confined to individuals and transient parties.” (A.A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, pg. 569) Furthermore, the historical evidence against this point of view cited by a number of these men as being “Jewish in its origin” and “pre-Christian.” This shows abundantly that the view of the Church has not been Premillenarian regardless of the claims of its adherents today. Many Reformed men have found cause to disagree; but, they are all unified in citing no historical evidence that this is a legitimate view of the Reformed faith.

Puritan Eschatology

Then there is the charge that the entirety of the Puritans, not the least of which were the Westminster Divines themselves, were all Postmillennial. In that masterful series of books entitled the “Puritan Papers” this exact subject is dealt with. But the findings don’t match the aforementioned conclusion in the least; it’s quite the opposite in fact.

Following the roots of eschatological doctrine back to the early church fathers the author of the article “Puritan Eschatology,” Peter Toon, begins by differentiating between Chiliasm and Augustinian eschatology. He explains Augustine’s view as what we would now call Amillennial in this way, as taken from book 20 of the City of God, “He understood the 1000 years as a perfect number representing the whole period of years from the time of Christ’s first coming to the time of His second coming when the Last Judgment would occur.” He adds, “This Augustinian eschatology which taught that the present age is the millennium and that it is to come to an end with a brief period of persecution, the Second Coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the Last Judgment, reigned supreme in the Church from 431 to the time of the Reformation.” The author admits that while Calvin followed Augustinian eschatology “there was a distinct tendency after Calvin’s death to think of the 1000 years of Revelation 20 as the literal 1000 years stretching form about the year A.D. 300 to about the year A.D. 1300… Thus the loosing of Satan ‘for a little season’ was being experienced in Europe from about 1300.” This would certainly be representative of a Postmillennial eschatology.

He then goes on to discuss the Westminster Divines and says, “[…] the remarkable fact is that in 1643, when the Westminster Assembly first met, and even more so from 1648 to 1660, millennial teaching (Chiliasm) was both common and respectable in England even though a good number of learned divines continued to teach the traditional Augustinian doctrine (Amillennialism).” We will pause here for a moment to recognize that this in an of itself shows that the only real view missing from the whole equation was that of the Postmillennial view, at least in any significant number. In fact the author shows that the prolucator of the first two sessions of the Assembly as well as most of the Independents there gathered were indeed Millennialists. He says in the end, “The influence of these millenarians was, however, insufficient to affect the final wording of the Confession of Faith, which gives the impression of following the Augustinian teaching.” Now none of this means that there didn’t exist in this time frame adherents of what is now called Postmillennial, but it does mean that it was not the prevailing view. In fact, while there were some men in the 1500s and 1600s within the Dutch Reformed Church (such as Witsius and some others) that were advocates of a form of this doctrine, it doesn’t make much of an impact until the mid 1600’s when a “conservative millenarianism” (later Postmillenarianism) appears through men such as Joseph Mede and John Henry Alsted. Now in all honesty these men didn’t represent precisely the modern view in question, that is certain, but were widely embraced in the Netherlands who had already had a penchant for this school of thought. Yet it was Mede himself who admits, “[the] dogma of the thousand year Regnum was the general opinion of all orthodox Christians in the age immediately following the Apostles.” The author wraps up his paper by saying, “We find that the Westminster Confession of Faith… clearly follows Augustinian teaching while the Larger Catechism… calls upon the people to pray for the conversion of Jews. Yet the call for prayer for the Jews is followed by the prayer that Christ would hasten the time of His Second Coming. This fact, and the actual Scriptural references given, lead us to state that there is no suggestion of a period of latter-day glory or of a millennium connected with the conversion of the Jews. The idea seems to be that, though their conversion will certainly enrich the Church, the Church will remain in a world which hates Christ and His gospel.” (Puritan Papers, vol. 5, Peter Toon, “Puritan Eschatology”, pg. 63-79.)

To be sure, all of the eschatological points of view were well represented within the ranks of the Puritans; that cannot be denied. To try and say that there was only one predominant view just ignores the clear facts of history. But it does seem to me that the more prevalent views espoused during the time were Augustinian eschatology (Amillennial) and Chiliasm (Premillennial). This is not to say that there were not other views, only that they did not hold sway on as many men as the other two views did. The exception seems to be that in the 1640s there was a surge in Postmillennialism that seemed to lose its vigor by the end of the decade. But that is not quite the same thing as domination of thought over the course of Puritan history either.

The Eschatology of the Reformers

As we continue to work our way backwards through Church history we come now to the time of the Reformers. It is important to note that while the terms Postmillennial and Amillennial had yet to make their way on to the scene they certainly existed. As this topic is studied, especially in the time of the Puritans and before, it is important to note that Postmillennialism was viewed as an altered form of Chilianism and thus it is referred to as such repeatedly. Going back to Louis Berkhof he says of the Postmillennial view, “During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries several Reformed theologians in the Netherlands taught a form of Chiliasm, which would now be called Postmillennialism.” (Systematic Theology, pg. 716) I bring this up not only because it is a necessary recognition of fact in order to study the history of this topic, but also because the next man I wish to address is Francis Turretin and he procedes along those terms. I know that technically he post-dates the Reformation, but I have heard him referred to as the last of the great Swiss Reformers in Geneva. So granting me some license I will treat him as such.

In his masterpiece the “Institutes of Elenctic Theology,” Turretin lays out his case against Chiliasm in all its forms. In order to establish that he was an advocate of Augustinian eschatology rather than the other two forms under consideration here I will provide some of what he says. To start with he addresses the issue of a period of glory on this earth, a tenant of both forms of Chiliasm, “The condition of the pious in this life (most afflicted, exposed to persecutions and calamities) cannot agree with a most peaceful and happy kingdom. God calls them to the cross as the standard of Christ (under which the church militant ought to be on earth) and believers can promise themselves no constant rest. […] how do Christ and His apostles in consoling believers against such trials always use the hope of eternal glory and happiness in heaven and never the consideration of peace and felicity to exist on earth, which would have contributed greatly to relieve their minds? Why do they say nothing of that long interval in which the church of Christ is to be free from such calamity… why does [Paul] not say that that rest would begin and continue through a memorable interval even from this life, if he believed there would be any such interval?”

Let it be understood that Turretin readily admits that between the two forms of Chiliasm, what we would now call Premillennial and Postmillennial, the former is a far greater error than the latter. But he certainly views both as being in error and thus confirms the Augustinian position. In fact, he certifies himself that the larger Reformed church does as well when he says, “Now although there is a great difference in this twofold opinion (Pre- and Post-), and the former is far more dangerous then the latter and deserves to be called heretical; still the latter, which was the dominant opinion of certain divines, has been rejected thus far by the church as an error and blemish, not without weighty reasons.” It is clear that Turretin is affirming the historical fact that within the Reformed church the Augustinian position was the official position of the church (Francis Turretin, “Institutes of Elenctic Theology,” vol. 3, pp 575-577)

And of course John Calvin expressed the Augustinian eschatological opinion in the Institutes. He says in refuting the errors of Chiliasm and in regard to the 1000 years spoken of in Rev. 20:4, “[…] the thousand years there mentioned refer not to the eternal blessedness of the Church, but only to the various troubles which await the Church militant in this world.” In such a statement he clearly refutes the aforementioned schools of Chiliastic thought. He is especially against the error of Premillennialism, so dismissive of it in fact that he says of them, “[…] let us have done with these triflers, that we may not seem… to think their dreams deserving of refutation.”

He clearly lays out some principles that would show that he is solidly to be found in the Augustinian camp when he says, “[…] the reason why faith is so rare in this world; nothing being more difficult for our sluggishness than to surmount innumerable obstacles in striving for the prize of our high calling. To the immense load of miseries which almost overwhelm us, are added the jeers of profane men, who assail us for our simplicity, when spontaneously renouncing the allurements of the present life we seem, in seeking a happiness which lies hid from us, to catch at a fleeting shadow. In short, we are beset above and below, behind and before, with violent temptations, which our minds would be altogether unable to withstand, were they not set free from earthly objects, and devoted to a heavenly life, though apparently remote from us. Wherefore, he alone has made solid progress in the gospel who has acquired the habit of meditating continually on a blessed resurrection.” Here it is clear that Calvin sees no relief in this life, that the focus of believers and hope lies in the second coming itself and that we will have no reprieve from the assaults of this life before that. If in one of the preceding quotes Calvin took on a definitively anti-Premillennial stance, here he clearly does so with Postmillennialism. (John Calvin, “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” Eerdman’s Publishing Co., 1972, vol. 2, pp 260-266 or 3.25)

Calvin continues such unity of thought in his commentary on 1 Thess. 5. Here he clearly states that the wicked will still be wicked and the Lord will come upon them unexpectedly lest in seeing His coming they should reach the summit of felicity. Calvin drives home the point that he believes there will be no period of peace on this earth and that bliss will only be found at heaven’s doors when he says in commenting on Lu 14:27, “[…] Christ’s meaning is, that there will be no end to our warfare till we leave the world.” Calvin was indeed an adherent of Augustinian eschatology.

Augustinian Eschatology

We will take a moment now to review what Augustine had to say regarding eschatology. It is important to see how Augustine saw the Millennia of Rev. 20 since I have cited, as some of the referenced authors have, him as one of the chief influences of thought in the Reformers and the Puritans.

In the following passage Augustine shares his understanding and conviction on this matter. He says, “Now the thousand years may be understood in two ways, so far as occurs to me: either because these things happen in the sixth thousand of years or sixth millennium (the latter part of which is now passing), as if during the sixth day, which is to be followed by a Sabbath which has no evening, the endless rest of the saints, so that, speaking of a part under the name of the whole, he calls the last part of the millennium—the part, that is, which had yet to expire before the end of the world—a thousand years.” We will pause here because it is important to note here that he views the six thousand years as encompassing all of time and culminating in a seventh symbolical thousand years which is eternal rest in heaven. But in no way does he here advocate either the Pre- or Postmillennial point of view. He goes on to say, “[…] or he used the thousand years as an equivalent for the whole duration of this world, employing the number of perfection to mark the fullness of time.” Here he ends with the definitive opinion of the current day Amillennialists. He explains the view further by saying, “[…]we cannot better interpret the words of [Ps. 105:8], ‘He hath been mindful of His covenant for ever, the word which He commanded to a thousand generations,’ than by understanding it to mean“to all generations.” (Augustine, “City of God,” 20.7)

In 20.9 he goes on to describe that the saints reign even now with Christ and that the mark of this thousand years covers the entirety of this time beginning at the first coming of Christ. All of this said I think it is clear that Augustine represented what is now known as Amillennialism and the influence he exerted on the Reformers and beyond was in that school of thought, to greater and lesser degrees depending on where it be found.

Summary

As I said at the beginning, I am not attempting to argue the validity of any one of the positions presented herein. But I am showing the historical existence of those positions and the Reformed perspective within each school of thought. I think considered from that view it is clear that Premillennialism and Augustinianism, or Amillennialism, can reasonably lay claim to longevity. The new kid on the block, so to speak, is Postmillennialism.

I also think it is safe to say that while slightly more ambiguous in its various forms throughout history the Amillennial thought has had the luxury of majority opinion within the Reformed church and that is followed, in the last 500 years or so, by Postmillennialism, though as was previously expressed there was a brief time for a decade or so in the mid 1600s when Postmillennialism found itself growing in a popularity that eventually subsided. It is also safe to say that the one unanimous opinion of the Reformed church, regardless of where else they may differ, is that Premillennialism is not Biblical and has routinely been denounced as such; even being called heretical by men such as Turretin.

I don’t try to persude anyone with this paper to believe what I believe, that is another discussion for another time. But the claims of the Pre- and Postmillennialists that the Reformed church has been in agreement with them throughout history is hopefully rectified here. It is true that at various times some men have agreed with either or both positions, but then that is not the same as saying that the Church as a majority did so. Nor do I think it is particularly productive to try and validate our beliefs by trying to retroactively apply them to men in the past unless, and only if, those man have actually believed as we believe.

Perhaps debate in this area can be productive. Certainly I sense a growing segment of the Reformed church that is becoming ever more inclined to Postmillennial thought. This means that at some point we will have to discuss this yet again and hoepfully do so with historical accuracy and a great deal of charity for it is sure that each camp’s belief runs deep. Yet this I know, if we are to start excluding the title of Reformed from each other based simply on our eschatological opinions then nothing productive will come of it and nothing productive ever will. Explain your position and defend it but let us be gracious along the way.

Propitation

One of the finest explanations of one of the most beautiful words that is to be found in our Bibles, propitation. (Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17; 1 Jn. 2:2, 4:10)

"The most violent expression of God’s wrath and justice is seen in the Cross. If ever a person had room to complain of injustice, it was Jesus. He was the only innocent man ever to be punished by God. If we stagger at the wrath of God, let us stagger at the Cross. Here is where our astonishment should be focused. If we have cause for moral outrage, let it be directed at Golgotha.

The cross was at once the most horrible and most beautiful example of God’s wrath. It was the most just and the most gracious act in history. God would have been more than unjust, He would have been diabolical to punish Jesus if Jesus had not first willingly taken on Himself the sins of the world. Once Christ had done that, once He volunteered to be the Lamb of God, laden with our sin, then He became the most grotesque and vile thing on this planet. With the concentrated load of sin He carried, He became utterly repugnant to the Father. God poured out His wrath on this obscene thing. God made Christ accursed for the sin He bore. Herein was God’s holy justice perfectly manifest. Yet it was done for us. He took what justice demanded from us. This “for us” aspect of the Cross is what displays the majesty of its grace. At the same time justice and grace, wrath and mercy. It is too astonishing to fathom." RC Sproul, “The Holiness of God,” (pg 121-122)

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.