Let Us Break Bread Together
For the past several days, I’ve been engaged in a discussion about the frequency of the Lord’s Supper over at Post Tenebras Lux (Why Weekly Communion Part 1, Part 2, Part 3). If you’d like to interact with our conversation, you are cordially invited. The homework I’ve been doing in preparation for my comments over there has been very enlightening. I’ve learned that the “proof texts” which I continually use to support the notion that Christian churches should always celebrate the Lord’s Supper every Sunday following the sermon do not miss the mark when considered in the light of postapostolic practice and the Reformation’s purification of the corruptions which crept in during the medieval era of the church.
“And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42).
“On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread . . . ” (Acts 20:7).
It seems to be difficult for many to see that the church is to engage each time they gather in all of the items listed in the first verses cited above, and have a hard time accepting that one statement like the one in the second verse above actually reflects the weekly practice, rather than merely recording a one-time event with little to no prescriptive significance for the life of the church today. But the more I read from Calvin and others about how the church has historically interpreted verses like these and a few others from 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, the more convinced I am that we do an injustice to our worship of the Lord by our setting the Supper aside so often to focus on other things, fearing some Roman Catholic spirit of ritualism to overcome us, dared we to partake too frequently.
Consider the following passages from Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion (Battles translation, pages 1422, 1424):
44. The Lord’s Supper should be celebrated frequently
What we have so far said of the Sacrament abundantly shows that it was not ordained to be received only once a year –and that, too, perfunctorily, as now is the usual custom. Rather, it was ordained to be frequently used among all Christians in order that they might frequently return in memory to Christ’s Passion, by such remembrance to sustain and strengthen their faith, and urge themselves to sing thanksgiving to God and to proclaim his goodness; finally, by it to nourish mutual love, and among themselves give witness to this love, and discern its bond in the unity of Christ’s body. For as often as we partake of the symbol of the Lord’s body, as a token given and received, we reciprocally bind ourselves to all the duties of love in order that none of us may permit anything that can harm our brother, or overlook anything that can help him, where necessity demands and ability suffices.
Luke relates in The Acts that this was the practice of the apostolic church, when he says that believers ” . . . continued in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). Thus it became the unvarying rule that no meeting of the church should take place without the Word, prayers, partaking of the Supper, and almsgiving. That this was the established order among the Corinthians also, we can safely infer from Paul (cf. 1 Cor. 11:20). And it remained in use for many centuries after.
46. Communicating only once a year condemned
Plainly this custom which enjoins us to take communion once a year is a veritable invention of the devil, whoever was instrumental in introducing it. They say that Zephyrinus was the author of this decree, although it is not believable that it was in the form in which we now have it. For perhaps by his ordinance he did not provide too badly for the church, as times were then. For there is not the least doubt that the Sacred Supper was in that era set before the believers every time they met together; and there is no doubt that a majority of them took communion; but since all scarcely ever happened to take communion at once, and since it was necessary for those who were mingled with profane and idolatrous men to attest their faith by some outward sign–the holy man, for the sake of order and polity, appointed that day on which all Christian people should, by partaking of the Lord’s Supper, make a confession of faith. Posterity wickedly distorted Zephyrinus’ otherwise good ordinance, when a definite law was made to have communion once a year. (Fourth Lateran Council, canon 21). By this it has come about that almost all, when they have taken communion once, as though they have beautifully done their duty for the rest of the year, go about unconcerned. It should have been done far differently: the Lord’s Table should have been spread at least once a week for the assembly of Christians, and the promises declared in it should feed us spiritually. None is indeed to be forcibly compelled, but all are to be urged and aroused; also the inertia of indolent people is to be rebuked. All, like hungry men, should flock to such a bounteous repast. Not unjustly, then, did I complain at the outset that this custom was thrust in by the devil’s artifice, which, in prescribing one day a year, renders men slothful all the rest of the year. Indeed, we see that already in Chrysostom’s day this degrading abuse had crept in; but we can see at the same time how much it displeased him. For in the passage which I just quoted he sadly complains of great inequality in this matter; at some times of the year they often did not come even when they were clean, but came at Easter, even when they were unclean. Then he exclaims: “O custom, O presumption! In vain, therefore, is a daily offering made; in vain we stand before the altar; there is no one who will partake along with us.” So far is Chrysostom from having approved this by lending it his authority!
It appears to me that the work of Reformation is not done. Begin a conversation with your pastor about this topic, and encourage him to examine the Scriptures in the light of the history of the issue of the frequency of the Supper and see what the Lord may work in the life of your church!
The Next Study Bible To Join My Collection
Case in point, Leland Ryken. Dr. Ryken is the father of Dr. Phillip Ryken, the successor to James Montgomery Boice at Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who is the late successor to the even more late Donald Gray Barnhouse. Read about Tenth’s august roll of influential pastors since its early years. Dr. Leland Ryken’s credentials include a Ph.D. from the University of Oregon and he is professor of English at Wheaton College in Illinois, where he has twice received the “teacher of the year” award. He served as Literary 
Chairman on the Translation Oversight Committee for the English Standard Version of the Bible, and authored a wonderful book entitled, The Word of God in English, in which he explains the thinking behind what the ESV crowd has begun calling “essentially literal” translation, as opposed to “literal” (formal equivalence) and “thought-for-thought” (dynamic equivalence). As you may perceive, it sounds like a happy medium, and I think it is definitely a worthwhile achievement.
Leland Ryken also contributed to a good book by a group of evangelical scholars on the Origin of the Bible. But there are yet many others of his books around to which I’ve yet to get. But coming this September, his study Bible will be released. The Literary Study Bible!
from the ESV Blog’s post on the Literary Study Bible:
About The Literary Study Bible
A literary study Bible—what a great idea! Who better to conceive of such a Bible and to provide the notes than Dr. Leland Ryken, author and editor of numerous books explaining the literary forms manifest in the Bible and encouraging us to pay special attention to these forms. The Literary Study Bible represents the culmination of his efforts to aid all who read, study, preach, and teach the Bible. Find your understanding of Scripture improved and your appreciation for its literary beauty heightened.
“Any piece of writing needs to be assimilated and interpreted in terms of the kind of writing that it is,” write the coeditors. “The Bible is a literary book in which theology and history are usually embodied in literary forms. Those forms include genres, the expression of human experience in concrete form, stylistic and rhetorical techniques, and artistry. . . . [The use of these forms] has been inspired by God and [they] need to be granted an importance in keeping with that inspiration.”
I believe a resource such as this will help the evangelical church regain much ground lost since the fundamentalist-modernist controversy, when Dispensational hermeneutics misinformed the last several generations of evangelicals that “literal” interpretation should mean something more akin to “anti-figurative interpretation.” J. Ligon Duncan writes, “Secondly, Dispensationalists speak in terms of a literal interpretation of the Bible. This is a major rhetorical thing that you hear in discussion with Dispensationalist friends. ‘We interpret the Bible literally.’ Of course, the implication being that you don’t. We interpret the Bible literally, you don’t. You do something else to it. Whereas Covenant Theologians would argue, ‘We interpret the Bible literally, but, we believe that the New Testament interprets the Old Testament.’ We believe that the New Testament is the hermeneutical manual for the Old Testament. And Dispensationalists are suspicious of that. When you say that the New Testament must interpret the Old Testament, Dispensationalists get a little bit edgy, because they feel you are about to spiritualize something that the Old Testament has said for them very clearly. So that is a fundamental difference. The Covenant Theologian believes the New Testament has the final word as the meaning of that passage, whereas the Dispensationalist tends to want to interpret the Old Testament and then go to the New Testament and attempt to harmonize the particular teaching of the New Testament with their previous interpretation of that Old Testament passage, rather than allowing the New Testament fundamental hermaneutical control.”
Historically, literal interpretation meant “literary.” In other words, interpret the Bible according to the common rules which apply to whichever kind of literature you are reading. If we can get this understanding corrected on a grassroots level, the Light of the Gospel would shine all the brighter.
Misadventures in Anti-Catholicism
Tolle Lege! Sign Up and Read! (or something like that)
Tombstoned Misadventures
Here’s a brilliant piece of artwork by talented, believing caricaturist, Angel Contreras, whose website is Art4Clowns and his on-again, off-again blog (as mine has been lately), Torched By An Angel. Angel’s art frequently encapsulates the exploits of Reformed Baptist apologist extraordinaire, James R. White of Alpha & Omega Ministries. I recommend you scroll through White’s pages for more of Angel’s art and, of course, White’s apologetics. James White took a mere seventeen days to write and refute the recent “Misadventure of Jim & Sim.”
Another of White’s recent publications is his debate with Dave Hunt, Debating Calvinism.
C. H. Dodd Turns 123!
“The Baptist Version of Sola Scriptura” Revisited
Following are a few excerpts which will give you an idea of Mathison’s treatment of the subject of Solo Scriptura:
“The twentieth century could, with some accuracy, be called a century of theological anarchy. Liberals and sectarians have long rejected outright many of the fundmanetal tenets of Christian orthodoxy. But more recently professing evangelical scholars have advocated revisionary versions of numerous doctrines. A revisionary doctrine of God has been advocated by proponents of “openness theology.” A revisionary doctrine of eschatology has been advocated by proponents of full-preterism. Revisionary doctrines of justification sola fide have been advocated by proponents of various “new perspectives” on Paul. Often the revisionists will claim to be restating a more classical view. Critics, however, have usually been quick to point out that the revisions are actually distortions.
Ironically, a similarly revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura has arisen within Protestantism, but unlike the revisionist doctrine of sola fide, the revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura has caused very little controversy among the heirs of the Reformation. One of the reasons there has been much less controversy over the revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura is that this doctrine has been gradually supplanting the Reformation doctrine for centuries. In fact, in many segments of the evangelical world, the revisionist doctrine is by far the predominant view now. Many claim that this revisionist doctrine is the Reformation doctrine. However, like the revisionist doctrines of sola fide, the revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura is actually a distortion of the Reformation doctrine.”
“Part of the difficulty in understanding the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura is due to the fact that the historical debate is often framed simplistically in terms of “Scripture versus tradition.” Protestants are said to teach “Scripture alone,” while Roman Catholics are said to teach “Scripture plus tradition.” This, however, is not an accurate picture of the historical reality. The debate should actually be understood in terms of competing concepts of the relationship between Scripture and tradition, and there are more than two such concepts in the history of the church. In order to understand the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura we must understand the historical context more accurately.”
Here Mathison begins to summarize three views on the relationship between Scripture and tradition, borrowing clever labels from Heiko Oberman:
Tradition 1: “In the first three to four centuries of the church, the church fathers had taught a fairly consistent view of authority. The sole source of divine revelation and the authoritative doctrinal norm was understood to be the Old Testmanet together with the Apostolic doctrine, which itself had been put into writing in the New Testament. The Scripture was to be interpreted in and by the church within the context of the regula fidei (“rule of faith”), yet neighter the church nor the regula fidei were considered second supplementary sources of revelation. The church was the interpreter of the divine revelation in Scripture, and the regula fidei was the hermeneutical context, but only Scripture was the Word of God.”
Tradition 2: “The first hints of a two-source concept of tradition, a concept in which tradition is understood to be a second source of revelation that supplements biblical revelation, appeared in the fourth century in the writings of Basil and Augustine. . . It is not absolutely certain that either Basil or Augustine actually taught the two-source view, but the fact that it is hinted at in their writings ensured that it would eventually find a foothold in the Middle Ages. This would take time, however, for throughout most of the Middle Ages, the dominant view was Tradition1, the position of the early church. The beginnings of a strong movement toward Tradition 2 did not begin in earnest until the twelfth century.” Willaim of Ockham was one of the first medieval theologians to officially adopt this two-source view of revelation in the fourteenth century.
Mathison shows how the Reformation, in part, was a move back to “Tradition 1,” the view that Scripture was the sole source of divine revelation, to be interpreted by the church within the context of the regula fidei, the hermeneutical tradition, if you will.
“To summarize the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura, or the Reformation doctrine of the relation between Scripture and tradition, we may say that Scripture is to be understood as the sole source of divine revelation; it is the only inspired, infallible, final and authoritative norm of faith and practice. It is to be interpreted in and by the church; and it is to be interpreted within the hermeneutical context of the rule of faith.”
I, myself, wrote on the Reformation of Tradition 2 once.
Now here’s where the trouble starts in relation to misunderstanding the idea of Sola Scriptura:
Tradition 0?: “At the same time the magisterial reformers were advocating a return to Tradition 1 (sola Scriptura), several radical reformers were calling for the rejection of both Tradition 1 and Tradition 2 and the adoption of a completely new understanding of Scripture and tradition. They argued that Scripture was not merely the only infallible authority but that it was the only authority altogether. The true but subordinate authority of the church and the regula fidei were rejected altogether. According to this view, there is no real sense in which tradition has any authority. Instead, the individual believer requires nothing more than the Holy Spirit and the Bible.”
Is this beginning to sound familiar? I thought so.
Now, back to my own opinion, and application of these historical matters. It was the 1644 edition of the London Baptist Confession of Faith that complains that their movement is “commonly (though falsely) called Anabaptists.” Having adopted fully Reformed theology, including the doctrine of paedobaptism, when I compare how the Baptist tradition from its very inception, so completely embraced Reformed theology with the full scope of understanding of these doctrines in accord with “Tradition 1,” the ancient view that Scripture alone is divine revelation, to be interpreted within the traditional hermeneutic of the regula fidei. But then, when one examines the teaching of these otherwise Reformed Christians on baptism, hints of tendency toward “Tradition 0,” the Anabaptist view of the relationship between Scripture and tradition, begin to emerge.
This is what I meant by “The Baptist Version of Sola Scriptura.” I don’t “falsely” claim that Baptists are Anabaptists, I just think they took baby steps away from Reformation and toward Anabaptism on baptism (and maybe congregationalism?). That’s all. But rank and file Baptists, like many otherwise evangelical paedobaptists, have moved with the spirit of the age to embrace the modern revisionist tendency toward “Solo Scriptura.” And I think that’s a problem. Work must be, and is being, done to correct this problem here and there. That’s why I like to publicize the Cambridge Declaration of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals.
Ordinary Means of Illumination
No Retreat
In this passage, Owen writes, “Now, it being our duty to mortify, to be killing of sin whilst it is in us, we must be at work. He that is appointed to kill an enemy, if he leave striking before the other ceases living, doth but half his work. These are words that “struck” me.
Galatians. 6:9 “And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.”
Hebrews 12:1 “Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us . . . “
2 Corinthians 7:1 “Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God.”
This text from 2 Corinthians is especially helpful when considered in its context. Paul here encourages the Corinthians to purify themselves and perfect holiness out of reverence for God. But what indicatives form the basis for these imperatives? To what gospel promises does Paul appeal in order to motivate such a response? At the end of chapter six, Paul stated several of God’s promises from the Old Testament which speak of his gospel intention to enjoy the company of his Redeemed.”What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, ‘I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them and I will be their God, and they shall be my people’ (cf. Leviticus 26:11-12; Jeremiah 32:38; Ezekiel 37:27). Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you” (Isaiah 52:11; Ezekiel 20:34, 41).
What are God’s gospel intentions which call us to remain separate from, leave untouched, and, indeed, kill, sin? By the gracious redemption purchased by Christ in his victorious life of active obedience to God and utter defeat of sin in his death and resurrection for sinners, God’s intention is to “make (his) dwelling with them.” Think about that: if you are redeemed, it is because God is pleased to live with you! “. . . And walk among them . . . ” As the company of the redeemed, we ought not gather to have a good time with each other, or to impress each other with our outward displays of godliness, but we are called to gather and walk together because God is pleased to walk among the company of those redeemed by Christ from their bondage to sin! How easily we forget this as we walk ever so thoughtlessly in our sinful, defiling lusts. “I will be their God.” Our God? He redeemed us, so he could be our God? Who are we that he is mindful of us? We are nobodies in and of ourselves! But God was graciously pleased to place sinners such as us into his beloved Son in whom he is well pleased (Matthew 17:5). ” . . . ‘And I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me,’ says the Lord Almighty” (v. 18).
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, with Grandma and the Indians . . .
Owen continues:
“2. Sin doth not only still abide in us, but is still acting, still laboring to bring forth the deeds of the flesh. When sin lets us alone we may let sin alone; but as sin is never less quiet than when it seems to be most quiet, and its waters are for the most part deep when they are still, so ought our contrivances against it to be vigorous at all times and in all conditions, even where there is least suspicion.” This resembles those scenes in the old war movies where the general is unnerved by the enemy’s silence: “It’s quiet–too quiet!” Believers must remain on guard even when they aren’t conscious of temptation–your inner enemy, sin, is merely reloading and plotting your downfall.
Here are some of the Scriptures Owen cites in support of the above statements:
Sin doth not only abide in us, but “the law of the members is still rebelling against the law of the mind,” (Romans 7:23);
and “the spirit that dwells in us lusteth to envy” (James 4:5)
It is always in continual work; “the flesh lusteth against the Spirit” (Galatians 5:17)
Lust is still tempting and conceiving sin (James 1:14)
The Holy Spirit who indwells the believer has desires for his behavior which contradict the desires that his indwelling sin nature has for him. The flesh (sinful desire) seeks on an ongoing basis to entice the believer to sin and the Holy Spirit is calling him to rely on him out of love for the Son of God to do what he desires him to do. Believer, hear the Spirit’s call and heed it, while, like Russel Crowe’s character in the movie, A Beautiful Mind, resisting, ignoring, neglecting and marginalizing the flesh’s regular attempts to lure you into sin.
Here are my concluding thoughts which were spurred by Owen’s words:
Since sin will dwell in the justified believer for his entire life, and is constantly engaged with him in a fight to the death, the justified believer must likewise engage in an offensive to the death against sin, relying not on his own moral strength, but on the power of the sanctifying Holy Spirit in the Word of God (the Law and the Gospel–1 Peter 1:25) as it is carefully heard, prudently applied and diligently obeyed (James 1:19-25). How a professing believer responds to the onslaughts of his own indwelling sin has eternal consequences (1 Timothy 4:7-8).
If the believer refuses up front, or surrenders to a life of unrepentant sin before his own death (Matthew 21:28-32), he stands liable to the judgment of God as a false believer who allowed sin to kill him, finding that he was never a justified believer to begin with (Matthew 7:23). But if the believer perseveres in the fight to the death with sin, then, when he dies, he will be found finally as a justified believer who has spent his life being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, and now stands to be glorified (1 Corinthians 15:50-58) to live forever in his flesh, finally victorious over sin in Christ, who himself defeated sin for us (Matthew 4:1-11) in order to defeat sin in us as we gratefully return our love to him by our obedient resistance to temptation, and disciplined pursuit of godliness and righteousness (Matthew 5:6; 6:33).
“Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation” (Matthew 26:41).
Onward, Christian soldiers,
marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus
going on before.
Christ, the royal Master,
leads against the foe;
Forward into battle
see His banners go!
Onward, Christian soldiers,
marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus
going on before.
At the sign of triumph
Satan’s host doth flee;
On then, Christian soldiers,
on to victory!
Hell’s foundations quiver
at the shout of praise;
Brothers lift your voices,
loud your anthems raise.
Onward, Christian soldiers
marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus
going on before.
Like a mighty army
moves the church of God;
Brothers, we are treading
where the saints have trod.
We are not divided,
all one body we,
One in hope and doctrine,
one in charity.
Onward, Christian soldiers
marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus
going on before.
What the saints established
that I hold for true.
What the saints believèd,
that I believe too.
Long as earth endureth,
men the faith will hold,
Kingdoms, nations, empires,
in destruction rolled.
Onward, Christian soldiers,
marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus
going on before.
Crowns and thrones may perish,
kingdoms rise and wane,
But the church of Jesus
constant will remain.
Gates of hell can never
‘gainst that church prevail;
We have Christ’s own promise,
and that cannot fail.
Onward, Christian soldiers,
marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus
going on before.
Onward then, ye people,
join our happy throng,
Blend with ours your voices
in the triumph song.
Glory, laud and honor
unto Christ the King,
This through countless ages
men and angels sing.
Onward, Christian soldiers,
marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus
going on before.
Christian Headknowledge and Historical Claims
Another Easter Season, Another Skeptical Claim
for your edification, from the English Standard Version of the Holy Bible . . .
1 Corinthians 15:1-28
The Resurrection of Christ
15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that
The Resurrection of the Dead
12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.
20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead,
26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.
Premature Reports of The Planned Catholic-Anglican Reunion
The Romans Road — Anglican Edition
After 35 years of dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church of England, the groundwork is being laid for re-uniting both religious bodies under the pope. Yes, you read that correctly. The original and largest expression of the historic Reformation in England is undoing the work that had been done. Since the theology of the Reformation was largely abandoned by the Anglican Church up to at least a hundred years ago, it only makes sense that Romanism would rush back in to fill the void. After all, what’s the point of remaining separate from the apostate Roman Catholic Church if you’ve already apostatized from the biblical “Apostolic Succession” which is maintained by “continuing stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2:42)?
Read, “Anglicans, Catholics Discuss Unity,” from CNN.com.
And then read “Update on Relations with the Anglican Communion” for more information from the Roman Catholic side.
And here is what the Anglicans have to say for themselves . . . “Statement from the Co-chairs of the International Anglican – Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission, on Anglican – Roman Catholic relations”
Are Calvinists Treating Arminians Fairly? You Be The Judge!
Chez Kneel: Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ
While I’m sending you to other blogs, check out this review of my favorite novel about the Lord Jesus Christ! You can read a few other comments of mine about it in the comment thread responding to this post over at Chez Kneel.
The Misadventures of Captain Headknowledge 