Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Ubuntu Christian Edition

I have installed Ubuntu on an older PC, and it really is a nice Linux distribution. Setup couldn't have been easier. The main problem I have had with making a change from the Windows operating system, however, has been that it will not run e-Sword, my favorite Bible study software program (and it's free!). So I was really excited to discover Ubuntu CE (Christian Edition), which has integrated e-Sword.

The software is offered as a free ISO CD image download of around 700MB. I you have a really slow internet connection, however, you can get the CD for only $7.97. Here is the description from the Ubuntu CE website:

Ubuntu Christian Edition is a free, open source operating system geared towards Christians. It is based on the popular Ubuntu Linux. Ubuntu is a complete Linux-based operating system, freely available with both community and professional support.
The goal of Ubuntu Christian Edition is to bring the power and security of Ubuntu to Christians. Ubuntu Christian Edition is suitable for both desktop and server use. The current Ubuntu Christian Edition release supports PC (Intel x86).
Ubuntu Christian Edition includes more than 16,000 pieces of software, but the core desktop installation fits on a single CD. Ubuntu Christian Edition covers every standard desktop application from word processing and spreadsheet applications to web server software and programming tools.
Along with the standard Ubuntu applications, Ubuntu Christian Edition includes the best available Christian software. The latest release contains GnomeSword, BibleMemorizer, the e-Sword Installer with Module Manager, The Word Installer, Firefox Web Browser with Bible Fox Theme, and much more.
Ubuntu Christian Edition also includes fully integrated web content parental controls powered by Dansguardian. A graphical tool to adjust the parental control settings has also been developed specifically for Ubuntu Christian Edition. These features are truly what sets Ubuntu Christian Edition apart.

You can view screenshots of Ubuntu CE here. I like that it offers OpenOffice, which I use all the time anyway. But I would definitely get rid of or not install the Virtual Rosary!

Friday, July 27, 2007

The Pope Has Done Us a Favor

There have been many reports recently about the Pope's reassertion of the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church as the one true church. For example, an article posted at Forbes.com declared:
Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.

Benedict approved a document from his old offices at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that restates church teaching on relations with other Christians. It was the second time in a week the pope has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that modernized the church.
The document referred to in the Forbes article is called Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church. It answers five questions regarding the proper interpretation of Vatican II statements regarding the nature of the church. The fifth question is, "Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of 'Church' with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?" The document gives the following answer:

According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense.
In my opinion, such clarification by the Pope has done us a favor, and I hope he continues to assert more clearly what has always been the true position of the Roman Catholic Church on such matters. There have been far too many Catholics and Evangelicals who have been led to believe that the differences between them are really not that great after all and have involved themselves in many misguided and misinformed attempts at a unity that is nothing more than a mirage. Perhaps the most prominent such endeavor in recent years has been the astonishingly naive and foolish Evangelicals and Catholics Together document. The only way such documents can come into being and such attempts at "unity" can even be embarked upon in the first place is by either redefining or ignoring altogether what have been the actual doctrinal positions of both groups for centuries. I, for one, am glad that the Pope is clarifying anew what some of these positions are. The lines need to be clearly drawn on both sides so that Protestants can clearly see that the only way to true unity with the Roman Catholic Church is for them to admit and repent of their errors. I am not holding my breath!

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

"What is a Reformed Baptist?" Poll

Please scroll down and check out the "What is a Reformed Baptist?" Poll at the bottom of the page.

I am interested in how the Reformed Baptist community might answer this question. I have given four options for answers that I think basically sum up the various groups or individuals that I have found to be using the term.

I would appreciate the blog's readers weighing in and letting me know where they are on this question. Also, if you think I need to add another answer, let me know.

John Piper on the Prosperity Gospel



I saw this over on Steve Camp's blog, Camp On This, and just had to share it here as well. I would only add that I am not entirely sure what I think of Piper's final statement, that "God is most glorified in you when you are satisfied in the midst of loss, not prosperity."

While I think that this is generally true, I wonder about a statement like this from the Apostle Paul:

"I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound. Everywhere and in all things I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." (Philippians 4:12-13)

It seems that for Paul it took just as much of the strength of Christ to "abound" as it did to "suffer need." After all, for example, doesn't it require the strength of Christ to overcome the many temptations that times of prosperity can bring? Such as temptations to trust in money rather than God? Or to be satisfied with things other than God?

Perhaps we can say that God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him whether in the midst of loss or in the midst of prosperity. It depends upon whether or not we acknowledge Him as more important than the things we might have in times of prosperity.

As always, I welcome the thoughts of the blogs readers.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Friday, July 06, 2007

Free Internet Filtering

I have tried several internet filtering services, such as BSafe Online, Christian-Net, and the Home & Family Internet Filter.

However, I have found K9 Web Protection to be just as good or better than these other filters... and it is completely free! If you have children who access the internet, or if you want to prevent temptation for yourself as I do, then I highly recommend giving this service a try. Not only does it allow you to set which categories you want to filter, it also keeps a log of all the sites that the computer's users have attempted to visit. These logs can be checked and reset and the settings can be changed only by the one who has the password.

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Abstract of Systematic Theology

This past year Founders Press made available one of the best Baptist systematic theology texts ever written, the Abstract of Systematic Theology by James P. Boyce. Boyce was the founding president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He first published his Systematic Theology text in 1887, and it has been one of the best examples of Reformed Baptist theology ever since.

This work has been very helpful and influential in my own theological development, and I want to share it with the blogs readers. In fact, you can also download an earlier public domain version of this work for e-Sword at my personal website, PastorThroop.com, under the category "e-Sword-Theology."

Here is a partial description of the book from the publishers website:

A concise systematic theology by the principle founder of the first Southern Baptist seminary. Appendices include: "A Brief Catechism of Bible Doctrine," Abstract of Principles and a Scripture Index.

The doctrinal stream in which Boyce's views are found can rightly be called Calvinistic or Reformed. He, like most early Southern Baptist leaders, was clearly convinced of the doctrines of sovereign grace. John Broadus, Boyce's friend and colleague, made this observation about what he called "that exalted system of Pauline truth" expounded in Boyce's Abstract:

The people who sneer at what is called Calvinism, might as well sneer at Mont Blanc. We are not bound in the least to defend all of Calvin's opinions or actions, but I do not see how any one who really understands the Greek of the Apostle Paul or the Latin of Calvin or Turretin can fail to see that these latter did but interpret and formulate substantially what the former teaches.
May the Lord use this book from the pen of one of the greatest Southern Baptists ever to live to promote reformation and revival throughout churches everywhere.

--from the Publisher's Introduction
I also hope and pray that the Lord will use this book in the lives of this blog's readers as He has used it in the lives of myself and so many others, that they be be firmly established in the faith.

Soli Deo Gloria

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Dr. Belcher on the Minister's Study Life

As any of this blog's consistent readers may have gathered, Dr. Richard Belcher is a man close to my heart. You may recall in particular my previous blog entry entitled, Unsung Hero of the "Calvinist Comeback".

Dr. Belcher was one of my professors at Columbia Bible College (now Columbia International University), and the most significant mentor in my preparation for pastoral ministry. By God's sovereign grace and providential guidance, his teaching and example have helped to shape my ministry like no other single person.

This is why I wanted to share an audio message with the blog's readers from the 2005 conference of the Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals (F.I.R.E.). It is a message delivered by Dr. Belcher, and it is entitled "The Minister's Study Life." The focus of the message is on having a "balanced study life." It will give you a taste of what I have learned from one of my favorite teachers, and it will help you to either be a better elder or to better know what to look for in an elder.

As the Apostle Peter taught the elders of his day, "Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock...." (1 Peter 5:2-3). In my experience, their have been few better examples than my old friend and teacher, Richard Belcher. Listen to the message and see what I mean. If you don't come away with a renewed zeal for God's Word and a deeper passion for studying it and sharing it with God's people, you may want to check your pulse!

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

A Reformed Baptist's Disk: "Home of The BCF Assistant"


The Reformed Baptist's Disk website offers an easy way to download an ISO image in order to create your own CD containing all of the freeware offered at the site. The freeware includes, for example:
1) The First London Baptist Confession of Faith (2nd Edition,1646) including An Appendix to A Confession of Faith, written by Benjamin Cox.
2) The BCF Assistant, with the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1677/89. Here is the description of the BCF Assistant:
The BCF Assistant has several extended features to those found in the BCFHelp, program. Some of these
additional features include:

- Original 1677 Confession text.
- The opening letter to "the
Judicious and Impartial Reader" from the 1677 text.
- The Appendix to the
1677 text in which the authors defend their Baptistic Principles and
Convictions.
- Chapter Outlines taken from Samuel E. Waldron's book, A
Modern Exposition of the 1689 - Baptist Confession of Faith, (Evangelical Press,
1989).
- A section on the Doctrine and Theology of the Confession (various
authors included Pastors Sam Waldron and Greg Nichols, Grand Rapids, MI, USA).
- A section outlining some of the Historical Background of the Confession
and how it came to be, including some biographical information on some of those
who were signatories to the Confession in 1689. This section principally comes
from Dr James Renihan (Institute for Reformed Baptist Studies, Escondido, CA,
USA.).

The opening address to the reader and the appendix are of particular
interest because these are not commonly published in book form along with the
Confession.
3) The Children's "Prove It" Catechism: An Introduction to The Shorter Catechism: A Modest Revision for Baptists Today. This is a handy little tool that helps children to learn the catechism, along with the Scripture proofs.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Interview on the House-Church Movement

Last night I had the pleasure of being interviewed by Roderick Edwards for one of his Kingdom Commentaries. The primary focus of the interview was about the way in which many in the House-Church Movement are making requirements of certain practices that the Scriptures do not require. We discussed two of these requirements, meeting in homes and partaking of the Lord's Supper as a part of a larger meal, but for some reason failed to get to a third requirement, which is having completely open, spontaneous meetings with no one leading. We just didn't have time to get to every issue in a half hour, but I have addressed all three of these issues thus far in the series of articles I have been posting here.

Here is some of the evidence that at least one of the leading voices of the House-Church Movement is making requirements of these things:

1) With respect to meeting exclusively in homes, Steve Atkerson says in his article entitled Interactive Meetings, "In short, we believe that the patterns for church life evident in the New Testament are not merely descriptive, but are actually prescriptive (2Th 2:15 , 1Co 11:2). Thus, we believe in home-based and sized fellowships...."

2) With respect to having completely open meetings that are interactive and spontaneous, with no one leading, Steve Atkerson says in the same article, "Holding church meetings in this spontaneous, interactive manner is in fact declared to be imperative according to 1 Corinthians 14:37, 'If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command.' Thus, 1 Corinthians 14 is not merely descriptive of primitive church meetings. Rather, it is prescriptive of the way our Lord expects meetings of the whole church to be conducted."

3) With regard to eating the Lord's Supper as a part of a larger meal, in an article entitled The Lord's Supper - Feast or Famine?, Atkerson argues in the same way he has about the Apostolic tradition and meeting in homes: "Why would anyone want to depart from the way Christ and His apostles practiced the Lord’s Supper? The apostles clearly were pleased when churches held to their traditions (1Co 11:2) and even commanded that they do so (2Th 2:15 ). We have no authorization to deviate from it."

Friday, May 18, 2007

Doctrinal Testimony Regarding Recent Errors

Mid-America Reformed Seminary has released a Doctrinal Testimony Regarding Recent Errors, a document in which the Board of Trustees and faculty declare that they "humbly but resolutely stand against the theological errors now current, propagated by certain teachings of what has become known as the Federal Vision, by certain teachings of what has become known as the New Perspective on Paul, and by certain teachings of other individuals and theological movements" (p.6).

The document includes discussion of errors with regard to the covenant of works, the covenant of grace, law and gospel, merit, baptism and church membership, paedocommunion, justification by faith, and assurance of salvation and perseverance of the saints.

As a Reformed Baptist, I of course cannot agree with every position espoused in the document. For example, I think it is inconsistent of them to adhere to paedobaptism and yet to deny paedocommunion, without seeing that the arguments they employ against paedocommunion are essentially the same at key points as those they condemn in Baptists with regard to paedobaptism. However, I am glad to see that on more essential points the folks at Mid-America are standing firm against the egregious errors of Federal Vision theology and the New Perspective on Paul.

Monday, May 07, 2007

Only Three Republican Presidential Candidates Do Not Believe in Evolution



Although it is sad that only three of the Republican presidential candidates in a recent debate said that they do not believe in evolution, I still have to admit being surprised that there were that many.

Friday, May 04, 2007

A Journey in God's Sovereignty

The most recent of Dr. Richard Belcher's Journey Series of theological novels should be of great help to many who are wondering about the debate over Calvinism versus Arminianism, especially for those Baptists unacquainted with the history of their own tradition.

A Journey in God's Sovereignty is the fourteenth in this series of truly helpful and informative books. Dr. Belcher has found a way to teach theology that is engaging and helps the reader not only to learn theology but to see how important theology really is for one's spiritual growth and daily life. By the grace of God Dr. Belcher has helped many, many believers come to a deeper appreciation for and desire to learn Biblical doctrine. Here is the description of A Journey in Sovereignty from the Richbarry Press website:
Arminianism! Calvinism! True Calvinism! Moderate Calvinism! Modified Calvinism! Hyper-Calvinism! These are all theological terms being used today to speak of various systems of theology. And one of the central issues of all of these systems seems to be the attempt to define the sovereignty of God in relationship to man in his fallen state, as one who still possesses a will. Is there any theological doctrine more difficult and problematical than dealing with the subject of the sovereignty of God in relationship to the will of man and its responsibility before God? Is man's will free or is it enslaved? If God is sovereign, then how can man be responsible? If man is free, then how can God be sovereign?

This is the theme of the present journey book - God's sovereignty over all things. Ira Pointer and Dink find themselves in serious trouble at the seminary where they teach, because of this doctrine. They face the possible loss of their jobs, simply because the board of trustees and others do not understand these truths nor the doctrinal history of their own denomination.
I look forward to the forthcoming A Journey in Evangelism and Missions, and I will let you all know when it becomes available.

Thursday, April 26, 2007

PCA Study Report on Federal Vision Theology

As one who has had a friendly relationship with many in the Presbyterian Church in America, having attained my M.Div. at Covenant Theological Seminary and being sincerely appreciative of their involvement in my life, I have been watching with real concern the development of the controversy over Federal Vision theology within that denomination. I am pleased, however, by what I see as very good steps being taken toward responding Biblically and forcefully to this serious error.

As have other pastors of Reformed Baptist churches, I have encountered many Reformed brothers who have been influenced by Federal Vision theology. I have also known many of my Reformed Baptist brothers who have been influenced in one way or another by the writings of Doug Wilson, who is a leading proponent of this aberrant theology. For shuch as these, as well as any others who may be interested in following a good development in this controversy, I recommend reading the Report of Ad Interim Study Committee on Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theologies. Here is the list of Declarations from that document:
In light of the controversy surrounding the NPP and FV, and after many months of careful study, the committee unanimously makes the following declarations:

1. The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the Westminster Standards (i.e., views which do not merely take issue with the terminology, but the essence of the first/second covenant framework) is contrary to those Standards.

2. The view that an individual is “elect” by virtue of his membership in the visible church; and that this “election” includes justification, adoption and sanctification;
but that this individual could lose his “election” if he forsakes the visible church, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

3. The view that Christ does not stand as a representative head whose perfect obedience and satisfaction is imputed to individuals who believe in him is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

4. The view that strikes the language of “merit” from our theological vocabulary so that the claim is made that Christ’s merits are not imputed to his people is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

5. The view that “union with Christ” renders imputation redundant because it subsumes all of Christ’s benefits (including justification) under this doctrinal heading is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

6. The view that water baptism effects a “covenantal union” with Christ through which each baptized person receives the saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, including regeneration, justification, and sanctification, thus creating a parallel soteriological system to the decretal system of the Westminster Standards, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

7. The view that one can be “united to Christ” and not receive all the benefits of Christ’s mediation, including perseverance, in that effectual union is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

8. The view that some can receive saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, such as regeneration and justification, and yet not persevere in those benefits is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

9. The view that justification is in any way based on our works, or that the so-called “final verdict of justification” is based on anything other than the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ received through faith alone, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

I am encouraged by this very positive step in the right direction. I pray that God will protect my PCA brothers from these errors.

Thursday, April 19, 2007

e-Sword: The Best Free Bible Study Software

Next to BibleWorks, which I would not do without, I have been using e-Sword since 2001 as my primary Bible study software. Although it is free, it is better than most commercial Bible study programs. I currently use it every day for Bible study on my pc, laptop, and iPAQ. It has become an indispensable tool. There is also a wealth of third party tools and modules available for e-Sword, including many classic and contemporary Reformed resources. For those of you who may not yet have heard of e-Sword, I recommend reading the review by Holger Szesnat at the Bible Software Review website. Here is Szesnat's conclusion regarding e-Sword:


In my view, e-Sword is a highly useful tool for the study of the Biblical texts; I would currently rate it as the best free Bible software available for Windows OS. From the perspective of the teacher of Biblical Studies, the ease of installation and use, coupled with the programme's ability to show up to four Bible versions in parallel display, makes it a very useful tool for exegesis - that is why I try to introduce all my new entry-level students to it. After all, there are a number of inexpensive commercial programmes which are not as useful as e-Sword, so one must congratulate the author of the programme on his efforts.
I agree that e-sword is the "best free Bible software" and highly recommend it especially for its user-friendly appeal.
For those interested in many Reformed resources for e-Sword, check out my website. I am currently trying to complete all of John Piper's sermons by topic.
Keith

Saturday, April 07, 2007

The Apostles' Creed: A Teaching Outline

I offer the following teaching outline for those who wish to familiarize others with the Apostles' creed. The outline assumes understanding of and agreement with the core doctrines of the faith expressed in the creed. Therefore, it only focuses attention on the later addition of questionable doctrines.

I. The Development of the Apostles' Creed

The late Church historian Philip Schaff gives an excellent brief summary of the development of the Apostles' Creed in the early Church:
As to the origin of the Apostles' Creed, it no doubt gradually grew out of the confession of Peter, Matt. Xvi. 16, which furnished its nucleus (the article on Jesus Christ), and out of the baptismal formula, which determined the trinitarian order and arrangement. It can not be traced to an individual author. It is the product of the Western Catholic Church (as the Nicene Creed is that of the Eastern Church) within the first four centuries. It is not of primary, apostolic, but of secondary, ecclesiastical inspiration. It is not a word of God to men, but a word of men to God, in response to his revelation. It was originally and essentially a baptismal confession, growing out of the inner life and practical needs of early Christianity. It was explained to the catechumens at the last stage of their preparation, professed by them at baptism, often repeated, with the Lord's Prayer, for private devotion, and afterwards introduced into public service. (Creeds of Christendom, Vol.1 “The History of the Creeds,” CCEL)
II. An Early Form of the Creed

Although not written by the Apostles themselves, the Creed does reflect Apostolic doctrine and a form of confession that is very ancient. It most likely originated in the form given here in the 3rd-4th centuries.
I believe in God the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ His only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; the third day He rose from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit; the holy catholic Church; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.
III. A Contemporary Form of the Creed

The more common form of the Creed, which is often cited as a part of corporate worship in Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches, is also a fuller form of the Creed. An example of this is # 716 in The Hymnal for Worship and Celebration (Word Music, 1986), which is used by many Evangelical Christians. I have included it here with brackets indicating additional phrases.
I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth:

And in Jesus Christ His only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; [He descended into hades]; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God, the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Christian church, [the communion of saints], the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.
Notice that this version also alters the phrase “holy catholic Church” to read “holy Christian church.” This change is probably due to a desire to avoid confusion because many wrongly equate the term catholic with the Roman Catholic Church. However, the word as originally included in the Creed was simply intended to refer to the universal Church.

Neither the phrase “He descended into hades” (wrongly translated in some English versions as hell rather than hades) nor the phrase “the communion of saints” was included in early forms of the Creed, and I think it best that we not include them either.

IV. An Argument for Retaining the Earlier Form of the Creed

A. An Argument for Excluding the Phrase “He descended into Hades”:

First, as was noted above, this phrase was not a part of the earliest versions of the Creed, as Wayne Grudem correctly points out:
It is surprising to find that the phrase 'he descended into hell' was not found in any of the early versions of the Creed (in the versions used in Rome, in the rest of Italy, and in Africa) until it appeared in one of two versions from Rufinus in A.D. 390. Then it was not included in any version of the Creed until A.D. 650. Moreover, Rufinus, the only person who included it before A.D. 650, did not think that it meant that Christ descended into hell, but understood the phrase simply to mean that Christ was 'buried.' In other words, he took it to mean that Christ 'descended into the grave.' (The Greek form was hades, which can mean just 'grave,' not gehenna, 'hell, place of punishment.')" (Systematic Theology, p. 586)
Second, it does not seem wise to me to include such a questionable doctrine in a creed designed to set forth only some of the most basic and essential doctrines of the faith. For example, I and many other Christians do not think that the view that Christ descended into hades can be established with certainty from Scripture. This can be demonstrated by a closer examination of the primary texts often cited as a basis for the doctrine.

a) 1 Peter 3:18-20:
NKJ 1 Peter 3:18-20 “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.”
In my view, Peter is referring to Christ's having preached through Noah to those who had been alive while Noah was building the ark, but who are now "spirits in prison."

Observe that Peter tells us that Jesus was made alive by the Spirit and that it is also by the Spirit that He "went and preached" (past tense) to the spirits "in prison," which indicates their present status, but does not have to mean that they were "spirits in prison" at the time the preaching was done. Peter has previously spoken of the way in which the "Spirit of Christ" had been testifying through the Old Testament prophets and foretelling the coming sufferings of Jesus:
NKJ 1 Peter 1:10-11 “Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, 11 searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.”
So, it would not be strange if Peter were to speak of Jesus' having spoken also through Noah, as he prepared the ark, to those who are now "spirits in prison." As a matter of fact, Peter elsewhere speaks of Noah's having been a "preacher of righteousness":
NKJ 2 Peter 2:4-5 “For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly....”
The Greek word Peter uses to refer to Noah as a "preacher" is kerux, which is the noun form of the same word used to refer to Jesus' having "preached" (kerusso) to the spirits now in prison.

In my opinion, all of this supports my interpretation of the text, an interpretation that has been around for quite some time, having been proposed, for example, by Augustine.

b) Acts 2:27:
NKJ Acts 2:27 “For You will not leave my soul in Hades, nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.”
Here Peter is quoting Psalm 16:10 with reference to Jesus, which in the Hebrew refers to God's not allowing Him to remain in sheol, and which in this verse refers to the grave (not to Hades as a reference to the place of the intermediate state). That this interpretation is best is demonstrated by the reference in the latter part of the verse to "corruption." Unfortunately, the NKJV that I have quoted simply transliterates the Greek word hades (which is itself the Greek translation of the Hebrew sheol) and the KJV has "hell" (which is not a good translation of either the Hebrew sheol or the Greek hades).

c) Ephesians 4:8-10:
NKJ Ephesians 4:8-10 “Therefore He says: 'When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men.' 9 (Now this, 'He ascended'-- what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)”
The phrase "descended into the lower parts of the earth" is sometimes taken to refer to a descent into Hades, but the text certainly doesn't say this, nor does it need to be understood this way. The NIV, for example, brings out what is most likely the intent by translating the phrase, "he also descended to the lower, earthly regions." That is, Paul is referring to Christ's incarnation.

B. An Argument for Excluding the Phrase “the communion of the saints”:

As noted above, this phrase was not a part of the earliest versions of the Creed. It also suggests a later, improper understanding of our relationship to the saints in Heaven. Philip Schaff has observed:
The article 'Commumionem sanctorum,' unknown to Augustine (Enchir. c. 64, and Serm. 213), appears first in the 115th and 118th Sermons De Tempore, falsely attributed to him. It is not found in any of the Greek or earlier Latin creeds. See the note of Pearson On the Creed, Art. IX. sub 'The Communion of Saints' (p. 525, ed. Dobson). Heurtley, p. 146, brings it down to the close of the eighth century, since it is wanting in the Creed of Etherius, 785. The oldest commentators understood it of the communion with the saints in heaven, but afterwards it assumed a wider meaning: the fellowship of all true believers, living and departed. (Creeds of Christendom, Vol.1 “The History of the Creeds,” CCEL)
The discerning Evangelical Christian will quickly recognize the problem with this phrase, which is the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox overtones of praying to the saints, a practice rightly rejected by the Reformers and all who follow in their footsteps as incongruent with Scripture.

V. The Value of the Apostles' Creed for Contemporary Christians

I would suggest a number of benefits of using the Apostles' Creed in contemporary worship.

First, use of the Creed reminds us of our heritage as Christians and of God's past work in preserving the Church from error. It thus leads us to praise Him for His faithfulness to past generations and to be encouraged that He will be faithful to us also.

Second, through its simplicity the Creed reminds us of the child-like faith with which we must all come before God.

Third, through its Trinitarian structure, the Creed reminds us of the centrality of the doctrine of the Trinity to the Christian faith.

Fourth, it reminds us of the importance of maintaining our faith in our sovereign God as Creator. This is especially true in light of the modern error of evolution.

Fifth, through its emphasis upon the historical fact of Christ's birth and crucifixion (note, e.g., the references to Mary and Pontius Pilate), it reminds us of the great importance of the historicity of the incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. This is especially important in the light of so much modern criticism of the Bible in which the account of Jesus is viewed merely as myth.

VI. The Inadequacy of the Apostles' Creed as a Primary Statement of Faith for Contemporary Christians

Although beneficial to Christians as a reminder of some crucial doctrines of the faith and beautiful in its simplicity, the Creed is nevertheless insufficient to provide a complete summary of essential doctrines. Philip Schaff wisely observes:
[The Apostles' Creed] is by far the best popular summary of the Christian faith ever made within so brief a space. It still surpasses all later symbols for catechetical and liturgical purposes, especially as a profession of candidates for baptism and church membership. It is not a logical statement of abstract doctrines, but a profession of living facts and saving truths. It is a liturgical poem and an act of worship. Like the Lord's Prayer, it loses none of its charm and effect by frequent use, although, by vain and thoughtless repetition, it may be made a martyr and an empty form of words. It is intelligible and edifying to a child, and fresh and rich to the profoundest Christian scholar, who, as he advances in age, delights to go back to primitive foundations and first principles. It has the fragrance of antiquity and the inestimable weight of universal consent. It is a bond of union between all ages and sections of Christendom. It can never be superseded for popular use in church and school.

At the same time, it must be admitted that the very simplicity and brevity of this Creed, which so admirably adapt it for all classes of Christians and for public worship, make it insufficient as a regulator of public doctrine for a more advanced stage of theological knowledge. As it is confined to the fundamental articles, and expresses them in plain Scripture terms, it admits of an indefinite expansion by the scientific mind of the Church. Thus the Nicene Creed gives clearer and stronger expression to the doctrine of Christ's divinity against the Arians, the Athanasian Creed to the whole doctrine of the Trinity and of Christ's person against the various heresies of the post-Nicene age. The Reformation Creeds are more explicit on the authority and inspiration of the Scriptures and the doctrines of sin and grace, which are either passed by or merely implied in the Apostles' Creed. (Creeds of Christendom, Vol.1 “The History of the Creeds,” CCEL)
VII. Summary Concerning the Apostles' Creed

The Apostles' Creed as originally developed and used by the Church should be cherished by contemporary Christians as a valuable and helpful part of our Christian heritage. It should not be dismissed so easily and glibly as is often done by modern Baptists in particular. However, we should use it with a proper awareness of the later additions to the Creed, not assuming that these later additions truly reflect the ancient consensus of the Church. And we should be careful not to use it as though it provides a complete statement of faith for the contemporary Church, for we have been obliged to make more explicit many crucial doctrines as they have later come under attack.

Thursday, March 29, 2007

The Three Best Books in Defense of Believer's Baptism

Note: Since I first wrote this post another excellent book has been published on the subject. It is The Fatal Flaw of the Theology Behind Infant Baptism by Jeffrey D. Johnson. I have posted about it here. Frankly, I think this book is the single best one on the subject that I have read to date. I highly recommend it.
As a pastor I have done a lot of reading over the years about the doctrine of baptism, including reading numerous works that defend the doctrine of infant baptism, especially from the standpoint of my Reformed paedobaptist brothers. In fact, I received my M.Div. from Covenant Theological Seminary (PCA), a Reformed seminary that holds to paedobaptist views. I am indebted to these brothers for a great deal, and I am glad that so many Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian believers have been open to working together for the sake of the Gospel. It does my heart good, for example, to see men such as R.C. Sproul and John Piper side by side at conferences that seek to promote Biblical theology and true Christian devotion. As a matter of fact, Immanuel Baptist Church - where I serve as an elder - has always welcomed our Reformed paedobaptist brothers and has enjoyed great fellowship and mutual encouragement in the faith with them.

However, that does not mean that I think the issue of the proper subjects of baptism is unimportant, and in my years of study and reflection on the matter I have only become more and more convinced that believer's baptism (sometimes also called credobaptism) is the true teaching of Scripture. This is why I want to remind my Reformed Baptist brothers and sisters of the three books I have read that offer the best defense of this Biblical teaching:


I read this book while I was in seminary and struggling to sort through the matter. It was especially helpful to me because it responds to the arguments for infant baptism from the standpoint of Covenant Theology. It helped me to see that a truly Biblical understanding of Covenant Theology leads to believer's baptism rather than to infant baptism. For a long time, this was the best book available on this issue.


Malone is a former Reformed paedobaptist who understands their views from the inside out. I was especially encouraged by his treatment of the promise of the New Covenant made in Jeremiah 31 and how this relates to the issue of baptism. This is an outstanding book that offers many of the same arguments found in Jewett's book, but it is even better in my opinion. It is temporarily out of print, but I look for Founders Press to make it available again soon. Until then there are copies available on Amazon.com.

3) Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ edited by Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright.

This is in my opinion the single best volume available right now for a comprehensive overview on baptism from a Baptist perspective. Here is a look at its contents by chapter:
Chapter 1 - Baptism in the Gospels

Chapter 2 - Baptism in Luke-Acts

Chapter 3 - Baptism in the Epistles: An Initiation Rite for Believers

Chapter 4 - Baptism and the Relationship Between the Covenants

Chapter 5 - Baptism in the Patristic Writings

Chapter 6 - "Confessor baptism":The Baptismal Doctrine of the Early
Anabaptists

Chapter 7 - Baptism and the Logic of Reformed Paedobaptists

Chapter 8 - Meredith Kline on Suzerainty, Circumcision, and Baptism

Chapter 9 - Baptism in the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement

Chapter 10 - Baptism in the Context of the Local Church
Since so many have asked me for such material over the years, I hope that these recommendations will be helpful to the blog's readers.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Update 25 May 2011

Since I first wrote this post another excellent book has been published on the subject. It is The Fatal Flaw of the Theology Behind Infant Baptism by Jeffrey D. Johnson. I have posted about it here. Frankly, I think this book is the single best one on the subject that I have read to date. I highly recommend it.

Thursday, March 15, 2007

Response to the House-Church Movement: Part Three

Does the Bible require that the Lord's Supper be celebrated only as part of a “full meal”?

Advocates of the House-Church Movement, as represented by Steve Atkerson, claim that it does. In an article entitled "The Lord's Supper - Feast or Famine?" he asks the question, “The Lord's Supper, sometimes called communion, the Table of the Lord, the agape or the Eucharist, is limited in most churches to a sip of wine and a piece of bread. Why then is it called a 'supper' in the NT?” He concludes that it must be celebrated as a larger meal and gives this explanation for what happened to lead the Church away from this practice:
Foreign though it may seem to the contemporary church, the first-century church enjoyed the Lord’s Supper as a banquet that foreshadowed the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. It was not until after the close of the New Testament era that the early church fathers altered the Lord’s Supper from its pristine form.
Recognizing the difficulty of advocating a view that has not been commonly accepted by Christians for the past two millennia, Atkerson has to give some explanation for how it arose and became so predominant. So he argues that the early church fathers moved away from Scriptural practice and led the church to do the same. And even after the Reformation, the Church has still failed to grasp the true Scriptural teaching for nearly 500 years. But, of course, those in the House-Church Movement (HCM) who advocate such a view are required first to demonstrate that their own understanding of the Lord' s Supper really is the teaching of Scripture in the first place. Beresford Job (in an article entitled “The Apostles' Traditions - The Heart of the Matter: Part 4 - What the Bible Says!”) and Steve Atkerson (in the aforementioned article) have attempted to do just that, and it is to these arguments that I will now respond. I will list and discuss the crucial passages cited by these two men in support of their understanding. Along the way I will focus my attention primarily upon the arguments of Steve Atkerson, since he has made the more thorough case for the HCM position. Unless otherwise stated, all Scripture quotations by me are from the New King James Version.
Exodus 12:1-14 “Now the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, 2 'This month shall be your beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year to you. 3 Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying: “On the tenth day of this month every man shall take for himself a lamb, according to the house of his father, a lamb for a household. 4 And if the household is too small for the lamb, let him and his neighbor next to his house take it according to the number of the persons; according to each man's need you shall make your count for the lamb. 5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats. 6 Now you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month. Then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at twilight. 7 And they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the houses where they eat it. 8 Then they shall eat the flesh on that night; roasted in fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. 9 Do not eat it raw, nor boiled at all with water, but roasted in fire -- its head with its legs and its entrails. 10 You shall let none of it remain until morning, and what remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire. 11 And thus you shall eat it: with a belt on your waist, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. So you shall eat it in haste. It is the LORD's Passover. 12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD. 13 Now the blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you; and the plague shall not be on you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt. 14 So this day shall be to you a memorial; and you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD throughout your generations. You shall keep it as a feast by an everlasting ordinance.”'” (Bold emphasis mine.)
This passage is the best place to start our discussion, since it provides the background for the celebration of the Passover meal, the meal at which Jesus first instituted the Lord's Supper. Observe that the Passover meal itself consisted of only three required things: 1) the lamb (vs.3), 2) unleavened bread (vs.8), and 3) bitter herbs (vs.8).

But these three essential elements of the Passover meal were not all that was required for a proper celebration of it. For example, there was also the requirement to place the blood of the lamb on the lintel and doorposts of the house where it was eaten (vs.7), the requirement to eat the entire lamb before morning or burn what was left (vs.10), the requirement to eat the meal standing with a belt on one's waist and sandals on one's feet (vs.11a), and the requirement to eat the whole meal in haste (vs.11b).

Observe also that there is no mention at all of the fruit of the vine, although we may imagine that they drank something with the meal. At any rate, Jesus later saw no problem with drinking the fruit of the vine with the Passover as a part of a proper celebration of it. In fact, as we shall see below, He made it a required part of the Lord's Supper.

As for why the specific elements (lamb, unleavened bread, and bitter herbs) of the meal itself were required, Christians can answer with certainty based upon later revelation that the lamb was slain as a type of Christ, “our Passover” (1 Cor. 5:7). The reason for the unleavened bread is not altogether clear from Exodus 12, but Moses later gives a reason for it – which may hint at a reason for the bitter herbs as well – when he reviews the Passover requirement in Deuteronomy.
Deuteronomy 16:1-3 “Observe the month of Abib, and keep the Passover to the LORD your God, for in the month of Abib the LORD your God brought you out of Egypt by night. 2 Therefore you shall sacrifice the Passover to the LORD your God, from the flock and the herd, in the place where the LORD chooses to put His name. 3 You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat unleavened bread with it, that is, the bread of affliction (for you came out of the land of Egypt in haste), that you may remember the day in which you came out of the land of Egypt all the days of your life.” (Bold emphasis mine.)
So, the unleavened bread – and apparently also the bitter herbs – was eaten primarily as a reminder of their affliction in Egypt. Perhaps this is the main reason Jesus also chose it to symbolize His body, given the great affliction He endured for our sins. We cannot be certain of this particular point, but we can be certain as to what Jesus taught were the required elements of the Lord's Supper, to which we will now turn our attention.
Matthew 26:26-30 “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat; this is My body.' 27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom.' 30 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.'”
Luke 22:14-20 “When the hour had come, He sat down, and the twelve apostles with Him. 15 Then He said to them, 'With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.' 17 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, 'Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.' 19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, 'This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.' 20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.'” (Bold emphasis mine.)
First, notice that from among the required elements of the Passover meal Jesus selected only the unleavened bread as an essential element of the Lord's Supper. The lamb was no longer required for obvious reasons; it had found its fulfillment in Jesus' sacrifice for our sins. And as for the bitter herbs, they are not mentioned at all by Jesus.

Second, the fruit of the vine was not – as we have previously seen – a required element of the Passover. It appears that Jesus chose it not to replace one of the required elements of the Passover meal as such, but rather as a replacement for the blood of the Lamb that was to be put on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the house. That blood of the lamb had pointed to the blood of Christ that was to be shed for our sins, but now the fruit of the vine would symbolize His blood.

Thus, we can see that Jesus clearly dispensed with the Passover meal as previously required, and He required only two elements for future remembrance of Him, namely the bread and the fruit of the vine. Nowhere in these passages does He specify the need to eat or drink anything else.

Steve Atkerson nevertheless offers the following challenge based upon the connection of the Lord's Supper to the Passover:
[T]he bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper were introduced in the context of a full meal, specifically, the Passover meal.

Would the Twelve have somehow concluded that the newly instituted Lord’s Supper was not to be a true meal? Or would they naturally have assumed it to be a feast, just like the Passover? The answers are obvious.
Well, I do not think the answers to these questions are so obvious, at least not the answers given by Atkerson. In fact, I would ask a number of questions in response. For example, given that the Passover requirements had been so specific, why would the Apostles assume that Jesus' instructions were any less so? That is, why would they automatically assume that He intended them to eat a larger meal when His specific instructions did not say so? In addition, if they did assume that Jesus intended that they eat a larger meal in conjunction with the bread and the fruit of the vine, would they not have assumed it to be the Passover meal? After all, as Atkerson himself correctly observes, it is this meal that provides the background for the Lord's Supper, not just any meal. Would Atkerson require us to eat the Lord's Supper with bitter herbs, with staffs in our hands, and in haste, for example? Would he require us to eat lamb? I seriously doubt it! But if these requirements of the Passover have been set aside, on what basis does Atkerson say that a larger meal – beyond anything specified by Jesus himself – should be required of Christians? That is, if that which made the Passover a meal in the first place – according to Atkerson – is no longer required, then why should we think that any other meal is required?

Thus, the connection with the Passover simply does not provide an adequate basis for requiring that the Lord's Supper be eaten as part of a “full meal.” But Atkerson has other arguments for this, arguments that I think are better support for his view but which still do not prove his case. These arguments are based upon the future focus of the Lord's Supper.
Jesus keenly desired to eat that last Passover with His disciples, saying that He would “not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God ” (Lk 22:16 ). Note that Jesus looked forward to a time when He could eat the Passover again in the kingdom of God. Evidently, the “fulfillment” (Lk 22:16 ) of this was later written about by John in Revelation 19:7-9. There, John recorded an angel declaring, “Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!” The Last Supper and the early church’s Lord’s Suppers all looked forward to a fulfillment in the wedding supper of the Lamb. What better way to typify a banquet than with a banquet?

His future wedding banquet was much on our Lord’s mind that particular Passover evening. He mentioned it first at the beginning of the Passover feast (Lk 22:16 ). He mentioned it again when passing the cup, saying, “I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes” (Lk 22:18 ). Then, after the supper, He referred to it yet again, saying, “I confer on you a kingdom . . . so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom ” (Lk 22:29 -30).

Whereas modern Gentiles associate heaven with clouds and harps, first-century Jews thought of heaven as a time of feasting at Messiah’s table. This idea of eating and drinking at the Messiah’s table was common imagery in Jewish thought of the first century. For instance, a Jewish leader once said to Jesus, “Blessed is the man who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God ” (Lk 14:15 ). Jesus Himself said that “many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 8:11 ).
I agree with Atkerson that the Lord's Supper looks forward to a fulfillment in the kingdom of God as Jesus said. I also agree that the Marriage Supper of the Lamb is most likely a reference to this fulfillment. However, the fact still remains that Jesus did not specify eating and drinking anything other than bread and the fruit of the vine in remembrance of Him and in anticipation of the future kingdom. It is not that I have a problem with HCM advocates observing the Lord's supper in the context of a larger meal in anticipation of the future kingdom. I actually think it could be a beautiful thing to do so long as the kinds of errors to which this may lead are avoided (errors that will be discussed below with reference to the church at Corinth). My problem with the HCM position is that it makes a requirement of something Jesus nowhere required. Where, I ask, in any of the Gospel passages cited by Atkerson do we find such a statement of Jesus? Also, since Jesus said He would not eat of the Passover meal again until the future consummation (Luke 22:16), why should we think that we must eat of such a meal? As a matter of fact, why should we not instead think that we ought to eat and drink only of the bread and the fruit of the vine that He specifically told us to eat and drink. Couldn't someone argue from this evidence that we should wait for Jesus to show up for that meal before we start eating it?

Now, I of course am not going to argue in such a manner, because the text doesn't say we must not eat the Lord's Supper as a part of a larger meal any more than it says that we must. And that is my point. We should not make a requirement of something without clear Scriptural warrant.

But what about the fact that at least one church in the New Testament era – the church at Corinth – did apparently observe the Lord's Supper in conjunction with the eating of a larger meal? Does this demonstrate that such a practice should be required of other churches? Let's take a look at the evidence in 1 Corinthians to find out.
1 Corinthians 10:16-17 “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.”
Beresford Job cites these verses and laments the practice of having separate special “communion services”:
...Paul indicates that the food and drink represents, among other things, the unity we have because of what Jesus accomplished for us in His death. The truly awful, and perfectly misleading, phrase 'Holy Communion' comes from the fact that in the Greek the word translated participation is koinonia, and means fellowship. Hence we have such associated words as communication, communique and communion. As stated earlier, the New Testament knows nothing of 'communion services', and the early churches shared bread and wine as part of a communal church meal - as simple as that!
Without getting into the relative merits of the term communion, I would challenge what Job has said at at least two points. First, although the context of 1 Corinthians later indicates that the church at Corinth did apparently partake of the Lord's Supper in conjunction with a meal, it goes beyond the evidence to speak in general of “the early churches” as following this practice. Second, Paul does not make reference in these verses to any kind of meal as Job thinks of it. He refers only to the cup and the bread which symbolize the blood and body of Christ.
1 Corinthians 11:20-22 “Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper [deípnon]. 21 For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.”
Steve Atkerson makes the following argument:
From the nature of their abuse, it is evident that the Corinthian church regularly partook of the Lord’s Supper as a full meal. In contrast, very few people in modern churches would ever come to a typical Lord’s Supper service expecting to have physical hunger satisfied. Nor could they possibly get drunk from drinking a thimble-sized cup of wine (or much less, grape juice).

The inspired solution for the Corinthian’s abuse of the Supper was not that the church cease eating it as a full meal. Instead, Paul wrote, “when you come together to eat, wait for each other.” Only those so famished or undisciplined or selfish that they could not wait for the others are instructed to “eat at home” (1Co 11:34 ).
I would not say that the Corinthian church “regularly partook of the Lord's Supper as a full meal” (italics mine). Instead, I would say that they were partaking of the Lord's Supper in conjunction with a larger meal. There is a difference. Atkerson's way of stating it goes beyond what the text communicates by assuming that the Lord's Supper isn't the Lord's Supper at all if not partaken of as a part of a larger meal. But, as we shall see, the text does not demand this. I am also not sure I would agree with his characterization of the nature of Paul's solution to the problem. But I will respond to this later when I discuss verses 33-34.

All that can be said with certainty from this passage is that the Corinthians were treating the Lord's Supper as if it were no different than any other meal, and that they were doing so in a selfish manner to boot. However, Paul tells them that if their goal is simply eating and drinking in order to satisfy their own physical hunger and thirst, then they should do that at home.

But this brings up the fact that many were coming to eat their “own supper” (vs.21) rather than the “Lord's Supper” (vs.20). Atkerson argues that the meaning of the Greek word translated supper requires the notion of a "full meal":
Additionally, the word behind “supper” (1Co 11:20 ) is deipnon, which means "dinner, the main meal toward evening, banquet.” It never refers to anything less than a full meal, such as an appetizer, snack or hors d’oeuvres. What is the possibility that the authors of the New Testament would use deipnon to refer to the Lord’s “Supper” if it were not supposed to be a full meal?
I would say that it is the strongest of possibilities that Paul would use the Greek word deípnon to refer to the Lord's Supper as something less than the kind of large meal that Atkerson supposes. Indeed, I would say it is a certainty that he would do so, since that is exactly what he did.

The fact is that words mean what they mean in the contexts in which they are used, and here Paul uses deípnon in a context which indicates that it refers simply to the bread and cup as the only required elements of the Lord's Supper. This will become more apparent as we examine the larger context more fully, but for now I would only ask why a significant piece of bread and a glass of wine could not very well have been viewed as a meal by many first century believers? On what basis do HCM advocates import modern notions of what constitutes a meal back into the first century anyway?

But then there is also the fact that a word can be put to a special use that doesn't necessarily convey its typical meaning, which seems to be the case with deípnon. For example, the Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament, by Timothy and Barbara Friberg, says that deípnon can be used “figuratively, as a sacred meal with symbolic meaning attached ” and lists 1 Corinthians 11:20 as an example (BibleWorks #5939). Of course, I agree with HCM advocates that deípnon usually refers to an ordinary meal and can refer to the main meal of the day eaten toward evening, but Paul clearly was not using this word in the usual way. In fact, he contrasted his use of the word with the apparent understanding of the Corinthians. They were obviously thinking of just some ordinary supper, but Paul explicitly tells them that this is not the Lord's Supper (vs.20).

Now, I suppose that HCM advocates could say that this doesn't mean that Paul does not see the Lord's Supper as including and requiring the eating of a larger meal. It only means that he sees it as something more than just an ordinary meal. Such an objection would carry significant weight if it wasn't for the context. For, as we shall see, in the context Paul clearly specifies what he sees as essential to the proper observance of the Lord's Supper, and he includes only the correct eating of the bread and drinking of the cup as such.
1 Corinthians 11:23-25 “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, 'Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.' 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.'”
If proper observance of the Lord's Supper did, in fact, require the eating of a "full meal" (such as HCM advocates suppose), then why does Paul not say that he received this from the Lord and handed it on to them? Why does he not say that Jesus taught – and he handed down to them – that we must eat a larger meal, beyond the bread and the cup, in remembrance of Christ? Instead, Paul just repeats exactly the teaching of Jesus. He stresses that it is the eating of the bread and the drinking of the cup alone that are to be done in remembrance of Christ. Thus it is the bread and cup that are the essence of the Lord's Supper, and there is no further requirement.

Now, Paul does say that Jesus originally took the cup “after supper” (vs.25) and gave it its significance. And this fact may lead some HCM advocates to conclude that this assumes that a larger meal should be eaten between the eating of the bread and drinking of the cup. But the supper being referred to by Paul in verse 25 is the original supper at which Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, i.e. the last Passover that He shared with the disciples. Paul isn't necessarily implying with this historical reference that the the proper observance of the Lord's Supper will be to eat the bread in remembrance of Christ, have a supper, and then drink the cup in remembrance of Him as well, since the Passover is a supper in which Christian's are no longer required to participate.
1 Corinthians 11:26 “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes.”
Here again we have the future aspect of the Lord's Supper coming into view. But we also have the emphasis once again upon eating the bread and drinking the cup. Paul has consistently identified as crucial to a proper observance of the Lord's Supper these two things, and nothing more.
1 Corinthians 11:27-32 “Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.”
Notice that it is only eating of the bread and drinking of the cup in an unworthy manner that constitutes the sin Paul is specifically confronting here. There are not many weak, sick, or even dead among them because they did not eat in a worthy manner of anything else that they may have had with the meal they were eating. But if Paul saw this larger meal as itself a necessary part of the Lord's Supper, wouldn't he have spoken more generally and told them that whatever they were eating or drinking together should be eaten and drunk in a worthy manner? However, if Paul saw only the bread and the fruit of the vine as the essential elements of the Lord's Supper, what he says makes perfect sense, since it is only these two things that he demands that they rightly observe.
1 Corinthians 11:33-34 “Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come.”
As we saw earlier, Atkerson placed real importance upon these commands as supporting his position. But let's take another look at what he says:
The inspired solution for the Corinthian’s abuse of the Supper was not that the church cease eating it as a full meal. Instead, Paul wrote, “when you come together to eat, wait for each other.” Only those so famished or undisciplined or selfish that they could not wait for the others are instructed to “eat at home” (1Co 11:34 ).
When Paul says “when you come together to eat, wait for one another,” is he referring to the larger meal they were apparently having in conjunction with the Lord's Supper? Or is he referring only to the immediately preceding verses in which he has specified the eating of the bread and drinking of the cup in a worthy manner? It is possible that he has the larger meal in mind, in which case Atkerson is correct to conclude that Paul did not mind their continuing to eat this larger meal. But I think that the immediately preceding verses indicate that he is referring here more specifically to the bread and the cup. I also think that his command in the next verse makes this more probable. For the next thing that Paul says it that, “if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home.” This means that Paul did not see the satisfaction of physical hunger as the point of the Lord's Supper, but isn't this at least a part of the reason people come together to eat a “full meal”? However, the point of the Lord's Supper for Paul is clearly not the satisfaction of physical hunger, but rather that bread is eaten and the fruit of the vine is drunk in remembrance of Christ and looking forward to the future kingdom.

But even if Paul had no problem with their eating a larger meal in conjunction with the Lord's Supper, this does not indicate that he viewed this larger meal as necessary to it, which he clearly did not. That Paul allowed a practice does not mean that he required it. This is why I would see no problem at all with churches who may partake of the Lord's Supper in conjunction with a larger meal. I would simply caution them to avoid the excesses and abuses of the Corinthian church, abuses that apparently arose – at least in part – precisely because they chose to partake of the Lord's Supper in this manner. And I would also warn them against making a requirement of something not clearly required in Scripture.
Jude 1:12 “These are spots in your love feasts [agápai], while they feast with you without fear, serving only themselves. They are clouds without water, carried about by the winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots....”
Beresford Job is adamant about the import of this verse:
Love feasts! What love feasts? Churches don't have love feasts at which some people might be blemishes, do they? Well, any Bible scholar will tell you that the churches in the New Testament did have love feasts when they met; and here we have another of the names they used for the Lord's Supper! What about your church then?
Where is there any clear reference in this verse to the Lord's Supper? It may be that later Christian writings used the term agápai to refer to the Lord's Supper, as seems to be implied here by Job. But where is the evidence of this in Jude? I conclude that this verse has no clear bearing on the subject.

Well, that covers the Biblical case made by HCM advocates as represented by Beresford Job and Steve Atkerson. We have seen why it is that the Church for so many centuries has not held as necessary the eating of a larger meal with the Lord's Supper. It is not because so many Christians have been so blinded to the correct reading of Scripture at this point. Rather it is simply because there is no such requirement in Scripture. In conclusion I would just say that, while I see no real problem with the practice of HCM churches regarding the Lord's Supper, I am once again troubled by their tendency to make requirements of things not clearly commanded in Scripture. This is a dangerous trend which I will address again in a later post.

Stay tuned for the next post in this series, in which I will respond to the House-Church Movement's treatment of elder leadership.

Thursday, March 08, 2007

"The Secret" is No Secret! It is Just the Same Old Lie


The book The Secret and the movie by the same name have recently been gaining a lot of attention, especially due to the coverage received on the Oprah Winfrey Show. On the page devoted to The Secret at Oprah.com, a caption under a promotional video reads, "It's making headlines around the world—and buzz just keeps building. Some say it's the secret to creating the life you truly want—losing weight, making money, finding love. See why people everywhere are talking about The Secret." And in the promotional video itself, one can hear Oprah say, "For years on this show this is what I've been trying to do." And at another web page at the site entitled, "The Secret is Out: a Huge Reaction," the following description of The Secret and the reaction to it on the Oprah Winfrey Show may be found:
On February 8, 2007, millions tuned in to The Oprah Winfrey Show to learn the mystery of The Secret. Since the show aired, our message boards have been buzzing with people who want to know more. The Secret is defined as the law of attraction, which states that like attracts like. The concept says that the energy you put into the world—both good and bad—is exactly what comes back to you. This means you create the circumstances of your life with the choices you make every day.

To help answer your burning questions, two teachers of The Secret, James Arthur Ray and the Rev. Dr. Michael Beckwith, are back. Michael says he thinks The Secret is alluring because it helps people stop feeling like victims. "I think us talking about the law of attraction, talking about these universal spiritual principles, allows them to see that they can begin to govern their thoughts and their way of life," he says.
In addition to this description, there are a number of segments devoted to The Secret at Oprah.com. But one can also go to the website of The Secret, click on "Learn About The Secret," and watch about 25 minutes of the movie. After having done so, what I discovered is that The Secret is really no secret at all; it is just another rehashed version of the old "power of positive thinking" nonsense. It is designed to teach "the secret" to getting whatever you want, which they call the "law of attraction." This law is that you attract—and thus cause to happen in your life— whatever you can consistently think, whether good or bad. It teaches that a person's life is a physical manifestation of what they think. The movie acknowledges that it is very hard to control our thoughts, however, but it offers as a solution our feelings as the best monitor of our thinking. Basically, if we feel good, we are thinking the right way, and if we feel bad we are thinking wrongly. It also tries to tie the law of attraction into quantum physics and to make it sound scientific. But, of course, there is nothing new or scientific about it. It is just another warmed-over version of the same old lie.
Actually, it looks like the latest New Age fad to me, and it appears to be focused entirely upon how best to make ourselves feel good by giving us our most selfish desires. It appeals to the lust of the flesh and directs us to look inward for the source of happiness. But as Christians we know the danger of looking inward to ourselves for happiness. We remember and believe the warning of Jeremiah that "the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked" (17:9). We know the danger of self-deception that lurks within us and leads us away from the true source of happiness, which is found in a right relationship with God through Jesus Christ. It is found not by seeking the answer from within, but by looking outside ourselves to God.