Finally the man on the loudspeaker begins to speak up, “You have come here for many reasons, some of you are here to with hopes of winning.  Some of you are here hoping to just finish.  You have trained hard for this day.  Over the past several weeks or months, you have forsaken your lives with a goal in mind: to conquer 13.1 miles of pain and sweat.  This is what you have trained for.  Your goal closer now than it was when you began your training.  This race will not be easy.  But remember all the pain and suffering that you experienced during training, how you fought through it, how you conquered it.  There is only one thing left to conquer and it is 13.1 miles of hell.  Don’t give in.  When you feel like giving up, dig in harder.”

Finally the race starts.  I know that today is going to be a battle, a fight between my mind and body and 13.1 miles of crushed rock and tar.  The race starts off slow, don’t want to sprint out of the gate and crawl to the finish.  I want to conquer the last half of the race.  The race won’t be won in the last mile, but it can be lost there.  The first few miles are pretty flat with few on lookers (no doubt wondering what kind of idiot wakes up at 4:45 in the morning on Thanksgiving to put his body through 13 miles of pain and suffering or maybe they are just there to see a family member run (still probably thinking the former)).  There was an interesting encounter with a Monty Python fan quoting Monty Python and the Holy Grail as he pasted by.  I asked if he planned to quote the entire movie by the end of the race (if so, I was going to follow as long as I could).  He thought that was a good idea and off he went (he was going to run a faster pace than I was willing to attempt that early in the race).  Next comes a group of Marines bearing flags (Marine Corp and USA) mocking the sheer ease of running a half marathon.  Running and chanting cadence calls (is that a tautology?).  Like a group of prisoners on a chain gang they chant and step in rhythm.  It was a welcome piece of relief in those beginning miles where I am thinking about what I have gotten myself into.  When I run, the last thing on my mind most of the time is running.  Of course the beginning of the race was focused on getting out the gate conservatively and what-not, but like every other run my mind began to wander down other paths (a lot of thinking can be done during a half marathon).  As the marines chant away, it pulls me out of the battle raging inside my head.  Those first few miles were pretty uneventful.  Step after step, mile after mile all I see is a mass of people striving for a goal.  As the early morning cold eases into the morning chill my pace begins to pick up.  I finally feel as though I have my legs.  At the three mile mark.  I feel like everything is going to be fine.  I begin to make my move.  I settle into my race pace and approach my first water stop.  There is nothing like an “infinite” amount of people attempting to get a finite amount of cups from a less finite amount of volunteers.  It was rather comical and changed the way I would approach future water stations.  There seemed to be a little game going on at the water station.  People would take there water cup drink a little and proceed to throw it (not to the side of the road as you would expect) into the crowd of people running.  I take my first (and only) GU at this water station about 4.5 miles into the race.

My race is going well as I approach what will be a finish that will rival anything hell could invent, 4 miles uphill and then leveling off for a mile to the finish.  My conservative strategy is paying dividends.  I have been passing people since mile 2 and only rarely being passed.  I ease through a long downhill section to the bottom of “Cardiac Hill” only to begin my ascent to its peak.  This is what I have trained for, this is why I continually ran the Lanham-Lupo combo (a hill combo that maxes 13% and 20% grades respectively).  Cardiac Hill was a joke.  I laughed at it as I was running it.  I begin to realize that these hills are nothing.  I have worried about these hills for months.  I had made should I picked routes that always ended with tough uphill finishes.  All that training made “Cardiac Hill” look like the valley of peace and serenity.  I begin to rethink my race strategy (should have gone out a little faster).  By the time I hit the peak of cardiac hill I finally glance down at my watch to see how I am doing.  Not going to break any records, but everything looks ok.  My mind hasn’t really been focused on the race at all.  The entire time my mind has been elsewhere (worrying about something that I can’t control, but will continue to torture me until I actually stop worrying about it).  My mind has been a helpful distraction throughout the race.  As I enter the final 5k I do a check to make sure everything is holding up.  I glance at the tape on the leg, its still there, no pain, we’re good for the finish.  I decide that I need to pick up the pace just a little bit more and prepare for a sprint (not really a sprint, but as fast as a short fat guy can run) to the finish.  I approach the finish and run under the Olympic archway.  It is time to give it everything I have.  The streets are lined with fans cheering me on.  They are going crazy.  I cry out, “Are you not entertained? Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?”  I turn the jets on and begin that final push to the finish as people are falling by the wayside left and right.  As I cross the line the crowd lets out a tremendous shout of joy.  A man approaches with a medal and a robe in honor of my accomplishment and a goblet of water.  The crowd makes its way to my side and carries me on their shoulders to the post race celebration.  I look down at my watch and am somewhat satisfied by what it says, just over two hours and six minutes to complete the race, not too bad for my first half marathon. I make my way to meal that is fit for a king (or in my case a starving peasant) at Waffle House.  I swear that was the best waffle I’ve ever ate.

The rest of the day was fit with a meal that was truly meant for a king: a thanksgiving meal that superbly prepared by the “domestic goddess” herself and hanging out with the best runner I personally know.

Baptism

Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them, &c. Matt 28:19.

I. The way whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption, is, in the use of the sacraments.

What are the sacraments in general?

They are visible signs of invisible grace.

Is not the word of God sufficient to salvation? What need then is there of sacraments?

We must not be wise above what is written. It is God’s will that his church should have sacraments; and it is God’s goodness thus to condescend to weak capacities. ‘Except ye see signs, ye will not believe.’ John 4:48. To strengthen our faith, God confirms the covenant of grace, not only by promises but by sacramental signs.

What are the sacraments of the New Testament?

Two: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

Are there no more? The Papists tell us of five more, viz., confirmation, penance, matrimony, orders, and the extreme unction.

(1) There were but two sacraments under the law, therefore there are no more now. I Cor 10:2, 3, 4.

(2) These two sacraments are sufficient; the one signifying our entrance into Christ, and the other, our growth and perseverance in him.

II. The first sacrament is baptism. ‘Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them,’ &c. ‘Go, teach all nations;’ the Greek word is ‘Make disciples of all nations.’ If it be asked, how should we make them disciples? It follows, ‘Baptizing them and teaching them.’ In a heathen nation, first teach, and then baptize them; but in a Christian church, first baptize, and then teach them.

What is baptism?

In general, it is a matriculation, or visible admission of children into the congregation of Christ’s flock. More particularly, ‘Baptism is a sacrament, wherein the washing or sprinkling with water, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, does signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord’s.’

What is meant by the parent when he presents his child to be baptized?

The parent, in presenting the child to be baptized, (1) Makes a public acknowledgement of original sin; that the soul of his child is polluted, therefore needs washing from sin by Christ’s blood and Spirit; both which washings are signified by the sprinkling of water in baptism. (2) The parent by bringing his child to be baptized, solemnly devotes it to the Lord, and enrols it in God’s family; and truly it is a great satisfaction to a religious parent to have given up his child to the Lord in baptism. How can a parent look with comfort on that child who was never dedicated to God?

What is the benefit of baptism?

The party baptized has, (1) An entrance into the visible body of the church. (2) He has a right sealed to the ordinances, which is a privilege full of glory. Rom 9:4. (3) The child baptized is under a more special providential care of Christ, who appoints the tutelage of angels to be the infant’s life-guard.

Is this all the benefit?

No! To such as belong to the election, baptism is a ‘seal of the righteousness of faith,’ a laver of regeneration, and a badge of adoption. Rom 4:11.

How does it appear that children have a right to baptism?

Children are parties in the covenant of grace. The covenant was made with them. ‘I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.’ Gen 17:7. ‘The promise is to you and to your children.’ Acts 2:39. The covenant of grace may be considered either, (1) More strictly, as an absolute promise to give saving grace; and so none but the elect are in covenant with God. Or, (2) More largely, as a covenant containing in it many outward glorious privileges, in which respects the children of believers do belong to the covenant of grace. The promise is to you and to your seed. The infant seed of believers may as well lay a claim to the covenant of grace as their parents; and having a right to the covenant, they cannot justly be denied baptism, which is its seal. It is certain the children of believers were once visibly in covenant with God, and received the seal of their admission into the church; where now do we find this covenant interest, or church membership of infants, repealed or made void? Certainly Jesus Christ did not come to put believers and their children into a worse condition than they were in before. If the children of believers should not be baptized, they are in worse condition now than they were in before Christ’s coming.

[1] Objections. The Scripture is silent herein and does not mention infant baptism.

Though the word infant baptism is not in Scripture, yet the thing is. Mention is not made in Scripture of woman’s receiving the sacrament; but who doubts but the command, ‘Take, eat, this is my body,’ concerns them? Does not their faith need strengthening as well as others? So the word Trinity is not to be found in Scripture, but there is that which is equivalent to it. ‘There are Three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these Three are one.’ I John 5:7. So, though the word infant baptism is not mentioned in Scripture, the practice of baptizing infants may be drawn from Scripture by undeniable consequence.

How is that proved?

The Scripture mentions whole families baptized; as the household of Lydia, Crispus, and the jailer. ‘He was baptized, he and all his.’ Acts 16:33. Wherein we must rationally imagine there were some little children. If it be said, there is no mention here made of children; I answer, neither are servants named; and yet it cannot be supposed but that, in so great a family, there were some servants.

But infants are not capable of the end of baptism; for baptism signifies the washing away of sin by the blood of Christ. Infants cannot understand this; therefore what benefit can baptism be to them?

Neither could the child that was to be circumcised understand circumcision; yet the ordinance of circumcision was not to be omitted or deferred. Though an infant understand not the meaning of baptism it may partake of the blessing of baptism. The little children that Christ took in his arms, understood not Christ’s meaning, but they had Christ’s blessing. ‘He put his hands upon them and blessed them.’ Mark 10:16.

But what benefit can the child have of baptism if it understand not the nature of baptism?

It may have a right to the promise sealed up, which it shall have an actual interest in when it comes to have faith. A legacy may be of use to the child in the cradle; though it now understand not the legacy, yet when it is grown up to years, it is fully possessed of it. But it may be further objected: -

The party to be baptized is to be engaged to God; but how can the child enter into such an engagement?

The parents can engage for it, which God is pleased to accept as equivalent to the child’s personal engagement.

If baptism comes in the room of circumcisions, and the males only were circumcised, what warrant is there for baptizing females? Gen 17:10.

Females were included, and were virtually circumcised in the males. What is done to the head is done to the body; the man being the head of the woman. I Cor 11:3. What was done to the male sex was interpretatively done to the female.

[2] Having answered these objections, I come now to prove by argument, infant baptism.

(1) If children during their infancy are capable of grace, they are capable of baptism; but children in their infancy are capable of grace, therefore they are capable of baptism. I prove the minor, that they are capable of grace, thus: if children in their infancy may be saved, then they are capable of grace; but children in their infancy may be saved; which is thus proved: that if the kingdom of heaven belongs to them, they may be saved; but the kingdom of heaven may belong to them, as it is clear from, ‘Of such is the kingdom of God’ (Mark 10:14); who then can forbid that the seal of baptism should be applied to them?

(2) If infants may be among the number of God’s servants, there is no reason why they should be shut out of God’s family; but infants may be in the number of God’s servants, because God calls them his servants. ‘He shall depart from thee, and his children with him, for they are my servants.’ Lev 25:41. Therefore children in their infancy, being God’s servants, why should they not have baptism, which is the tessera, the mark or seal which God sets upon his servants?

(3) ‘But now are they (your children) holy.’ I Cor 7:14. Children are not called holy, as if they were free from original sin; but in the judgement of charity they are to be esteemed holy, and true members of the church of God, because their parents are believers. Hence that excellent divine, Mr Hildersam, says, ‘that the children of the faithful as soon as they are born, have a covenant holiness, and so a right and title to baptism, which is the token of the covenant.’

(4) From the opinion of the fathers and the practice of the church. The ancient fathers were strong asserters of infant baptism, as Irenaeus, Basil, Lactantius, Cyprian, and Augustine. It was the practice of the Greek church to baptize her infants. Erasmus says that infant baptism has been used in the church of God for above fourteen hundred years. And Augustine, in his book against Pelagius, affirms that it has been the custom of the church in all ages to baptize infants. Yea, it was an apostolic practice. Paul affirms that he baptized the whole house of Stephanus. I Cor 1:16.

Having seen Scripture arguments for infant baptism, let us consider whether the practice of those who delay the baptizing of children till riper years, be warrantable. For my part, I cannot gather it from Scripture. Though we read of adult persons, and grown up to years of discretion, in the apostles’ times, being baptized, yet they were such as were converted from heathenish idolatry to the true orthodox faith; but that in a Christian church the children of believers should be kept unbaptized for several years, I know neither precept nor example for it in Scripture, but it is wholly apocryphal. The baptizing of persons, grown up to maturity, we may argue against ab effectu, from the ill consequence of it. They dip the persons they baptize over head and ears in cold water, and naked; which, as it is indecent, so it is dangerous, and has often been the occasion of chronic disease, yea, and of death itself; and so is a plain breach of the sixth commandment. How far God has given up many persons, who are for deferring baptism, to other vile opinions and vicious practices, is evident, if we consult history; especially if we read the doings of the Anabaptists in Germany.

Use one. See the riches of God’s goodness, who will not only be the God of believers, but takes their seed into covenant with them. ‘I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed.’ Gen 17:7. A father counts it a great privilege, not only to have his own name, but his child’s name put in a will.

Use two. Those parents are to be blamed who forbid little children to be brought to Christ; and withhold from them this ordinance. By denying their infants baptism, they exclude them from membership in the visible church, so that their infants are sucking pagans. Such as deny their children baptism, make God’s institutions under the law more full of kindness and grace to children than they are under the gospel; which, how strange a paradox it is, I leave you to judge.

Use three. For exhortation. (1) Let us who are baptized, labour to find the blessed fruits of it in our own souls; not only to have the signs of the covenant, but the grace of the covenant. Many glory in their baptism. The Jews gloried in their circumcision, because of their royal privileges; to them belonged the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants. Rom 9:4. But many of them were a shame and reproach to their circumcision. ‘For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you.’ Rom 2:24. The scandalous Jews, though circumcised, were, in God’s account, as heathens. ‘Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians to me? saith the Lord.’ Amos 9:7. Alas! what is it to have the name of Christ, and want his image? What is baptism of water without the baptism of the Spirit? Many baptized Christians are no better than heathens. O let us labour to find the fruits of baptism, that Christ is formed in us (Gal 4:19); that our nature is changed; that we are made holy and heavenly. This is to be baptized into Jesus. Rom 6:3. Such as live unsuitable to their baptism, may go with baptismal-water on their faces, and sacramental bread in their mouths, to hell.

(2) Let us labour to make a right use of our baptism. Let us use it as a shield against temptations. Satan, I have given up myself to God by a sacred vow in baptism; I am not my own, I am Christ’s; therefore I cannot yield to thy temptations, for I should break my oath of allegiance which I made to God in baptism. Luther tells us of a pious woman, who, when the devil tempted her to sin, answered, Satan, baptizata sum, ‘I am baptized;’ and so beat back the tempter.

Let us use it as a spur to holiness. By remembering our baptism, let us be stirred up to make good our baptismal engagements; renouncing the world, flesh, and devil, let us devote ourselves to God and his service. To be baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, implies a solemn dedication of ourselves to the service of all the Three Persons in the Trinity. It is not enough that our parents dedicate us to God in baptism, but we must dedicate ourselves to him; this is called living to the Lord. Rom 14:8. Our life should be spent in worshipping God, in loving God, in exalting God; we should walk as becomes the gospel. Phil 1:27. We should shine as stars in the world, and live as earthly angels.

Let us use it as an argument to courage. We should be ready to confess that Holy Trinity, into whose name we were baptized. With the conversion of the heart must go the confession of the tongue. ‘Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God.’ Luke 12:8. Peter openly confessed Christ crucified. Acts 4:10. Cyprian, a man of a brave spirit, was like a rock, whom no waves could shake; like an adamant, whom no sword could cut. He confessed Christ before the pro-consul, and suffered himself to be proscribed; yea, chose death rather than betray the truths of Christ. He that dare not confess the Holy Trinity, shames his baptism, and God will be ashamed to own him at the day of judgement.

Use four. See the fearfulness of the sin of apostasy! It is renouncing our baptism. It is damnable perjury to go away from God after a solemn vow. ‘Demas has forsaken me.’ 2 Tim 4:10. He turned renegado, and afterwards became a priest in an idol-temple, says Dorotheus. Julian the apostate, Gregory Nazianzen observes, bathed himself in the blood of beasts offered in sacrifice to heathen gods; and so, as much as in him lay, washed off his former baptism. The case of such as fall away after baptism is dreadful. ‘If any man draw back.’ Heb 10:38. The Greek word to draw back, alludes to a soldier that steals away from his colours; so, if any man steal away from Christ, and run over to the devil’s side, ‘my soul shall have no pleasure in him;’ that is, I will be severely avenged on him; I will make my arrows drunk with his blood. If all the plagues in the Bible can make that man miserable, he shall be so.

One of the credo of the reformed types is “reformed and always reforming.”  Along those lines, I have recently “reformed” my thinking on marriage.  But at the same time it has left me with more questions than my previous view.  For years I held the view that sex is marriage.  Since sex was the act that consummated a marriage, it was my opinion that the sexual bond between two persons was all that was necessary for there to be a marriage.  I’ll admit that some of this is based on my observations on marriages and marriage ceremonies.  Practically speaking there has been nothing special about any of the marriage ceremonies that I have attended.  There was nothing in them that made me believe that something objective/ontological was going on.  They really seemed unnecessary for the most part.  The rate of divorce or failed marriages anecdotally suggests that there is nothing special about marriage either.

Lately my views have completely changed.  I can no longer hold to that view.  I am now under the impression, that marriage doesn’t exist outside of the marriage ceremony, and only when it is officiated by an ordained minister.  Some of this has to do with a change in understanding of love.  The definition of love is radically changed in the Christian “worldview” (I really dislike that term, but I guess it gets its point across).  The view of love in marriage in the Christian worldview is vastly different than that of the non-Christian world (at least it should be).  But the reality is that the average Christian and the average non-Christian have the same view of love.  They both believe in something that is un-Biblical.  Exactly what that definition is I do not know.

The Christian definition of love in marriage founded on the way that Christ loved the church.  This view of love can only be founded in the Christian faith.  My problem with this is that this kind of love doesn’t exist naturally.  The only way for this type of love to be actualized is if it is given from the Godhead.  How does the Godhead give us this love?  The logical answer is that it is through the marriage ceremony.  (It might even be possible to argue that this gift of love is actually given as a benefit of one’s baptism.  The love between husband and wife is similar to the kind of love that the community of believers is supposed to have for each other.  At the same time however there is an added dimension to the marriage charge).  In the marriage ceremony the Father pours out his blessings on the couple through the Spirit.  One of those blessings, is the ability to love this way.  That is not to say that all Christians accept all of the blessings that the Father gives them.  Just as believers reject their baptism and the blessings that God has offered to them, so do married couples.  Just as apostasy happens in the church, so does it happen in marriage.

All of that said, I am more confused about marriage now then I ever was before.  I am curious about the transformation of love during the marriage ceremony.  How is the definition of love different for a couple that is in the courting process versus those that are already married?  Or is it?

I have been attempting to read up some on Federal Vision (FV) recently.  I have tried to do this in the past, but with little success.  I was hearing bad things about the theology and the people “leading” the movement.  Being PCA didn’t really help matters and having Paul Fowler as a professor in seminary didn’t help much either (If you don’t know, he was the chairman of the PCA study committee).  The FVers seemed to be radically changing the categories that I was accustomed to, as well as the definitions of theological terms that I was familiar with.  I saw nothing good of it for a while.  I was considering joining the PCA when the controversy first broke out.  I remember sitting in a presbytery meeting as Joseph Pipa was promoting a book that resulted from the colloquium at Knox Theological Seminary.  His specific target at the presbytery meeting was the issue of paedocommunion.  There was a lot of rhetoric being thrown around (even I could that at the time).  I eagerly waited on the PCA study committee report to come out.  When it came out, I was severely disappointed.  Anyone could tell that the report was pure BS (no offense to Paul Fowler, he is a great guy (I will always be thankful for him introducing me to Ridderbos)).  It made very little sense, you could tell that most of what was there was being taken out of context.  After reading the report and listening to a recording of the debate on the floor of GA, I was no longer satisfied with what I was being told.  But I also was planning to pursue ordination in the PCA at the time, and I knew that questioning its stance on FV would not bode well for me (especially in my presbytery).  I kind of just let it go.

By the time I was finishing up seminary, I began to think a lot about the sacraments.  I became very uncomfortable with what I was hearing from the Presbyterian folk around me.  The more I thought about it, the more I thought that my Presbyterian brothers were losing their grip on the historical reformed faith on the sacraments.  They seemed to have very little meaning for the church anymore.  To read Calvin on the sacraments and then watch the sacraments practiced in the church was shocking to say the least.  The more I thought about it and read, the more I began to think that baptized children were allowed at the table.  But trying to convince your average PCA person of that position was virtually impossible.

The only people that seemed to be open to the idea of paedocommunion were the FVers.  The question I began to wonder about was whether or not it was possible to not be associated with FV, yet still affirm paedocommunion.  I do think that it possible to hold to paedocommunion without taking the FV stance.  But in terms of practicality, I don’t think that it is.  Presbyterians as a whole seem to have lost some of their reformed roots.  (I think this is mostly due to the degradation of reformed worship over the past century.  Presbyterians have lost their theology because they no longer practice it on the Lord’s Day).

The sacraments have virtually the same meaning for Presbyterians these days, as they do for Baptists.  This is where the PCA FV report let me down the most.  I was taught in seminary that all heresies contain an element of truth.  Someone saw the theological pendulum beginning to swing in the wrong the direction and ended up trying to fix it, but swung the pendulum too far in the other direction.  The PCA refused to listen to what the FVers were saying.  They refused to look at what they were trying to regain (even if they did swing the pendulum too far in the other direction.  (that is a debatable point)).

I am still not completely convinced of the FV position, but it is growing on me.  But I too have to worry about falling off the other side of the theological horse.  I think that the question will ultimately remain, as to whether one has to be in the FV camp to affirm paedocommunion.  I no longer think that it is a question of theology, but a question of polity.

“The liturgy” is a general designation for the officially prescribed services of a church body.  The name is derived from the Greek word, leitourgia, a public act or duty performed by individual citizens for the benefit of the state.  Specifically the term is applied to the approved formulary for the celebration of the Eucharist.  In a less restricted sense, and as used generally, the liturgy denotes the whole system of formal, prescribed services, including the text, the seasons and festivals of the church, the prescribed ceremonial, etc.

In either sense, the liturgy is a work of large dimensions and universal significance.  It is not a “worship program” or a collection of such programs. The latter, usually prepared by an individual pastor for the use of a particular congregation at a single service, develops a topic or theme in accordance with some “psychological pattern.” Lessons, responsive readings and other liturgical extracts, hymns, litanies, and prayers are chosen from various sources and interspersed with organ and choral numbers. This “program” is usually designed as “preliminary” to the sermon in which the topic chosen by the minister is specifically discussed. Such a worship program, however balanced, beautiful and edifying in itself, is necessarily of local and temporary significance. Privately prepared and locally used, it has no connection with the services of other congregations and usually no close relationship with other services in the same congregation. Any such connection or any continuity with the past is soon broken and forgotten.

The liturgy, particularly in the restricted sense of the historical service of the Holy Communion is quite different.  It is not a sheaf of pretty autumn leaves but a noble, living tree.  It is the work and possession of the whole church.  It has been carefully prepared and authorized by a general church body.  It is used by thousands of congregations over continental areas.  Its plan encompasses the cycle of a year.  It  includes a certain fixed framework for every service throughout the year but inserts in this selection of variable material appropriate for particular festivals and days.  The beliefs, needs, and desires of all men find expression in its unchanging order for Confession, its Kyrie, its Gloria and canticles of praise, its Creed, Preface, Sanctus, the Prayer of Thanksgiving, the formula for distribution, the Post-Communion Collect, and the Benediction. (Luther Reed, The Lutheran Liturgy, 19-20).

Is there anything more to say?  (Well, actually yes there is.  The whole of the chapter is really worth posting and pondering over for weeks)

]]> http://reformedidiot.wordpress.com/2009/08/16/been-awhile/feed/ 0 reformedidiot http://reformedidiot.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/ecclesiastes/ http://reformedidiot.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/ecclesiastes/#comments Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:22:23 +0000 reformedidiot http://reformedidiot.wordpress.com/?p=51 ]]> I was in the middle of writing the most insightful blog ever last night, when I realized that I hadn’t done my reading for Bible study tonight, so I had to shelve it for the time being.  It is in the pile with all of the other insightful post that are half finished, eventually though I will come back to them (I hope).

For our Bible Study we are reading and discussing Ecclesiastes Through New Eyes: a Table in the Mist by Jeffrey Meyers.  So far it has been an interesting book.  Meyers makes an interesting observation about Ecclesisastes, he says that a lot of people have misunderstood its purpose, it is either Solomon in a period of lost hope or Solomon is showing the fulitity of a non-Christian worldview.  According to Meyers this is not the point of the book, Solomon is imparting some real wisdom on the reader, after all this is a wisdom book.  Ecclesiastes is one of those books that doesn’t hide the hash truth of life from us.  Sometimes life sucks.  It’s unfair.  You can do everything completely right and still fail or suffer.  What does Solomon says to do with all this, basically to eat, drink and be merry in all of it.

This is something that is rather hard to grasp.  I want to believe that if I follow the directions, everything is going to turn out like I want it to, but unfortunately that is not the case.  I spend so much time thinking everything through, going through various situations and scenarios in head of trying to figure everything out.  I want things to have a certain outcome and I try to figure out a means to that end.  But unfortunately life doesn’t work that way.  You can follow steps A and B and expect result C, but instead what you get is D.  You have no idea where D came from or what do with it.  You sit there and try to figure out D.  By the time you figure out D, E has come into the picture and you are left wondering WTF.  This is something that I have to fight on a daily basis, whether it’s trying to figure out what to say to that girl or what do with the rest of my life (because no matter what you do you’re going to screw it up).  This can be down right depressing the more you think about it.  The message of Ecclesiastes is actually full of hope in all of this, Follow the commands of God and accept your lot in life, and for goodness sake eat, drink and be merry.

I wish I had the wisdom to do this, but I will probably continue to try and control my life.  The father tells us to trust him, and yet, we tell him no.  We think that we can handle it on our own.  We think we know more than the creator of the world, this is pure insanity.  This is what happened to Adam in the garden.  God was preparing Adam to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but Adam in his hastiness wanted it now.  He wanted to take control of his life and paid a hefty cost for.  Hopefully we can learn from Adam and from Solomon to wait patiently for the Lord.  In the meantime, let’s eat, drink and be merry.

…does 1 Cor. 11:28 really require the kind of self-examination that Calvin and Presbyterians have traditionally thought?  To whom does Paul address the admonition?  What does the verb “examine” mean in the context of 1 Cor. 11?  Does it actually require “mature faith” and an ability to perform internal soul-searching and deep personal introspection before one can be judged worthy of participation at the Lord’s table?  I am convinced that this text has been made to serve a function in traditional discussions about the admission requirements for Holy Communion that goes well beyond Paul’s solution for the problem in the Corinthian church’s practice of hte Supper.  More ominously, I am convinced that that text, properly understood, actually stands against the traditional Presbyterian practice of excluding young children from the table. Those who fail to commune with the youngest, weakest members of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 11:14-26)  are themselves not “judging the body” (that is, the church as the communal body of Christ) and therefore eating the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner.  (emphasis mine and his)

If I ever had any doubts about paedocommunion, Meyers answered them.

But this leads to a question, if I take this latter approach, does that mean I have to buy into the Federal Vision Theology or can one affirm paedocommunion without Federal Vision?  The meaning of baptism is going to have to be discussed in the latter approach to “fencing the table”.  I can’t think of anyone within Federal Vision that denies paedocommunion, but I am having a hard time finding people that believe in paedocommunion that aren’t in the Federal Vision camp.  The problem is that I don’t if I completely buy into Federal Vision.  I am sympathetic in some instances, but as of right now I don’t know if I can take it as a whole.

I know I have neglected this thing, but I have been somewhat busy lately, but I’ll try to keep up with it a little better.  I am reading some interesting books right now that I want to finish before I post some things that are on my mind right now.

“Instead of curling up into an introspective cocoon, the saints should be learning to discern that the Lord’s Supper is a corporate event, not an individual event.  Instead of dimming the lights and bowing their heads and closing their eyes, the believers should be looking around the sanctuary, loving and discerning the body.  Instead of groveling in confession, the body of Christ should be seated together with Christ in the central meal of the kingdom. This is the place where the friends of God rule.” (The Case for Covenant Communion, vi)

I will come back to this later.