Author: fundyreformed

The Lord’s Supper & Spiritual Participation in Christ’s Death

~ fundyreformed ~ 7 Comments

Last Sunday, our teaching pastor, John Piper, gave a message on the importance of the Lord’s Supper. We then partook of the supper together after his message. It was a very moving service and a great message; I encourage you to read or listen to it.

That sermon prompted me to post on at least two aspects concerning the Lord’s Supper. What follows will be part 1, with part 2 following later this week.

Spiritual Participation in Christ’s Death

What do we mean by spiritual participation? If any Baptists are reading this (as most surely there are), giant, bright, red-colored flags are popping up. “Remembrance“”we only remember Christ in the Lord’s Supper.” “Oh, he’s speaking of a mystical presence of Christ to be gained or sought in this act! Ugh!” It is a fact that transubstantiation, consubstantiation or even the view that communion is a “means of grace” are scorned in Baptist circles.

I can appreciate the reasons why Baptists so resolutely give a knee-jerk reaction to such talk. Clearly there are many errors surrounding communion, and many traditions make it into a supernatural religious ceremony with powers all its own. Yet the Baptist reaction to such errors is perhaps also a serious error in itself. Many Baptists approach the Lord’s table with no expectation of any spiritual participation.

Pastor Piper in his message last week pointed out that our church elder affirmation of faith states:

Those who eat and drink in a worthy manner partake of Christ’s body and blood, not physically, but spiritually, in that, by faith, they are nourished with the benefits He obtained through His death, and thus grow in grace.

“Where does the idea of ‘spiritually’ partaking of Christ’s body and blood ‘by faith’ come from?” you may ask. You could go read Piper’s sermon because he explains why. But I will be glad to tell you. It comes from this passage of Scripture:

1 Cor. 10:16-21 “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.”

Piper explains what “participation” (koinonia) means with the help of v. 18. Those who ate the sacrifices were participants in what happened on the altar. Let me quote Piper at this point, as he says this better than I could:

What does sharer/participant/partner in the altar mean? It means that they are sharing in or benefiting from what happened on the altar. They are enjoying, for example, forgiveness and restored fellowship with God.

So I take verse 16 and 17 to mean that when believers eat the bread and drink the cup physically we do another kind of eating and drinking spiritually. We eat and drink””that is, we take into our lives””what happened on the cross. By faith””by trusting in all that God is for us in Jesus””we nourish ourselves with the benefits that Jesus obtained for us when he bled and died on the cross.

Just as believing Israelites would joyfully bask in their restored fellowship with God on the basis of the shedding of blood, just as they would joyfully eat and rejoice in their hearts partaking spiritually in what was happening physically on the altar, we can joyfully participate in and experience spiritually all the benefits of Christ’s death on our behalf. His sacrifice is once for all, so our joy and fellowship is greater and fuller and more complete.

Wayne Grudem discusses this very thing in a helpful way as follows:

…Jesus promised to be present whenever believers worship: “where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matt.18:20). And if he is especially present when Christians gather to worship, then we would expect that he will be present in a special way in the Lord’s Supper: We meet him at his table, to which he comes to give himself to us. As we receive the elements of bread and wine in the presence of Christ, so we partake of him and his benefits. We “feed upon him in our hearts” with thanksgiving….Yet we must not say that Christ is present apart from our personal faith, but only meets and blesses us there in accordance with our faith in him….Certainly there is a symbolic presence of Christ, but it is also a genuine spiritual presence and there is a genuine spiritual blessing in this ceremony. [Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), pg. 995-996]

In his footnotes he addresses the view which denies such a spiritual presence with an insightful quote from Millard Erickson:

“Out of a zeal to avoid the conception that Jesus is present in some sort of magical way, certain Baptists among others have sometimes gone to such extremes as to give the impression that the one place where Jesus most assuredly is not to be found is the Lord’s supper. This is what one Baptist leader termed ‘the doctrine of the real absence’ of Jesus Christ” (Christian Theology, p. 1123). [Ibid, pg. 995]

One last angle on this aspect of the Lord’s Supper concerns the idea of fellowship with God around a meal. Wayne Grudem offers Ex. 24:9-11 and Deut. 14:23-26 as examples of a special fellowship with God surrounding a meal. This he describes is a restoration of the fellowship man had with God in Eden before the Fall. Yet he stresses:

The Old Testament sacrificial meals continually pointed to the fact that sins were not yet paid for, because the sacrifices in them were repeated year after year, and because they looked forward to the Messiah who was to come and take away sin (see Heb. 10:1-4). The Lord’s Supper, however, reminds us that Jesus’ payment for our sins has already been accomplished, so we now eat in the Lord’s presence with great rejoicing….Yet even the Lord’s Supper looks forward to a more wonderful fellowship meal in God’s presence in the future, when the fellowship of Eden will be restored and there will be even greater joy…. [Ibid, pg. 989]

Christian Confession: A Look at 1 John 1:9

~ fundyreformed ~ 2 Comments

Have you ever wondered what it means for Christians to seek forgiveness? I mean, didn’t we already get forgiven when we got saved?

Well, Reformation Theology has the answer for us. They posted a great post which looks in depth at 1 John 1:9 and defends the traditional Christian view of this passage against new and contrary interpretations. I encourage you to look at the post, it will both  bless and inform you.

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

Christians, Contraceptives and Children

~ fundyreformed ~ 9 Comments

Be fruiful and multiply...I recently came across an interesting article from the Wall Street Journal on evangelicals and contraception (HT: Sharper Iron Filings). Let me provide some excerpt and then pose some questions.

A Harris Poll conducted online in September 2005 shows that evangelicals overwhelmingly support birth control (88%).

A recent New York Times article on the subject, it is true, quoted Albert Mohler, the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, saying that the separation between sex and procreation caused by contraceptives is “ominous.” But he also went on to say that “evangelical couples may, at times, choose to use contraceptives in order to plan their families and enjoy the pleasures of the marital bed.”…

Protestants’ acceptance of contraception has a relatively short history. The 1930 Lambeth conference of Anglican bishops was the first Christian church body to authorize the use of contraceptives within marriage, even as it condemned certain motives for using it, like “selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.” The introduction of the birth control pill in the 1950s and 1960s offered “free love” to society at large; married evangelicals embraced its convenience and effectiveness. …

A minority movement within evangelical circles… oppose(s) contraception not merely on pro-life grounds but also on the grounds that artificial contraception inhibits the possibility of children, in effect, offering a “thanks, but no thanks” (or at least “not right now”) response to God’s blessing to “be fruitful and multiply.”…For those who marry, the “my body, my choice” attitude contributes to a contraception culture that places fulfillment of personal desires ahead of God’s desires.

Some evangelicals charge that the Pill has contributed to the moral breakdown of society; perhaps, but evangelicals’ embrace of the contraception culture has not helped. It may have made Christianity sexier to potential adherents but diminished a public understanding of marriage in the process. For evangelicals, this may be a bitter pill to swallow.

Why do you use contraceptives?

Is convenience or lifestyle motivating your decisions? Do you view children as a hassle rather than a blessing? Are you trying to avoid the responsibility and difficulty of raising a family for God? Have you thought through your decision from a Biblical perspective, or are you just going with the flow?

Are you using birth control to best provide for the largest family possible, or are you merely trying to stick to a self-determined number of children. Are you intending to have a large family since God explicitly teaches that a large family is a blessing from God?

Do you know what Scripture teaches about children?

Have you studied all that Scripture teaches about children? Do you know that the Bible abundantly proclaims that a large family is a blessing from God? Do you wonder why women today choose to be barren whereas women in the Bible viewed barrenness as a curse and sought help from God when barren? Have you considered that God wants to redeem a people (not individuals) to Himself: that His covenant extends “to you and your children”?

Rebecca received this blessing from her family before leaving to become Isaac’s wife: “Be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate…” . Does this surprise or shock you? Why would such a blessing be so unpopular today? Do you look down on people with large families, as if they are just lazy or stupid or something?

What about the pill?

Are you aware that the pill is sometimes an abortifacient: that it often (once a year or more, even) does not prevent ovulation but rather prevents a fertilized egg from impanting into the uterus. Do you know that the scientific community has radically redefined the term conception?

Finally, will you purpose to consider this issue from a Biblical perspective?

Will you be willing to follow the leading of God and His Word despite how it may affect you personally? Will you be willing to respect children more and view large families in a positive light? Will you seek to appropriate God’s blessing of children in more intentional ways (perhaps even through adoption)?

For Further Study

Note: The following articles take different positons on this issue. Yet each takes a high view of Scripture. I think there is freedom to disagree on the issue, but not freedom to think secularly on the issue. Whatever we decide let us make the decision as a Christian and in accord with Scripture. To that end, the following articles may prove useful.

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

Free Grace meet Faith & Practice

~ fundyreformed ~ 7 Comments

Faith and PracticeThis is a quick post to recommend two great articles on Free Grace Theology over at Faith and Practice. Matt Waymeyer has taken that system of theology to task in what I believe are two very important articles.

Never heard of Free Grace Theology? Think easy believism. Think “no repentance needed for salvation”. Think 1-2-3 repeat after me. Well, maybe not that last one, but the other lines adequately describe this theological system. It is the view that a bare faith alone saves, and when I say “bare” I mean “bare”. I blogged a little about this earlier in my post entitled: “Once Saved, Always Saved?!?!?” There I highlighted how proponents of this view literally believe that someone can renounce the faith moments after getting saved, walk away from Christianity never to return, become a leading atheist, and still get to heaven. To learn more of this system check out Grace Evangelical Society, their statement of faith, and this “answer” to the question “What do you mean by Free Grace Theology?”

This veiw of salvation seems to have some Scriptural support, and its proponents are masters at reinterpreting texts. I am sure there are many good people (and genuinely saved, born again people) who are confused by this system and hold to it with fervor. They are wrong and the system, I believe is very dangerous.

Before I go on endlessly with my opinions, let me refer you to these recent and excellent posts by Matt Waymeyer. First, he looked at Acts 17:30-31 and masterfully defused the free grace attempts to make this passage mean something else than its apparently obvious meaning. That post alone refutes the basic premise of the whole doctrinal system. Then, he followed it up with a good treatment of 1 Cor. 15:1-5 which points out something fairly basic about that passage which undermines key elements of free grace theology.

I just had to get in one other link. This is to a more in-depth and detailed discussion of free grace theology from someone with much experience with this teaching (as the author was himself in a church which taught this system). Reformation Theology posted a link to this guy’s (Phillip Simpson) paper, and I refer you to that post.

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

Majority Rules! Fact or Fiction?

~ fundyreformed ~ 19 Comments

KJV Only--Fact or Fiction? background picture  © FreeFoto.comThis post marks the beginning of a new series on my blog: KJV Only: Fact or Fiction? The series will highlight a number of KJV Only claims which are simply inaccurate. I will try to post weekly on this topic for the next few months if possible. Also, if anyone has any suggestions or questions for this series, feel free to give them to us all in the comments or you can email me.

So, without further ado, let us get to this week’s topic:

Majority Rules!

The KJV Onlyists claim that since the text underlying the KJV is based on the majority of the manuscripts, then the KJV is to be favored. This claim carries a lot of weight in the textual debate. Many an unsuspecting person is absorbed by the KJV Only movement upon hearing this “fact”. But let us ask the question: Fact or Fiction? Does majority rule in this case?

When KJV onlyists emphasize the “fact” that the KJV is based on the majority of the manuscripts, they usually ignore three vitally important considerations. We will look at each of these considerations and then find ourselves in a better position to answer our question.

Majority of Greek texts versus the TR

KJV onlyists assume that the Greek Textus Receptus (TR), which the King James is based on, represents the majority of the Greek Manuscripts. This is not accurate. The TR was actually based on seven Greek manuscripts as well as Erasmus’ copious textual notes on the Greek text [1]. Most KJV onlyists use the “pie-in-the-sky”, wishful thinking view at this point, glibly assuming that the TR in fact really does represent the best of the majority of the manuscripts and that Erasmus’ textual notes and considerable knowledge of the Greek text offsets the use of only seven manuscripts. This hopeful hypothesis is made all the more doubtful by the consideration that Erasmus had not planned on producing his Greek text at the time he did: he was pressured to produce the text in a very short time by his printer. This forced him to use the locally available manuscripts rather than others he may have preferred to use [2]. Incredibly high demand forced subsequent editions to be produced by Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elzevirs, and others without any wholesale revision of the text. Small revisions and corrections were made here and there, but printers’ errors and other errors introduced in Erasmus’ first Greek text remain in the TR down to this day [3].

Besides the documented history of Erasmus’ production of the TR, another fact flies in the face of the claim that the TR/KJV was based on the majority of the manuscripts. While most KJV onlyists assume that “majority text” is shorthand for the TR, it in fact is not. In 1982 the first edition of the printed Majority Text was published, edited by Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad. Other editions have followed as well as a competing  Majority Text edited by Pierpont and Robinson (1991). These texts are based on the collation work done so far on the vast majority of the Greek manuscripts. These texts contain over 1,800 differences from the TR [4]. Now it is true this number is less than the estimated 5,600+ differences between the Westcott & Hort 1881 text [5] which is very similar to the critical text editions used today (UBS 4th edition, Nestle-Aland 27th edition). Yet the amount of differences between the TR and the Majority Text reveal that the majority of the Greek manuscripts do not in any sense unequivocally support the TR. In many places they do support the KJV over and against modern versions, but in many other places they do not. In fact, in many of the differences between the TR and the modern critical text, the Majority Text actually supports the critical text and modern versions against the TR.

In passing, I want to just list some important texts contained in the TR which are not contained in the Majority Text. 1 John 5:7, Acts 9:5-6, Acts 8:37, Rev. 22:19 “book of life” are just a few of many instances where the Majority of Greek manuscripts do not support the TR reading.

Majority of all texts and versions

When KJV onlyists say majority they are referring to the majority of the 5,600 or so Greek manuscripts. Yet KJV onlyists will also claim that God used the Latin textual tradition to preserve important textual readings such as 1 John 5:7 and those readings noted above (for instance E.F. Hills claims this, among many others). That being said, should not the entirety of ancient versions of the New Testament be included in any discussions of “the majority”? There are over 10,000 Latin manuscripts of the Vulgate, for instance, and the Vulgate’s text is closer to the modern critical text than the TR [6]. If we include just the Latin manuscripts, we find the majority of all the manuscripts do not support the KJV! For most other ancient languages, the majority of textual witnesses supports the critical text.

Geographical and Chronological Majority

Finally we must consider geographical and chronological concerns. Chronologically, it was not until the 9th century or later that a majority of Greek manuscripts supported the TR [7]. The vast majority of earlier manuscripts support the readings of the modern critical text.

Geographically, the KJV only’s “majority” comes from one basic locale: Syria/Asia Minor area. This is the area that spoke Greek the longest and was controlled by the Greek Orthodox church (which as we know is not Biblically orthodox on the means of salvation and other very important points). After every other area stopped speaking Greek, a great majority of the manuscripts found in this one locale are seen to be very similar. The great unanimity of these manuscripts might very well come from the fact that most of these manuscripts are from the same area and were produced by the same church authority. So that a majority of manuscripts from one locale and a relatively later time frame support the KJV/TR is not really that convincing.

In contrast, a majority of texts from widespread regions (Italy, North Africa, Palestine, and other regions) and across several chronological periods support the modern critical text.

Conclusion

In light of the above considerations, the TR is clearly not based on a majority of the textual witnesses. A majority of Greek manuscripts definitely do not rule! Any claims made by KJV onlyists that the TR is supported by the majority of the witnesses must be filtered through the lens of these considerations. There is more than meets the eye in regard to this claim. Fact or fiction? There is definitely more fiction than fact with regard to this claim.

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

Footnotes

[1] See “Erasmus and the Textus Receptus“, pg. 45ff. by Dr. William Combs (Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal: 1 Spring 1996).

[2] Ibid, pg. 41-45.

[3] Ibid, pg. 46-47. See also, “Errors in the King James Version?“, pg. 155-157 by Dr. William Combs (DBSJ 4 Fall 1999).

[4] 1,838 is Dr. Dan Wallace’s actual count of differences, see “Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text“, online article by Dr. Dan Wallace (the sentence in the text just before footnote 27).

[5] 5,604 is Dr. D.A. Waite’s actual count, see Defending the King James Bible, pg. 41 (1999 edition, published by Bible for Today Press: Collingswood, N.J.).

[6] 8,000 Vulate manuscripts: see “Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text“, online article by Dr. Dan Wallace (the paragraph in the text just before footnote 76); over 10,000 Latin NT manuscripts total: see “Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism“, online article by Dr. Dan Wallace (the sentences in the text just before footnote 28).

[7] See “Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text“, online article by Dr. Dan Wallace (sentences in the text just before footnotes 74 and 75).

For Further Research

See my KJV Only Debate Resource Center, which contains the best of the best of online resources on this issue.

Note: This post was originally entitled “The KJV Is Based on the Majority of the Manuscripts: Fact or Fiction?” I changed the name to be more precise in what I am pointing out here. In fact, a majority of Greek Manuscripts do support the KJV–but what does this mean? This is more to the point of this post.

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7