I have never lived so close to an actual natural disaster before. A tornado touched down just outside of Eureka a few days ago. The damage is unreal. It is one thing to see it on TV and another to be near it. Two by fours in trees, barns literally twisted in knots, fields ruined and cows dead. Thankful the Lord spared all the families who lost homes. But, I learned things you do not think about when you just hear a report on TV. I visited the Eureka nursing home the day after, and they talked about having to get all of the residents out of bed and into the hallway. That is no easy task because most of the residents need assistance. I had never stopped to think about how much work it must be to try and keep a place of elderly people safe when you do not have the advance warning one has for a hurricane. If the tornado had hit town directly they would not have been able to get the majority of those people to safety.
In the end, the community is coming together to aid the families who lost homes. Rebuilding is already underway, as is monetary support. We got some much needed rain, but most importantly we got a much needed reminder that "It is of the Lord's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not." Lamentations 3:22.
This is my personal blog. The main topic shall be theology, but since theology informs every area of life, one can expect a wide range of topics. I hope that all who visit find something they like. I welcome comment and discussion.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Western Civ and John Robbins
The latest Trinity Review by John Robbins is out. In it Rev. Robbins talks about the collapse of Western Culture. I find it thoroughly unconvincing and full of errors. Now I am not sure I want to argue that Western Culture is not in decline, but his proofs are awful.
The article states that one of the results of the century long collapse of Western Culture is the bloody wars of the 20th Century. He contrasts the two world wars and countless dictators with the 19th Century which he claims, "was one of the most peaceful centuries in recorded history, despite the bloody stupidity of the War of Rebellion". While, I am not disagreeing that the 20th Century was a bloody one, where is he getting the idea that the 19th was peaceful. He admits the Civil War, but let me name a few more that he forgets. The Wars of Napoleon, the Anglo-Boer War, the Tripolitan-America War, the War of 1812, the Mexican American War, the Spanish American War, the campaigns against the Indians on the frontier, all the South American countries have wars for independence, and the Crimean War are just a few of the ones he neglects. Hardly a peaceful century. Removing this foundational point to his article makes his claims about capitalism and separating church and state pointless since they too led to violence and blood shed much like the 20th century.
There is one other flaw in this argument that cannot go unnoticed. Robbins is talking about WESTERN culture, yet when he wants to point to the devastation of tyrants in the 20th century he lists Mao Tse-Tun, Pol Pot, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and Nikita Khruschev. These men are arguably from countries where Western culture never firmly took hold if it ever existed there. China and Cambodia are not legitimate examples at all. Russia can be debated, but for the most part Western Culture never reached its shores either. This leaves only three examples in his list. Hitler, Mussolini, and Castro. And I think one could argue against Castro too.
I have to say that I can agree that Western Civilization is in a state of collapse because the foundation of that culture, Christianity, is being removed for one reason or another. However, I do not think John Robbins has done his historical homework to prove it in this article. Other arguments should be made because the existence of wars and dictators is no real proof at all.
The article states that one of the results of the century long collapse of Western Culture is the bloody wars of the 20th Century. He contrasts the two world wars and countless dictators with the 19th Century which he claims, "was one of the most peaceful centuries in recorded history, despite the bloody stupidity of the War of Rebellion". While, I am not disagreeing that the 20th Century was a bloody one, where is he getting the idea that the 19th was peaceful. He admits the Civil War, but let me name a few more that he forgets. The Wars of Napoleon, the Anglo-Boer War, the Tripolitan-America War, the War of 1812, the Mexican American War, the Spanish American War, the campaigns against the Indians on the frontier, all the South American countries have wars for independence, and the Crimean War are just a few of the ones he neglects. Hardly a peaceful century. Removing this foundational point to his article makes his claims about capitalism and separating church and state pointless since they too led to violence and blood shed much like the 20th century.
There is one other flaw in this argument that cannot go unnoticed. Robbins is talking about WESTERN culture, yet when he wants to point to the devastation of tyrants in the 20th century he lists Mao Tse-Tun, Pol Pot, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and Nikita Khruschev. These men are arguably from countries where Western culture never firmly took hold if it ever existed there. China and Cambodia are not legitimate examples at all. Russia can be debated, but for the most part Western Culture never reached its shores either. This leaves only three examples in his list. Hitler, Mussolini, and Castro. And I think one could argue against Castro too.
I have to say that I can agree that Western Civilization is in a state of collapse because the foundation of that culture, Christianity, is being removed for one reason or another. However, I do not think John Robbins has done his historical homework to prove it in this article. Other arguments should be made because the existence of wars and dictators is no real proof at all.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Random Thoughts
I have been busy enjoying God's newest blessing. Yes, this little one is mine. Child and mother are healthy.
Bret Ceren is a friend of mine who was one of many that made my old job almost enjoyable. Despite being a self-professed metrosexual, he has a good mind and is putting his insight to work in a new blog. I will be adding this to my blog roll soon.
I thought about using this space to comment on President Carter, but why bother after James Solis does it so well.
Bret Ceren is a friend of mine who was one of many that made my old job almost enjoyable. Despite being a self-professed metrosexual, he has a good mind and is putting his insight to work in a new blog. I will be adding this to my blog roll soon.
I thought about using this space to comment on President Carter, but why bother after James Solis does it so well.
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Occasional Observance of the Supper
I do believe the Bible teaches an occasional observance of the Lord’s Supper. I do not believe the frequency is ever specified, and thus, it should probably be left up to the local church as to how often the Supper should be administered. For the sake of disclosure, my particular church follows the Zwinglian model of when to take the Supper, which means on Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, and once in the fall. We usually have the fall Supper near Thanksgiving.
First, much like baptism is the NT version of circumcision, so to is the Lord’s Supper the NT version of Passover. It was instituted at Passover, they point to the same truth, and both proclaim the Lord’s death. Passover, you will recall, was only administered once a year. Passover was not devalued, it was not ignored, it was not taking that sign for granted. To argue a necessary weekly administration makes one wonder about any continuation or connection with Passover. Without a clear biblical command to partake weekly, dismissing the occasional nature of Passover is unfounded.
Second, I Corinthians 11:25-26 tells us "as oft as ye drink it" and "as often as ye eat this bread." The word ‘often’ here means ‘as often as’ or ‘whenever’. Thus, ‘whenever you take the Supper, do it in remembrance of me.’ This is odd phraseology if they are supposed to be taking the Supper every week. Yet, ‘as often as’ or ‘whenever’ fits nicely with an occasional model of partaking the Supper. It gives great leeway to the local congregations. Whenever they decide to administer the Supper, they are to do it in remembrance of Christ. This allows local churches to avoid profaning the Supper by either a to frequent or too infrequent administration of the Eucharist.
Third, no clear command for any sort of time frame is given. As mentioned earlier, it is not necessary to believe that ‘breaking of bread’ in Acts 2:42 means the partaking of the Lord’s Supper. In fact, the evidence appears to be just as strongly against that idea. Acts 2:46 and Luke 24:30 both use the same phrase, ‘breaking of bread’ in conjunction with eating meat, which is not a Lord’s Supper activity. The Luke example is in the midst of the regular evening meal. Acts 20:7 is another example where it is not necessary to hold that it is Communion that is being administered. I do freely grant that it might be, but the sentence losses nothing if they are gathering for a fellowship meal. I personally think Acts 20:7 probably is talking about the Lord’s Supper, but again it is not a proof for weekly communion. The addition of the phrase, "in order to break bread" may actually be seen as proof of non-weekly communion. If they always partook of the Supper when they gathered together on the First day then the phrase "in order to break bread" is redundant. However, if they did not then the phrase is showing the specific event that was taking place on that particular Lord’s Day. This would support the idea of a communion season, where it is taken only a few times a year. The main point is this verse does not clearly demonstrate anything that except on this particular Sunday, the church in Troas took the Supper.
Fourth, I do believe that examples exist of meetings where no Supper is recorded. We do not see the Supper on the first Easter, or anywhere between Christ’s resurrection and his ascension even though he 40 days to participate with them in it. John 20 records the first Easter and the Sunday afterward without any mention of the Supper. We do not see it at the ascension, nor at Pentecost. We do not see it in the ministry of Paul at Antioch (Acts 13:14-50), we don’t see it in Ephesus despite the fact Paul resided there for years, we do not see it in Miletus (Acts 20:13). In fact, with the exception of 2:42 and 20:7, both of which are extremely debatable, we do not see the Supper at all in Acts. We see Baptism a lot, but no Eucharist.
Fifth, the sacraments are not regular elements of worship. They are elements of worship, do not mistake me, but they are not the regular elements of worship. Many weekly communion people argue why leave this regular element of worship out on any Sunday. The synagogue worship had reading of the Word, explanation of the Word, prayer, psalms, but it did not always contain circumcision or Passover. If one argues from the sacrifices present in the temple worship, then we have lapsed into a theology of the sacraments, or perhaps worship itself, argumentation that I will deal with later. Even if one assumes a point of discontinuity on this point between the Old and New, there becomes a problem of Baptism. Why is the Supper a regular element of worship, but Baptism an occasional element. After all baptism is seen more in the book of Acts, it is in the Great Commission, and it is a sacrament as well? I think it must be argued then that sacraments in general are not regular elements of worship, but are occasional elements of worship.
In summary, I think the Bible does not give a command as to how often one should partake of the Supper. I do believe that occasional partaking is exegetically supportable mainly through the connection with Passover and Acts 20:7, which tells us that they gathered together "in order to break bread". Yet, in the end the Scripture is full of deafening silence on the matter of ‘when’. Thus, for me, when the Bible is silent we should be as well. It is not right to bind consciences to a prescribed pattern. If a church wanted to celebrate monthly, that is their right, if they wanted quarterly that is their right, if they wanted annually, again, it is their right. I even think weekly is allowable. Each church should be allowed to assess the need of the congregation and decide in that manner. However, I do think weekly communion arguments are designed around a re-definition of worship and the Supper, and that is not allowable. I shall post on that next.
First, much like baptism is the NT version of circumcision, so to is the Lord’s Supper the NT version of Passover. It was instituted at Passover, they point to the same truth, and both proclaim the Lord’s death. Passover, you will recall, was only administered once a year. Passover was not devalued, it was not ignored, it was not taking that sign for granted. To argue a necessary weekly administration makes one wonder about any continuation or connection with Passover. Without a clear biblical command to partake weekly, dismissing the occasional nature of Passover is unfounded.
Second, I Corinthians 11:25-26 tells us "as oft as ye drink it" and "as often as ye eat this bread." The word ‘often’ here means ‘as often as’ or ‘whenever’. Thus, ‘whenever you take the Supper, do it in remembrance of me.’ This is odd phraseology if they are supposed to be taking the Supper every week. Yet, ‘as often as’ or ‘whenever’ fits nicely with an occasional model of partaking the Supper. It gives great leeway to the local congregations. Whenever they decide to administer the Supper, they are to do it in remembrance of Christ. This allows local churches to avoid profaning the Supper by either a to frequent or too infrequent administration of the Eucharist.
Third, no clear command for any sort of time frame is given. As mentioned earlier, it is not necessary to believe that ‘breaking of bread’ in Acts 2:42 means the partaking of the Lord’s Supper. In fact, the evidence appears to be just as strongly against that idea. Acts 2:46 and Luke 24:30 both use the same phrase, ‘breaking of bread’ in conjunction with eating meat, which is not a Lord’s Supper activity. The Luke example is in the midst of the regular evening meal. Acts 20:7 is another example where it is not necessary to hold that it is Communion that is being administered. I do freely grant that it might be, but the sentence losses nothing if they are gathering for a fellowship meal. I personally think Acts 20:7 probably is talking about the Lord’s Supper, but again it is not a proof for weekly communion. The addition of the phrase, "in order to break bread" may actually be seen as proof of non-weekly communion. If they always partook of the Supper when they gathered together on the First day then the phrase "in order to break bread" is redundant. However, if they did not then the phrase is showing the specific event that was taking place on that particular Lord’s Day. This would support the idea of a communion season, where it is taken only a few times a year. The main point is this verse does not clearly demonstrate anything that except on this particular Sunday, the church in Troas took the Supper.
Fourth, I do believe that examples exist of meetings where no Supper is recorded. We do not see the Supper on the first Easter, or anywhere between Christ’s resurrection and his ascension even though he 40 days to participate with them in it. John 20 records the first Easter and the Sunday afterward without any mention of the Supper. We do not see it at the ascension, nor at Pentecost. We do not see it in the ministry of Paul at Antioch (Acts 13:14-50), we don’t see it in Ephesus despite the fact Paul resided there for years, we do not see it in Miletus (Acts 20:13). In fact, with the exception of 2:42 and 20:7, both of which are extremely debatable, we do not see the Supper at all in Acts. We see Baptism a lot, but no Eucharist.
Fifth, the sacraments are not regular elements of worship. They are elements of worship, do not mistake me, but they are not the regular elements of worship. Many weekly communion people argue why leave this regular element of worship out on any Sunday. The synagogue worship had reading of the Word, explanation of the Word, prayer, psalms, but it did not always contain circumcision or Passover. If one argues from the sacrifices present in the temple worship, then we have lapsed into a theology of the sacraments, or perhaps worship itself, argumentation that I will deal with later. Even if one assumes a point of discontinuity on this point between the Old and New, there becomes a problem of Baptism. Why is the Supper a regular element of worship, but Baptism an occasional element. After all baptism is seen more in the book of Acts, it is in the Great Commission, and it is a sacrament as well? I think it must be argued then that sacraments in general are not regular elements of worship, but are occasional elements of worship.
In summary, I think the Bible does not give a command as to how often one should partake of the Supper. I do believe that occasional partaking is exegetically supportable mainly through the connection with Passover and Acts 20:7, which tells us that they gathered together "in order to break bread". Yet, in the end the Scripture is full of deafening silence on the matter of ‘when’. Thus, for me, when the Bible is silent we should be as well. It is not right to bind consciences to a prescribed pattern. If a church wanted to celebrate monthly, that is their right, if they wanted quarterly that is their right, if they wanted annually, again, it is their right. I even think weekly is allowable. Each church should be allowed to assess the need of the congregation and decide in that manner. However, I do think weekly communion arguments are designed around a re-definition of worship and the Supper, and that is not allowable. I shall post on that next.
Monday, August 07, 2006
Weekly Communion and John 6
I do think that in the discussion of weekly communion, one often sees John 6 pop up. It is the main text to prove transubstantiation, but we will not be dealing with that as no Presbyterian/Reformed exegesis would include such an error. Still many will point to John 6 as showing a need for weekly communion claiming John 6 discusses the Eucharist. I do not believe this chapter in John is speaking of the Lord’s Supper at all, but rather is teaching us about Christ. In as much as the Lord’s Supper also proclaims Christ the two have overlap, but that does not mean John 6 applies to the Supper.
First, this speech of Jesus is well before the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Many commentators think that this is easily a year prior to the institution of the Supper. Taking the Supper then and imposing it back upon this chapter seems a little like forcing one’s views about the Supper onto a text. Rather we ought to let the text tell us what it is talking about.
Second, this text appears not to be pointing forward to a yet to be instituted Lord’s Supper, but rather backward to Moses and the Manna. This is not a theology of the Supper, but a fulfillment of sign of manna in the wilderness. Jesus says as much in verse 32-35. The true bread from heaven is Jesus. He points back to the manna again in 48-50.
Third, the bread from heaven is figurative. I am not sure any disagree on this point, but what is the figure should be explained. John 6:35 tells us that Jesus is the bread of heaven and those who come will not be hungry and those who believe will not thirst. The next verse condemns the crowd for seeing, but not believing, and then Jesus launches into a discussion about being drawn and believing. Thus, the figure appears to be about believing on Jesus, not about any sort of partaking of bread in the Lord’s Supper. See also verse 47. These verses cannot be ignored as we discuss eating and drinking his flesh in verses 51 and following.
Fourth, after Jesus says to eat his flesh and drink his blood, he says those that do eat his flesh "shall live forever"(v.58). This should bring our minds back to verse 47 where Jesus says "whoever believes has eternal life." It is reasonable to assume then that the figure of eating his flesh that produces ‘living forever’ is the same as the believing that produces ‘eternal life.’ After all this is in the same discourse. Notice also the similarities in verse 44 and 54. Both those who believe and those who eat the flesh and drink the blood are ‘raised up on the last day.’
Fifth, thinking that Jesus was speaking about the act of eating was the mistake of the crowd. Verse 52 shows us the crowd wonders how they can eat the flesh and blood of Jesus. And Jesus seems to rebuke them for thinking that way. When they continue to murmur in verse 61 Jesus openly rebukes them. Yet, what is there mistake if Jesus is really speaking about eating the bread and wine of the Supper? They are simply wondering how they can eat the flesh and drink the blood, which is a very legitimate question if Jesus has not yet said, ‘This is my body’ and ‘this is my blood.’ How could they have known he meant the sacrament that has not yet been instituted. Jesus seems to think they should have gotten the message and thinking it was eating anything was a mistake. In fact, verse 63 Jesus says, "The words I speak unto you, they are spirit, they are life." Jesus seems to equate his message about being the true bread to his words, and believing his words. Indeed as he states in the same verse, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing." When the crowd leaves it is because they do not believe (64).
Sixth, the disciples who stay understand the meaning of the teaching. They explain it for us in Peter’s answer in verses 68-69. "Lord to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Peter and the other faithful know that Jesus has been speaking about believing and trusting his word. Peter’s answer corresponds nicely to the discourse as well. Peter believes in Jesus as Christ commands in verse 35 and the crowd fails to do in verse 36. Peter confesses the ‘eternal life’ that Jesus spoke about in verses 40, 47, 53, 57, and 58 is found in believing the words of Jesus. Which by the way is also what Jesus says directly in verse 63. Peter also confesses Jesus to be the Son of the Living God which fits nicely with verses 36-40, and being the bread "from heaven" (32-33) that gave the crowd trouble in verse 42.
Thus, I hold that John 6 is not about the Lord’s Supper, but is about believing on Jesus and his words in general. We should not take the sections that speak of Christ’s flesh and blood to be references to the yet to be established Supper because Christ in the discourse applies them to belief in Him and His words. They are used figuratively here for belief in Jesus, not for bread and wine.
Today some argue that we should read Scripture through the lens of the Liturgy, and thus read this passage as one pertaining to the Lord’s Supper. They use this as proof the grammatical-historical method is not the main way to read the Scripture. This is a disturbing development in the push for weekly communion, and hopefully is not a method used by all of its advocates.
Weekly communion advocates want to point to John 6 and say we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood in the Supper so that he dwells in me and I in him. They argue then that not partaking weekly under values this chapter and this teaching of Christ. Yet, if this chapter is talking about believing in Jesus and believing his words, then it has no force at all for a weekly communion argument.
First, this speech of Jesus is well before the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Many commentators think that this is easily a year prior to the institution of the Supper. Taking the Supper then and imposing it back upon this chapter seems a little like forcing one’s views about the Supper onto a text. Rather we ought to let the text tell us what it is talking about.
Second, this text appears not to be pointing forward to a yet to be instituted Lord’s Supper, but rather backward to Moses and the Manna. This is not a theology of the Supper, but a fulfillment of sign of manna in the wilderness. Jesus says as much in verse 32-35. The true bread from heaven is Jesus. He points back to the manna again in 48-50.
Third, the bread from heaven is figurative. I am not sure any disagree on this point, but what is the figure should be explained. John 6:35 tells us that Jesus is the bread of heaven and those who come will not be hungry and those who believe will not thirst. The next verse condemns the crowd for seeing, but not believing, and then Jesus launches into a discussion about being drawn and believing. Thus, the figure appears to be about believing on Jesus, not about any sort of partaking of bread in the Lord’s Supper. See also verse 47. These verses cannot be ignored as we discuss eating and drinking his flesh in verses 51 and following.
Fourth, after Jesus says to eat his flesh and drink his blood, he says those that do eat his flesh "shall live forever"(v.58). This should bring our minds back to verse 47 where Jesus says "whoever believes has eternal life." It is reasonable to assume then that the figure of eating his flesh that produces ‘living forever’ is the same as the believing that produces ‘eternal life.’ After all this is in the same discourse. Notice also the similarities in verse 44 and 54. Both those who believe and those who eat the flesh and drink the blood are ‘raised up on the last day.’
Fifth, thinking that Jesus was speaking about the act of eating was the mistake of the crowd. Verse 52 shows us the crowd wonders how they can eat the flesh and blood of Jesus. And Jesus seems to rebuke them for thinking that way. When they continue to murmur in verse 61 Jesus openly rebukes them. Yet, what is there mistake if Jesus is really speaking about eating the bread and wine of the Supper? They are simply wondering how they can eat the flesh and drink the blood, which is a very legitimate question if Jesus has not yet said, ‘This is my body’ and ‘this is my blood.’ How could they have known he meant the sacrament that has not yet been instituted. Jesus seems to think they should have gotten the message and thinking it was eating anything was a mistake. In fact, verse 63 Jesus says, "The words I speak unto you, they are spirit, they are life." Jesus seems to equate his message about being the true bread to his words, and believing his words. Indeed as he states in the same verse, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing." When the crowd leaves it is because they do not believe (64).
Sixth, the disciples who stay understand the meaning of the teaching. They explain it for us in Peter’s answer in verses 68-69. "Lord to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Peter and the other faithful know that Jesus has been speaking about believing and trusting his word. Peter’s answer corresponds nicely to the discourse as well. Peter believes in Jesus as Christ commands in verse 35 and the crowd fails to do in verse 36. Peter confesses the ‘eternal life’ that Jesus spoke about in verses 40, 47, 53, 57, and 58 is found in believing the words of Jesus. Which by the way is also what Jesus says directly in verse 63. Peter also confesses Jesus to be the Son of the Living God which fits nicely with verses 36-40, and being the bread "from heaven" (32-33) that gave the crowd trouble in verse 42.
Thus, I hold that John 6 is not about the Lord’s Supper, but is about believing on Jesus and his words in general. We should not take the sections that speak of Christ’s flesh and blood to be references to the yet to be established Supper because Christ in the discourse applies them to belief in Him and His words. They are used figuratively here for belief in Jesus, not for bread and wine.
Today some argue that we should read Scripture through the lens of the Liturgy, and thus read this passage as one pertaining to the Lord’s Supper. They use this as proof the grammatical-historical method is not the main way to read the Scripture. This is a disturbing development in the push for weekly communion, and hopefully is not a method used by all of its advocates.
Weekly communion advocates want to point to John 6 and say we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood in the Supper so that he dwells in me and I in him. They argue then that not partaking weekly under values this chapter and this teaching of Christ. Yet, if this chapter is talking about believing in Jesus and believing his words, then it has no force at all for a weekly communion argument.
Friday, August 04, 2006
Weekly Communion in History
Before I get into exegesis about weekly communion, which could be a multiple post endeavor, let me briefly talk of the history of the Lord’s Supper. D.G. Hart and John Meuther had written a piece about the conflict inherent within the Directory of Worship for the OPC. Is the Supper an ‘occasional element’ or is it to be ‘frequent’? He then goes into a nice history of Calvin’s desire for weekly communion, and claims the OPC has become practical Zwinglians by only taking a quarterly communion. There is no denying that Calvin desired weekly communion, but that hardly means we should all follow the example. In fact, it could be argued that Hart and Meuther neglect the submission of Calvin to a quarterly partaking of communion, which was in accord with the Zwingli/Bullinger practice. The article seems to imply that quarterly partaking of communion necessitates a Zwinglian view of the Supper, but if that is so, then Calvin himself held a Zwinglian view since he partook quarterly. The article does admit that Knox, who did study with Calvin, and the Scottish church practiced monthly communion. So too did the early American Puritans.
Thus, in actuality, the Reformed tradition is one of non-weekly communion. The desire of Calvin and even Bucer for weekly communion should not overshadow the actual facts of practice. Their churches did not have weekly communion. The vast majority of Reformed and Presbyterian history then is one of quarterly or monthly communion with a small dose of yearly communion from the Scottish revival tradition.
Even if one wants to line up desire and thought rather than practice the overwhelming number still favor a non-weekly approach. For weekly you have John Calvin, Martin Bucer, and perhaps other Strassborg men like Wolfgang Capito and Matthew Zell. Against it you have Ulrich Zwingli, Henrich Bullinger, Zacharias Ursinus, John Knox, John Cotton, Cotton Matther (in fact all Mathers), William Ames, Herman Witsius, and probably Peter Vermigli, and John Oecolampadus. If one wants to speak of a Reformed tradition, one must accept that the tradition favors non-weekly communion.
Admittedly tradition is not our rule of faith (remember exegesis is coming later), and there is a tradition that exists prior to the Reformation. Looking prior to the Reformation is really a hodgepodge of practices. Some early works favor weekly communion such as the Didache and the Constitutions of the Apostles. Justin Martyr as well seems to record a weekly communion. However, some evidence exists of daily partaking of the Lord’s Supper especially with Cyprian in Afirca. We do see liturgies with weekly communion forms as time progresses past the persecutions, but we also see by the 4th and 5th centuries people watching the liturgy and communion, but not partaking. We see daily Masses(the Lord’s Supper) as common by the time of Charlemagne, and we see non-weekly communion practiced in Middle Ages as well. There is evidence of pre-Reformation non-weekly communion. Some Synods held that people should communion at least every third Sunday. And prior to the Reformation it went to only on High Feasts days, which is what Calvin is reacting against. Thus, prior to the Reformation the tradition can be used by almost anyone to support their position.
With this historical backdrop, we can now proceed on to the exegesis.
Thus, in actuality, the Reformed tradition is one of non-weekly communion. The desire of Calvin and even Bucer for weekly communion should not overshadow the actual facts of practice. Their churches did not have weekly communion. The vast majority of Reformed and Presbyterian history then is one of quarterly or monthly communion with a small dose of yearly communion from the Scottish revival tradition.
Even if one wants to line up desire and thought rather than practice the overwhelming number still favor a non-weekly approach. For weekly you have John Calvin, Martin Bucer, and perhaps other Strassborg men like Wolfgang Capito and Matthew Zell. Against it you have Ulrich Zwingli, Henrich Bullinger, Zacharias Ursinus, John Knox, John Cotton, Cotton Matther (in fact all Mathers), William Ames, Herman Witsius, and probably Peter Vermigli, and John Oecolampadus. If one wants to speak of a Reformed tradition, one must accept that the tradition favors non-weekly communion.
Admittedly tradition is not our rule of faith (remember exegesis is coming later), and there is a tradition that exists prior to the Reformation. Looking prior to the Reformation is really a hodgepodge of practices. Some early works favor weekly communion such as the Didache and the Constitutions of the Apostles. Justin Martyr as well seems to record a weekly communion. However, some evidence exists of daily partaking of the Lord’s Supper especially with Cyprian in Afirca. We do see liturgies with weekly communion forms as time progresses past the persecutions, but we also see by the 4th and 5th centuries people watching the liturgy and communion, but not partaking. We see daily Masses(the Lord’s Supper) as common by the time of Charlemagne, and we see non-weekly communion practiced in Middle Ages as well. There is evidence of pre-Reformation non-weekly communion. Some Synods held that people should communion at least every third Sunday. And prior to the Reformation it went to only on High Feasts days, which is what Calvin is reacting against. Thus, prior to the Reformation the tradition can be used by almost anyone to support their position.
With this historical backdrop, we can now proceed on to the exegesis.
Centrality of the Cross by Andrew Sandlin
Andrew Sandlin has a nice post about the centrality of the cross. Earlier I had listed Rev. Sandlin as a part of the Federal Vision, on which he challenged me. This most recent post extolling the centrality of the cross over the centrality of the incarnation distances Rev. Sandlin from the Federal Vision. Rev. Sandlin still holds to Theological Development as well as Shepherds’ view of justification, but he has taken it a long a different path than Federal Vision men.