Various Random Sermon Notes

I'm not sure where these notes came from, but I think they are worth jotting down here:

Under what circumstances do you leave a church?

• When there is heresy being taught or committed by the leadership (and don't leave a church without indicating to leadership where and how heresy has been taught.)
• Unqualified leadership (and I'd add UNDER-qualified leadership.  We left a church over this issue, and one of these days I will jot down notes in terms of why I think that ALL teaching elders need to be seminary-educated or actively pursuing a seminary education.)

Can a man with an unbelieving wife who leaves him become an elder?

• Is this man above reproach?
• Does he "stay with" his wife, even when she's gone? (staying committed to HIS marriage vow, til death does them part, and not remarry?)

The Lord's Supper, as observed by denominations like Methodists

• Methodists allow for a strange teaching along the lines of a "half-way covenant", allowing people thinking of becoming believers to eat the meal.  Believers should actually iron out the implications and decide for themselves prior to taking of the elements.

Church Membership

• I Cor. 12 speaks of being "members" of Christ's body.
• In the book of Acts, there are examples of the church knowing it's numbers and people.
• In the Old Testament, there is a clear demarcation of God's people.

Transubstantiation

• " Re-sacrifice" never appears in Ignatius and the early fathers.
• The 11th century sees the first appearance of transubstantiation.
• Aquinas took from Aristotle the idea that the inner "essence" changes into Christ.
• Per Catholic teaching, the elements still maintain the look and taste of bread, which is part of the "double miracle" of transubstantiation.

Baptism

• The paedobaptist view was challenged by credobaptists in the first few centuries. 
• The 1st century saw the baptism of believing children (notes are a little sketchy here - I didn't grab a source.)
• The Didache talks about baptism taking place in flowing water following fasting (hence implied it was intended for an adult.)

I Cor. 11:17-34, the Lord's Supper and Prescient WiFi

Some reflections on the Lord's Supper, while I'm working in the local Methodist cafe using their free "prescient WiFi" (I foresaw in advance this morning that I would be using their wifi for job searches and blogging.)  The UMC is NOT my first choice theologically, but they have a nice quiet cafe for computer work, so who am I to refuse? 

At ORRB family camp this summer the pastors talked about various ordinances of the church, including the Lord's Supper and the instructions from I Cor. 11.  One of the things I found really nutty about the Methodist application of this meal was that that pastor, prior to distribution of the elements, would give a fairly watery (and non-Scriptural) warning that the elements were only to be partaken by believing Christians or those considering becoming Christians.  This struck me as odd: so basically, someone could be in the audience of a Methodist church, could think, "Hmmm, that was a nice message, and that brief sermon about self-righteous moralism felt really good to me.  Maybe I'll try some communion!"  I can't see this without finding it problematic. 

Per the church discussion this summer, this faulty UMC view of communion is apparently something like a "half-way covenant", which allows for people merely thinking about becoming believers to eat the meal.  The point made from family camp was that believers should iron out the implications and decide for themselves prior to taking the elements.  The Apostle Paul lays out some stern warnings in I Cor. for the wrongful taking of the elements, and I think it ultimately detracts for the importance and symbolism of the meal to do it is such a frivolous manner.  But the UMC has a habit of cherry-picking what they want to believe from the Holy Spirit's words through the Apostle Paul (primarily from I Tim. 2, but that's another can o' worms...)

Another thought is on the usage of the word "sacrament".  I've discussed this one with Presbyterian Dad recently, and I'm not sure its an accurate label to refer to either of the ordinances (Baptism and the Lord's Supper) as sacraments, because by definition a sacrament implies that a measure of grace is ALWAYS imparted as part of the act.  I don't agree with this position for a number of reasons, but the primary objection would be on the grounds that, much like in the UMC, an ordinance like the Lord's Supper could be taken in a totally hollow, superficial manner - so how or why would grace be imparted in that situation, to an individual who's just sitting there and appreciating the taste of the elements without giving any genuine reflective thought to the meaning of those elements?  Likewise with baptism, particularly paedobaptism, I don't see how the term of "sacrament" would apply in situations where a Presbyterian infant is sprinkled with water, and then that child grows up and walks from the faith for the rest of their life.  Where, then, is the grace?  Was it wastefully imparted to one who was never elect in the first place?

The term "ordinance" refers more to instructions from Christ - he instructed his followers to baptize and to remember him through the elements of the Supper.  *IF* grace is imparted as part of this act, then praise the Lord.  But the blanket understanding of grace always being a part of these ordinances doesn't seem to work, especially in situations of individuals who don't partake in a deeper meditative understanding of what these ordinances represent.  And how can a toddler know what those baptismal waters of death really represent?

I Corinthians 11 and Why I am not a Methodist

I was recently at a Methodist church in town (not for worship, but rather for coffee at their poshly-decorated coffee nook/gift shop), and while there I took a look at some of their documents and doctrine, and more or less confirmed what I already knew about Methodism, and affirmed why I am NOT a Methodist.  It has less to do with their ordination of women (which, of course I have some I Tim. 2 issues with) or their Armenian traditions (which I have some Romans 8 issues with) but more over the Weslean tradition and Wesley's 25 articles. Per this one:

Article XVII—Of Baptism

Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby Christians are distinguished from others that are not baptized; but it is also a sign of regeneration or the new birth. The Baptism of young children is to be retained in the Church.

I've yet to see from Scripture where baptism of children or infants is illustrated or instructed.  From the churches site, "Those that are baptized as children must make the choice to confirm their belief in Christ to continue as members of the church."  To continue as members?  I do not understand the strange idea of a half-sacrament.  Scripture seems to give a solid example of baptism of professing adults, not children.  How can baptism be done with the idea that a confirmation needs to follow separately?

The other article that caught my attention was sixteen, on the "sacraments":


Article XVI—Of the Sacraments

Sacraments ordained of Christ are not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they are certain signs of grace, and God’s good will toward us, by which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm, our faith in him.

I've come to question recently the usage of the word "sacrament", since, by definition, it's held to be a means of divine grace, and when individuals partake of the Lord's Supper, or baptism, they may, or may not, be partaking in these ordinances with the right heart attitude (a non-believer could ask to be baptized - likewise a non-believer could take the elements of the Supper).  So in these situations, is grace ALWAYS understood to be imparted?  I can think of individuals who have walked from the faith but yet were baptized as infants.  Was grace still imparted in that infant baptism?  I would argue not - not just because I do not recognize infant baptism as a valid administation of the baptism ordinance, but because the implication becomes that grace was poured out and essentially WASTED.  I don't think that's right, and this also seems to clash with the reformed doctrine of limited atonement. 

Another thought:  per MW, the English word sacrament is from the Latin sacramentum, which means to make holy, or to consecrate.  Yet are the elements made holy?  Or is the meal, as an ordinance, one of remembrance?  It feels a little like treading into glorifying the meal and the components of the meal, more than the message of the meal, and understanding, per I Cor. 11, the propriety of worship and the proper observation of the meal and preparation of the heart.  This reminds me of another fault with this particular UM church, as on it's site, regarding the Lord's Supper, the warning was merely, "God offers this relationship to everyone, so all who desire to receive are welcome to participate."  All who desire to receive, regardless of genuine faith and repentance?  I was at a UM church long ago, and I recall how, as the elements were about to be distributed, the pastor gave the feeble warning of, "Only partake of these elements if you are a Christian, or thinking of becoming one..."  I'm sure that was right out of I Cor. 11.

There are other things, but those are some of the principle reasons I'm not a Methodist.  Another note from the site was about "If You Have Children", followed by instructions on where to put them for church (because, why would you want them with you during the worship service?  That's just silly to worship together as a family.)

Luke 24:13-25 The Road to Emmaus

I've been discussing communion and the concept of transubstantiation with an Anglican friend of mine, and wanted to record some general thoughts about the idea of the Lord's Supper sacrament being more than just a symbolic reminder of the Lord's sacrifice, specifically in regards to Luke 24:13-25. My friend cited this Luke passage to indicate that for these two individuals (Cleopas and his friend) that a revelation of Christ was given to them as they broke bread with the resurrected Jesus - or in other words, Christ was not revealed to them until they partook of the meal, implying that there is something more to the meal, in terms of the revelation given to those taking of the meal.

I dug into these passages, and responded with some of John MacArthur's comments from my study Bible, that Christ, in His resurrected body was *glorified*, and that his appearance was altered from what it was previously (Mary Magdaline didn't recognize Him at first in John 20.) And in a larger sense, if Christ was imparting some special revelation through the breaking of bread with these two, why was it only to these two people and not all of the disciples, as recorded in Scripture?

Another thing I brought up was the idea that with Catholics/Lutherans (and the high-church denominations), my own observation is that the elements are often offered to the congregation WITHOUT the admonition/caution presented by Paul in I Cor. 11. In other words, when you attend a Catholic Mass, the priest generally says some words in Latin, then the elements are presented, unguarded (without an admonition for self-examination, resolution of sins with brother, etc.) and anyone, regardless of the state of their heart, can partake of this sacrament. I believe that Scripture cautions against taking the meal lightly, and that there needs to be a guarding of the elements, and that the meal is only observed/taken by those professing believers who have examined their hearts, completely understand the meaning of the meal, and who have no unresolved sins with their brothers. In a typical mass, ANYONE can line up to take the elements and the table is completely unguarded. I think this goes against what Paul speaks about in I Cor. 11, and is ultimately dangerous to the individual partaking of the elements (as per Paul's warning) and to the church itself. Is there a special revelation granted through partaking of the meal? I'm more convinced that the meal serves as a public reminder of Christ's sacrifice and the importance of this in the life of believers. Is there a spiritual revelation from this meal? I'm more convinced that revelation if given the believer from Scripture alone, through the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer.

Now whether or not I believe the person taking the Lord's supper elements needs to be Baptized or not, I'm not completely sure about yet. Could a newly-converted, yet unbaptized individual partake of the Lord's supper, knowing what it means and what it entails? I would say yes, although some churches (like my own) would guard the table from those who have not been baptized in Christ's name.