Protecting Sola Scriptura from Sophism, Part II: Arguing from Authorial Intent

The discovery of the logical base of the language used by an author is parallel to the discovery of the logic the author is using in order to communicate his intended point within a text. This means that authorial intent is the logical base that must be discovered through the contextual clues that exist within the referential world of the text. Calvin argued, “It is the first business of an interpreter to let his author say what he does say, instead of attributing to him what we think he ought to say” (Preface to Calvin’s Commentary on Romans). As Vanhoozer comments, “The author is the foundational principle in what we might call the traditional metaphysics of meaning. According to this standard picture, the author is the sovereign subject of the sign, the one who rules over meaning, assigning names to things, using words to express thoughts and represent the world” (Is There Meaning in This Text? 40 digital).

Although the idea of authorial intent has been challenged by postmodern philosophies such as those advocated by Derrida, these authors defeat their entire movement by communicating their ideas in languages that assume that their audiences will understand their authorial intent to undo the idea of authorial intent. In other words, as is the case with logic itself, the assumptions of its legitimacy must be assumed in order to disprove its legitimacy, and thus it becomes self-defeating.

Of course, most Christian interpreters will not argue from atheistic worldviews that give rise to subjectivism. They will agree with the idea that one must find the authorial intent of a text in order to discover its original meaning. The question becomes, What is authorial intent?

Authorial intent is the logical base of all communication. When someone attempts to communicate anything, whether explaining an advanced idea or asking someone to pass the salt, he attempts to be logically understood by his audience. He will therefore use language and references within the audience’s understanding of the world to communicate to them.

What this means is that authorial intent of an ancient author is rooted in the ancient language of the author and the referential world of the author, not the language and referential world of the modern interpreter.

When we come to biblical interpretation, this is often the most misunderstood concept of authorial intent. The search for authorial intent is often reduced to what I refer to as “soundslikegesis,” where the modern reader assumes that because the text sounds like X to him, that is the intent of the ancient author who may be lightyears away from him in terms of his language and referential world.

To give an example of this, missionaries often have a hard time translating the word “God” in Chinese Bibles. The closest word for God in Chinese, I am told, is the word tao as in the word Taoism. Of course, the word tao refers to an impersonal lifeforce that pervades all of creation and is not understood as a personal being. As a result, the Chinese Christian may read his Chinese Bible and assume what he considers the “plain reading” of the text, mainly that God is an impersonal lifeforce that pervades all living things. But the real question is not what the Chinese reader of his translation thinks the word tao sounds like to him but what the original word meant to the biblical author and his ancient, religious audience.

Absent of a shared linguistic and referential world, the words Elohim, theos, “God,” and tao only correspond to one another superficially. Even in our own Western context, the word “God” can refer to so many different things that to use the word is to simply be ambiguous until further referents are added to it by more descriptive words that would provide a larger context for the purposes of exposing authorial intent in its use.

This means that the “plain reading” to the modern interpreter is not necessarily authorial intent, and in fact, is often a method of eisegesis that ignores authorial intent, since it places the modern readers referential world into the text by assuming that what the text sounds like to him is what the author intended to convey.

What this ultimately assumes, then, is that the modern reader, and his modern world, along with all of the referents that come with it, is the intended audience the author had in mind when he attempted to communicate his ideas through the biblical text.

This, of course, is not likely true. In fact, I would argue that God communicated through these ancient men and their ancient references so that the entire world would have a key to understanding the Scripture, perhaps, in times such as ours when its meaning has been reduced to the subjective whims of the modern reader.

What this all ultimately means is that the key to understanding the text is authorial intent and the key to understanding the authorial intent is reference-filled context of the author’s literary work and the author’s world his words reference.

We will explore the implications of this for hermeneutics and exegesis, and how one who is being consistent with the logic of language should argue to establish a legitimate interpretation of the text, in subsequent posts.

Protecting Sola Scriptura from Sophism, Part I: Introduction to the Problem

 I suspect that you’ve listened to countless debates and read countless books concerning issues that seem to all come down to the way someone interprets the Bible. Many people just throw up their hands and pick a position because they just cannot figure out which interpretations are true. So many things sound reasonable to them. The Bible just seems to be a giant inkblot and every man, woman, and child subjects its meaning to his own whims. Who can really come up with the authorial intent when possibilities seem endless. Language can be bent left and right to support multiple views of just about any subject one might imagine.

This all simply leads to a claim that we believe in an impotent sola Scriptura, and therefore, an impotent Bible, that cannot lead us to any absolute and convicting truth that must be proclaimed authoritatively to the exclusion of all other truth claims, as long as the Bible can be used to support them. Our claims to have the Bible as our supreme authority are negated as soon as we start to argue from other sources of authority and abandon the Bible as sufficient to accomplish the goal, or as soon as we start using the Bible as a support absent of its proper exegesis and logical application. 

What I want to do today is to discuss one major means to figuring out who is making a biblical argument and who is only seemingly making one. It is my contention that many are simply duping themselves and their hearers due to a lack of paying attention to the distinctions between logic and rhetoric.

I would argue that Scripture is built upon the principles of logic because it is communicated through the logic of language. Regardless of what language one speaks, there are universal principles of communication to which everyone who wishes to understand or be understood must adhere. This means that language not only has a logical base but it also functions with a logical trajectory. What that means is that, not only must it be interpreted within the logical parameters of its linguistic principles but it must also be applied in logical trajectories that are connected to its base. Hence, there are logical and illogical inferences that arise either from the logic of the language or from that which is in opposition to its logic.

I would argue that those who are arguing from the logical base of the language of a text and its inferences can be identified as those who are exegeting Scripture and applying it within the parameters of that logical base in distinction from those who are using Scripture as a part of a rhetorical argument that seeks to persuade by whatever means necessary.

In the former, the argument is filled with a logical use of grammar, syntax, lexicography, genre study, literary context, historical context, and canonical context along with logical arguments that do not utilize fallacious reasoning to come to their inferences of any further implications of the text and its applications.

In the latter, some of the elements of exegesis are ignored or unknown to the interpreter and/or logical fallacies are used to obtain an inference or application that is not supported by the logical base of the language used in the text.

I would further argue that this is the difference between the use of the Bible by a logician and a rhetorician. One gives rise to argumentation that upholds the doctrine of sola Scriptura and one upholds a type of argumentation that gives rise to sophistry.

Sophistry is derived from the Greek Sophists who did not necessarily believe that objective truth existed, or that it could be known if it did. Because of this, they argued to persuade others using whatever means possible: arguments from authority, tradition, emotion, experiential reasoning, ad hominem, consensus, etc.

Because sophistry tries to persuade rather than to come to the knowledge of what is absolutely true, its arguments are not directed toward discovery of what is true but rather an assumption of the chosen position, regardless of its actual truth, that must be supported by whatever means possible. This also means that Scripture becomes one of the many things used in order to persuade a hearer of that position rather than the ultimate authority that is mined for its intended meaning.

What I am trying to get at here today is that if we do not practice a logical understanding of language in our interpretations and applications of Scripture then we are liars when claiming to adhere to sola Scriptura. In order to truly uphold that doctrine, we must respect not only what God communicated, but how He communicated it. That is to say, that if God communicated to us, we do not respect His Word unless we also respect the logic of communication that participates with God in good faith to receive the intended meaning and applications of that communication.

Now, how does this all help us discern what is argued in debates and books and sermons and on social media or at the Thanksgiving table? If someone is using a rhetoric that misuses the logic of exegesis, i.e., eisegetes by leaving out the necessary elements to do so, or argues illogically either by false inference or one of the many other ways of appealing to alternate authorities, as the few mentioned above, rather than logically exegeting the text and logically inferring its applications in order to support their point, this person’s conclusions are to be discarded as having been legitimately substantiated.

It is not enough to proclaim that we all believe in the ultimate authority in the Bible. If our arguments do not conform to that proclamation we will find ourselves arguing as mouthpieces of the devil instead of God. As the Christian life must not only proclaim truths in declarations but also with displays of the applications of those truths, so also the proclamation of sola Scriptura must not only be proclaimed but displayed in our arguing for our positions.

It might seem that everyone is doing this, but to the trained ear, that is a far cry from the truth. Most people who are arguing from the Bible are actually not holding positions that are logically supported by it if proper exegesis and the logical inferences thereof were being deployed.

Most people do not realize they are doing this. Most people eisegete and then call it exegesis. Most people argue for applications that are merely false inferences, having added additional assumptions into the text. 

In no way do I mean to imply that people are doing this from some sort of malicious intent. We are simply a culture that has been saturated with poor logic and an abuse of language. We are more emotional than rational, more needing to be affirmed than reproved, more dependent upon traditions and peer pressure than we would like to admit. But God must be exalted above all of this, and we who proclaim His Word to others must make sure of the quality of our arguments before they leave our tongues lest we give the impression that the Bible is only one of many authorities, or worse, that God has produced nothing better than an inkblot that is incapable of giving any sure direction toward which we must sail.

The Shepherd of Hermas: A Lesson for the Modern Church Critic

One of the most iconic songs of the 80's was Michael Jackson's "Man in the Mirror." The song was all about if you want to change the world, what you really need to do is change yourself because you are a part of the world that needs to be changed. The more people who focus on themselves, the more the world will change. It's a ground-up type of philosophy that I find to be very much a Christian idea. 

There is an early Christian book that teaches a similar sentiment. The Shepherd of Hermas, although not canonical, was nonetheless considered by early Christians to be one of the most important books for believers to read. It is the most widely attested book besides a couple of the Gospels and even appears as the final book in Codex Sinaiticus, which is one of the most well-known and reliable codices from which many modern translations adopt their readings.

The book has many important things to say but one of the most important in my mind is the image of the church that appears to Hermas as an old, worn out woman who is viewed as ugly because of the sins and shortcomings of her children. The woman appears to Hermas and tells him that he and his household need to repent. As he continues to repent and grow in the faith, the woman reappears to him, but each time that she does, she gets younger and more beautiful, finally appearing to him as an amazingly beautiful bride adorned in all of her glory. 

It is interesting that this scene begins with Hermas viewing her as old and ugly. Yet, the rebuke is not for her to make herself more beautiful but rather for Hermas to repent and grow out of his immaturity. What this essentially presents to us is that when we are in our most sinful and immature state, we see the church as ugly. By "ugly" I mean that we don't like it. It's not attracting us. It holds no influence over us and instead we can do nothing but critique how it lacks beauty.

When we grow in Christ, we begin to see that our disdain for the body of believers of which we are a part becomes a vision of Christ's glory. It is a green oasis flowing with water in the midst of an ugly wasteland. 

In other words, the Body of Christ isn't ugly. It never was. It is cleansed by the blood of Christ and even its blemishes will soon be wiped away. Instead, we are the ugly ones and we project the frustrations of our own ugliness, the disorder of our own lives and households, onto the church and cannot see the beauty of Christ that it reflects.

Think on this, Disillusioned Christian, the world thinks the church is ugly too. When your view and the world's view of the Body of Christ is in agreement, that speaks more to where you are than where the church is.

Hypercritical people who have a need to fix every jot and tittle in what is almost surely a case of obsessive compulsive disorder created by the lack of complete control in their own lives and households don't need to be catered to but rather told that the imperfections they see are due to their own vision, not what exists in reality. Their high and lofty expectations for what the church should look like need to be applied to themselves and their own households, or to put it in the words of Christ, they need to "take the log out" of their own eyes and then they will see clearly to take the speck out of their brothers' eyes.

Of course, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, so these people think that if they only were like someone else's church, if they only lived in some other area, if they only had some other spouse, if they only had some other family, etc., the world would turn right as rain. But what they fail to realize is that the ugliness is within. God Himself cleansed the world with a flood, and yet, sin blossomed anew. And why wouldn't it? Sin first came about in paradise. That's because one's environment does not dictate whether one will choose ugliness. It only exposes whether one has the desire to do so. 

Because of that very Augustinian (i.e., non-heretical Pelagian) idea, the imperfect church is beautiful. It is beautiful because in its imperfections it exposes our imperfections. It shows our lack of patience, blindness to the good around us, discontent and frustration with our lack of being gods who have complete control, etc. Its imperfections bring out that we are spoiled, ungrateful children who look to find reasons to complain and find fault rather than reasons to be thankful and praise God. It exposes where we have failed to realize that the gospel has given us hope and in hope a positive outlook to see beauty in God's people even when they are ugly to fleshly eyes. 

The imperfections of the church are there for our sanctification and woe to the man who finds a church that is perfect in his eyes, for that would surely be a judgment of God over his life. He will find himself in a counterfeit church, a cult, if in fact it is everything he wants and will now be kept from any exposure of his sinful disposition in the world.

Now, of course, if there is a church body in absolute unrepentant sin, it is ugly; but that is because there is a serious question as to whether it is actually the body of Christ at that time. Christ Himself has that local body under judgment for its compromise and will take away its lampstand from His temple if it does not repent. 

But if you go to a church that is the Body of Christ and all you can see is its imperfections, then you are not looking at the church as it truly is but in a mirror that likely reflects the disorder in your own character, household, and mind. Our consumeristic mentality feeds into our naturally judgmental minds. We are the ones who have the standards that need to be met if this church is a "good one" or not. "No one said hi to me." "I don't like the way they do communion." "I don't like the way the preacher said that." "This person offended me." "I don't like their music." "They're disrespectful in their casual dress." "They're too stuffy in their formal clothes." "I don't like where they meet." "I don't like when they meet." "They're too intrusive into our lives." "They're not involved enough in our lives." "They're too liturgical." "They're not liturgical enough." The thoughts of fault-finders are a radio turned up loudly to drown out the sins they themselves are committing against the church, fellow believers, their spouses, their children, etc. 

The solution is not to try and clean out every single particle of dust in every nook and cranny within the Body of Christ, but rather to do as the lady of Hermas commands, i.e., repent and ask forgiveness for yourself and for your household, i.e., "take a look at yourself and make a change." Only then will the church's beauty be restored to your sight. 

Why Jesus Could Break the Sabbath Law and Still Remain Sinless

 People are usually upset when I point out to them that Jesus broke the Sabbath. We know this because He actually says it, but most people miss it because He says via implication. For instance, In John 5:16-18, the text says the following.

And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.” This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. 

Jesus says that by healing on the Sabbath, the Pharisees are right. He was working. This undermines any attempt from some people to argue that healing on the Sabbath isn't working. Jesus Himself confirms that it is. 

Furthermore, John confirms that the Jews wanted to kill him because he was breaking the Sabbath, confirming that Jesus' working on the Sabbath was actually breaking the Sabbath law. Many attempt to try and argue that John is only saying that the Pharisees thought Jesus was breaking the Sabbath law when he really wasn't, but this is negated by (1) Jesus just said He, in fact, was working on the Sabbath day which is to break it, and (2) the text doesn't say "they thought" He was breaking the Sabbath, but rather that He was actually breaking it.

In Matthew 12:1-8, the Pharisees accuse the disciples of breaking the Sabbath by harvesting food on it, which in fact is a violation of the Sabbath.

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3 He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: 4 how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? 6 I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. 7 And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.” 

Jesus' response is not that the disciples technically weren't breaking the Sabbath, as many try to argue. Instead, his argument has three supporting points to it: (1) That there are examples in the OT of people breaking ritual law for moral reasons and are therefore guiltless, and (2) What God actually desires is for His people to show their devotion to Him by their love toward others and not rituals, and (3) He is actually the Lord of the Sabbath and therefore can choose to observe or dismiss it.

1. The first example He cites is that of David and his men going in and eating the showbread which Christ reminds us "was not lawful for them to eat." In other words, they broke the ritual law. The second example is that of the priests who work on every Sabbath day, which Christ says "profanes" the Sabbath. In each case, these people are considered innocent to God. 

2. The reason why they can be still considered innocent to God when breaking a ritual command is because there is nothing inherently evil in breaking a ritual command nor inherently good in observing it. God could have made the Sabbath Tuesday or made no Sabbath at all. There is no inherent goodness to it. It's a picture of a theology and ethic, not the theology and ethic themselves. Hence, it can be broken without transgressing the inherent character of God's goodness. In other words, it isn't really moral. It's just moral to obey God. If God expresses that He wants it set aside in view of an actual moral principle, that moral principle takes precedent. That is also why one ritual command (e.g., baking showbread on the Sabbath and setting it out) can override another (e.g., observing the Sabbath).

3. As noted in Point 2 above, God can give commands and express what is most important so that His people set aside the ritual commands in order to obey God's ultimate desires in that moment. Hence, since Jesus is the Lord, He has declared His disciples innocent in breaking the Sabbath because they were hungry, He had them out and about, and He judges the matter to be a case of the preservation of life in a context of obedience that overrides the need to obey a ritual law.

Hence, in Mark 3:4, this story is followed by Jesus healing on the Sabbath and Christ responds to their condemnation of Him by showing that the creational principle to preserve innocent life, which is the entire thrust of the law, is good to do on the Sabbath. He states:

“Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?”

In other words, the moral principle can override the Sabbath law to do no work because the Sabbath law is not a moral law within itself.

This is why the new covenant is one of the moral law, not the ritual law. The pictures of the ritual law, in fact, are what is considered the old covenant. No longer will God make His people commit themselves to Him through the pictures, especially since Israel became confused with these and ended up just observing the pictures at the expense of the moral laws they represented. Instead, He would write the moral law on the minds rather than externally on tablets. 

This is why Paul says that he is not under the law anymore and when among Gentiles he does not practice the law (1 Cor 9:20), but v. 21 makes it clear that he is talking not about moral law, which he refers to as the law of Christ, i.e., the new covenant, but rather the ritual law. This could not be said if the ritual law were as binding as the moral law.

Likewise, in his statement to Peter in Galatians 2:14, "“If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” Obviously, in the context, he says this to Peter because Peter is not observing the ritual law unless he is around Jews.

When speaking of the change in the priesthood, the author of Hebrews writes, For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well" (7:12). The new covenant does not have the same ritual laws that the old covenant has. 

Hence, Paul can argue against Jewish mystics who are demanding the ritual law be observed, "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. (Col 2:16-17). 

And

One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. (Rom 14:5-10).

Instead, Jesus breaks the Sabbath by working on it. His disciples break the Sabbath by working on it. The priests break the Sabbath by working on it. Yet, they are all innocent because they broke no moral law by doing so.

A Tale of Two Masculinities

I always loved Christmas because it was one of the only times a year that I would get a new Star Wars toy. I remember one Christmas my parents had bought me some cheap space toy knockoff that wasn't Star Wars because they just thought I was into space toys in general. But as any Star Wars fan knows, there is no substitute for the real thing. There is Star Wars and there is everything else that wants to be Star Wars but isn't. Suffice to say, it wasn't a good Christmas in the mind of a five-year-old.

We have many cheap knockoffs in our culture when it comes to masculinity. Our culture has been recently infatuated with the question, "What is a woman?" In many ways, this question is not as important as its counterpart, which is, "What is a man?" If we can get that question down, the other will become clear. 

But before we can answer the question, "What is a man?" I want to explore how we make our version of men in our culture and why this is primarily the problem.

In the ancient and biblical world, men are a product of the nurture of their families until marriage. They learn responsibility in their father's family until that responsibility is transferred over to their new family. This is the reason a man leaves his father and mother, to cleave to his wife and begin a new branch of his father's household. Sometimes he doesn't leave at all but incorporates his new family into the responsibilities of the former.

Hence, he moves from family responsibilities to family responsibilities. Manhood is a role of familial responsibility, or as the ancient world would put it, love/devotion. He has sacrificed his time, energy, resources, desires, etc. for the sake of his father's family and now goes directly into that same role in his new family where he sacrifices his time, energy, resources, desires, etc. for the good of that family. Manhood is sacrificial responsibility.

This is what the Bible describes when speaking of the husband's role with his wife, but it should be extended to the larger family as well. He is the one who must provide and protect in the sacrifice of anything else he might want to do instead. He must learn from his father's family how to do that in order that he might teach his own sons to do the same, not only in word but in demonstrating it day by day.

Our culture, however, does something that completely derails this by having the son leave the home and enter into a period of "freedom." This is seen as a rite of passage. He is let loose to party. He is let loose to do whatever he was not allowed to do in his father's home. Now, he can make drinking his escape, be sexually indulgent, participate in lude conversations, etc. This is his break from responsibility if, in fact, he even had it at all in the modern family. 

Now, some people bounce back from this. They realize that this isn't what being a man really is. Being a man isn't freedom from responsibility and acting like a frat boy. It is the very opposite of that. Scripture tells us that being a mature man is a life of love and sacrifice. It is choosing to deny oneself what the world paints as freedom and joy in created things and calls us away to find our peace and joy in God and in the betterment of His people in their relationship with Christ. It is training up other men to be responsible, whether in your immediate family or in the church. 

Biblical masculinity chooses not to partake in the frat boy version of masculinity because it teaches men to glorify the party period of their lives and extend it into their families. I cannot count how many men I have known who neglect their families so that they can drink with the boys, end up committing adultery on their wives in one way or another, get into drugs, just spend the rest of their days in their child-like hobbies or donate their time to futility by watching countless hours of tv and surfing the internet on their phones. 

We have taught our men to escape, to abdicate, to spend their time in fruitless discussion, and to party; but we have failed to teach them that masculinity is taking responsibility for those in their families, to guard and protect children, to enter into discussions that edify young men and women, to engage in behaviors that communicate that Christ alone is our joy and peace and we need no created thing to be the idol of escapism because we are not trying to escape from the responsibility Christ has given to us. 

We show men how to submit by being in submission ourselves. We show men how to lead by leading as men lead, through the command of God's Word and not through the emotional manipulation of relationships. We act as fathers and not as frat boys. We show men how to run toward their families, to incorporate them into our lives, rather than how to find ways to avoid them.

Biblical masculinity is not how you take your alcohol or how many girls you can get. It isn't who wins in a debate on any topic that exists solely as a dominance contest, who wins at arm-wrestling or has the best stuff. But these are the things that have been ingrained into us as masculine because we learn that when one is grown up, he leaves his family and does these things. Freedom from responsibility, not taking on responsibility, is what we have subconsciously taught being a man is. 

There are of course its counterparts with women as well. Being a woman is the freedom to be a whore, get drunk, and do all of the unladylike things you're not supposed to do as a girl. But true womanhood is a life of submission to a man who is responsible for you and the family, and true manhood is taking upon the role of the one in that position of responsibility. 

If I am responsible for others, I will care about what they need to mature, not what I want to do in disregard of what they need. Applying that principle will lead down a path that many frat boys fear to tread because its applications will lead to the death of the frat boy's lifestyle. 

The culture I want to create in the church will be one of family, not individuality. A man off on his own is an individual and communicates that he is an island from his family. Instead, a biblical culture will emphasize the inclusion of family in our gatherings, the demonstration of responsibility in how wives and children are treated both inside and outside the home; and this will create an atmosphere of edifying conversations, a consumption of nothing but what the entire family should consume and partake in, and an elevation of Jesus Christ, along with the privilege of the responsibilities He has given us, as our joy and peace. 

The exclusion of family is repeating the same error of our culture. It elevates the freedom from family that our culture glorifies and is present in every broken marriage in our church. Yet, this very freedom creates eternal boys, not men.

In other words, there is no such thing as a man without the responsibility of family because there is no such thing as a man without him being a father. Manhood is fatherhood and all of the love and sacrifice that comes with it.

James Bond is our culture's masculine ideal, but he's a forever bachelor. John Wayne had three wives, having been divorced twice, and lived the type of masculinity that the frat boy would adore. But his masculinity wasn't biblical. Neither was the abdicating masculinity of the simp culture to follow. What I want to point out is that both of these supposedly contrasting masculinities are simply one and the same. They both abdicate in seemingly opposite ways but neither can claim the title of being truly masculine. 

If love is spiritual maturity as the Bible teaches, then he who loves the most is the most mature, and he who is most mature as a male is most masculine. Love is not some sappy feeling, it is not letting others indulge in whatever fancies them or having a gay old time with your buddies. It is sacrifice. It is edification. It is responsibility for the soul of the other. Anything less is a cheap knockoff. 

Part 2 of Gavin’s Discussion of Ken Ham and Genesis 1

 https://youtu.be/95B-NrAmS_U?si=ieCN8iG7f17H9pgv

The Interpretation of Genesis 1 and How Ken Ham Creates Unnecessary Divisions

 https://youtu.be/FL9t3O-1E7w?si=1_McBMy9z60yyZD8

Does the Bible Teach that Animal Death Is Brought in by the Fall?

This is just a question I was thinking about. I haven't landed one way or another, as I don't know if this can truly be known by us. However, here are some points to ponder. 

I was always taught that carnivorous animals once ate vegetation, and that their entire ontological makeup was altered after the Fall. This, however, seems a bit odd. Carnivores wouldn't simply need to be changed in terms of their metabolism, but their teeth in order to grab onto prey, their muscles in order to overpower them, their speed would need to be altered, etc. And why are some wild animals changed from being herbivorous to being carnivorous if it is just the Fall affecting them?  Wouldn't all herbivores become carnivores in the same way that all men become destroyers instead of life-givers in the Fall?

But if carnivores were made from the beginning, that would mean that animal death was something that is prelapsarian. But what does the Bible say? Doesn't it teach that all death came in through Adam? Romans 5:12-14, 17-19

12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come . . .  17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. 18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.

This passage is often used to argue that death did not exist before the Fall and so no animals could possibly be carnivorous or die before the Fall. However, it is clear in the context that this is talking about death for humanity. Humans, as God's images, were not meant to die before the Fall and it was only after Adam's sin that death for humanity came into the world. The text is explicitly clear in v. 12: εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ⸋ὁ θάνατος⸌ διῆλθεν "death came to all men." It does not say that death came to all creatures. 

It should also be understood that even though we talk about plants dying, the Bible does not consider plants as having living souls and therefore as things that die in the sense that a soul departs from its corporeal existence. Fruit could be said to "die" because God gave it to Adam and Eve to eat before the Fall but, again, this is not considered death in Scripture.

It is disputed as to whether bacteria, micro-organisms, insects, etc. would be considered living creatures by the Bible, but certainly anything from reptiles and fish to larger livestock and wild animals would be as they are all referred to as חַיָּה, which literally means "living thing" but is often just translated as "animal," an English word derived from the Latin animalis "having life/a soul." Of course, by "soul" I don't mean that they have an eternal soul but that they have a life source/breath that animates them. We're told in Ecclesiastes that their lifesource returns to the ground as opposed to man's that returns to God upon death.

Returning to the question at hand, then, the argument for a postlapsarian animal death is then drawn from Romans 8. In vv. 18-23, Paul states:

18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

The problem in using this passage is that it says nothing about death being brought to all creation. In fact, because it is talking about all creation, and not just animals, it would be strange to import that into the text here. Instead, the creation is subject to futility. Futility concerning what? Well, in the context, Paul is talking about how we suffer in this world and still die, so the creation, that was originally made to support a human-filled world, because of the Fall, was subject to the fact that it won't be able to do its job and keep those humans but instead, in its fallen state, will lead to their suffering and death. It, therefore, groans (anthropopathically speaking) until the day that the sons of God are resurrected in their glorified bodies and it can finally be placed in a state of success in that it can preserve the humans that fill it up. It's existence for that purpose will no longer be futile. This really has nothing to do with our question, then, as to whether animals only die as a result of the Fall.

A further argument might be made from federal headship. Although this is theological rather than a connection the Bible makes to this issue, it's an interesting one to consider. The idea would be that if Adam was not under death then the animals under him would not be under death either, but this may not be a proper application of federal headship, as a man who is not under the death penalty in the civil sense today might still kill his livestock for food and in the OT as a sacrifice. In other words, his animals don't necessarily share his fate by being a part of him. They actually could just be a part of him by being consumed by him or sacrificed for him. Furthermore, if animals served a purpose in their dying in order to keep the man's ecosystem running properly before the Fall as it does now, then these deaths would serve him rather than detract from him. In other words, like the fruit, the animal perishes so that death does not come to the man. It does not perish because he is under judgment but rather because he is under blessing and provision. 

Still, it is interesting to ponder why God gives only the fruit for man to eat and not animals before the Fall if these animals are dying anyway. The counterpoint might be that the fruit mentioned isn't because it is the only thing being eaten but simply letting the man know that none of the fruit is forbidden to him (which might make the reader ask if the forbidden fruit is symbolic in the next chapter since all fruit was granted to the man in the first), whereas some of the animals might be forbidden to him just because they don't make for good eating. The distinction between wild animals and domesticated animals in the language of these chapters may bear this out but who knows in the end?

Here is what is clear. No man was under the penalty of death until Adam sinned. Humans die as a result of the Fall. That is the clear biblical teaching. There is no human death before the Fall. Hence, Christ came into the world to redeem humankind from death, and in doing so, all of creation from futility. Whether carnivores were made by God to be carnivorous and had actually eaten before Adam sinned remains a mystery that we simply must guess at either way.

If you know of any verses or arguments I might be missing, let me know.

Why Speculative Theology Gives Us No Knowledge of God

Being a witness to many debates between Christian theologians can be exhausting. The amount of people declared heretics because they don't fully align with the exacting definitions of speculative theologies has become the favorite past time of many a tradition these days. "You're too Thomistic!" "You're not Thomistic enough!" "You need to be a Platonist!" "You need to be an Aristotelian!" "You're a Modernist!" "You got your jot right but your tittle is wrong so you clearly must be put outside the faith!" The amount of knowledge these people think they have about God is astounding. I might reacclimate the apostles' question asked in horror to our day, "If these things be true, who can be saved?!"

One of my favorite pass times in seminary was sitting for hours with my friends who were Philosophy of Religion majors. The biggest lesson I took away from those conversations though is that anything can be justified by philosophy as long as you have a coherent system, but since there are many contradictory coherent systems, this means that even if your system is coherent and all works theoretically, there is still nothing to confirm that it is actually true.

Call me a skeptic but I am just a radical presuppositionalist at heart. I don't believe that any knowledge is possible without either omniscience or a reliable report from one who is omniscient. This makes me a radical advocate of sola Scriptura and the high church view when it comes to qualified exegetes as the exclusive interpreters of that Scripture. As such, I don't think much of speculative theology. This is usually why I tell people that I'm not a systematician but a biblical scholar. That doesn't mean I'm not a theologian but that I'm a biblical theologian. 

What I mean by that is. not that I don't use logic or am aware of my own philosophical presuppositions (indeed, I would argue being a biblical theologian requires these things), but rather that Scripture must confirm or deny my theology either explicitly or by good and necessary consequence. The further our speculations get from being confirmed by Scripture, the more doubtful they become, as knowledge must be confirmed by it. If my speculation cannot be confirmed by Scripture, it cannot be known even if it may be true. 

But being a biblical theologian helps me to understand what God wants us to know about Him. He has clearly revealed Himself as a singular Being in Trinity, but He has not described for us the "mechanics" of His Being or interrelations of the Persons. We have often speculated about these things using various philosophical ideas about God and how He might exist and relate to both His creation and within the Godhead itself.  

But, biblically speaking, God doesn't seem to care whether we figure that out. In fact, I would argue that those things are the secret things that don't belong to us. What God has declared belong to us is what He has revealed in Scripture. I would argue that this primarily has to do with God's expressed character over and against our knowing His essence. If I can say it this way, God cares more about people knowing who He is than He cares about people knowing what He is. 

This is why we do not get books in the Bible that are intellectual descriptions of God's Being. Instead, we are told of what God does and what God requires of us to do in order to be like Him in His character. Hence, in the Book of Exodus, God reveals His "name," i.e., His personhood, by showing Himself to be the Savior of His people, the Giver of life to His people, the Creator of His people, their faithful God who seeks a relationship with them in order to give to them life and freedom from slavery and death. In other words, He is the One who has loved them and will continue to faithfully love them. God is love. He further reveals Himself as just as He reveals His moral will in the law. God is love because He is good and just. This is what God wants His people to know about Him. 

The Trinitarian nature of God is revealed as a part of His revelation concerning His activity to save His people from slavery and death. God is so much the Savior that even when His own goodness and justice become a threat to our well-being, He fulfills the very requirements of His own goodness necessary to have a life-giving relationship with Him Himself, i.e., through the Second Person of the Trinity, in order to save us because He loves us. Having saved us from the death our own rebellion would merit in the presence of God, He then conforms us to His just and good character as a people who have received His life in us and now produces life through us by the Third Person of the Trinity. 

This is what God primarily wants us to know about Himself and this is all that we can know about Him. He is the only God, existing in three persons, the Savior of His people, the only good and just One, who has given and gives life to all things that have or will have life.

There is no treatise in the Bible concerning essence and energies, divine aseity, exitus and reditus, perichoresis, etc. I believe things about these things, but I cannot know them. I cannot know them because God has not described them in such a way so as to confirm that I have the right view of them. But here is the real point: I don't need to know them. I don't need to understand any of them in order to know God. In fact, I may be detracting from the Scriptures in which God has revealed Himself to discuss and write about the things He has not revealed about Himself. I might argue that along with what God has revealed about Himself sits silently an implication of divine mystery that God demands His people acknowledge so that they spend their time meditating upon who He has revealed Himself to be and not what He might be or how he might exist as He does.

One might even construct an entirely different religion than that of the Bible by making it about philosophical speculations about God to the point of diminishing the emphasis of Holy Scripture concerning God. the Trinity, the Incarnation, eschatology, etc. All of these sound like very Christian things to talk about, and yet, they may actually detract from a biblical Christianity that would have us focus on what we know as it has been confirmed by divine revelation about these topics. 

If life is found in a particular relationship with God as His people, and God wishes to give us life in what He communicates to us above all else, then God will glorify Himself in a way that is sufficient to accomplish that goal. We, therefore, have a sufficient knowledge of God but not an exhaustive knowledge of God, a knowledge which would require us having the omniscient mind of God Himself to obtain. 

Speculative knowledge gives us theories. They are fun to talk about. But we can never know the truth of them if Scripture does not confirm either explicitly or through necessary consequence (i.e., via implication) their veracity. This should cause us to ask the question, therefore, if we are spending too much time talking about these things. Are we exerting our own reason above the Word of God without realizing it? Are we, therefore, by doing so, asserting ourselves into conversations where God should be exalted instead? Are most heresies not created in such ways? I cannot understand God and have a need to make Him more understandable to me. Hence, maybe Jesus had a beginning even though Scripture indicates He has the full nature of God, which would include eternality. Maybe Jesus is just a man because He learns and grows and may not seem to know certain things during His ministry on earth. Maybe the God of the Old Testament is a different God than that of the New because it seems that a shift has been made between the two. All sorts of heresies are created via speculations that are not confirmed by Scripture but I am talking even more about the orthodoxies that can replace our confessional emphases that are created via speculations that are not confirmed by Scripture. 

An adjustment in our understanding concerning what we believe to be true and what we know to be true with our emphasis on what we know to be true as superior and subsequently given the floor in our conversations is needed.

Gnosticism and the Forbidding of Musical Instruments in Worship

Does worship in the Hebrew Bible include musical instruments? Check. These mainly include membranophones like various hand drums and tambourines (e.g., Exod 15:20-21), idiophones like cymbals and bells (e.g., 2 Sam 6:5; 1 Chron 15:16; Exod 28:33-34), chordophones like lyres and harps (e.g., Ps 68:25; 81:2; 149:3; 2 Chron 20:28), and aerophones like various kinds of reed-pipes/flutes, horns, and trumpets (e.g., Isa 30:9; 1 Kings 1:40; 1 Chron 15:28; 2 Chron 5:12-13). Instruments are a major part of the worship of God in the Hebrew Bible.

Psalm 150, the last Psalm positioned as the response to the entire book of worship commands with multiple imperatives,

"Praise the LORD! 

Praise God in His sanctuary; 

Praise Him in His mighty expanse. 

Praise Him for His mighty deeds; 

Praise Him according to His excellent greatness. 

Praise Him with trumpet sound; 

Praise Him with harp and lyre. 

Praise Him with timbrel and dancing; 

Praise Him with stringed instruments and pipe. 

Praise Him with loud cymbals; 

Praise Him with resounding cymbals. 

Let everything that has breath praise the LORD. 

Praise the LORD!" 

The congregation assembled to see the ark brought up and worshiped God as follows:

"So all Israel brought up the ark of the covenant of the Lord with shouting, to the sound of the horn, atrumpets, and cymbals, and made loud music on bharps and lyres" (1 Chron 15:28; also see 13:8).

"When the priests came forth from the holy place (for all the priests who were present had sanctified themselves, without regard to divisions), and all the Levitical singers, Asaph, Heman, Jeduthun, and their sons and kinsmen, clothed in fine linen, with cymbals, harps and lyres, standing east of the altar, and with them one hundred and twenty priests blowing trumpets in unison when the trumpeters and the singers were to make themselves heard with one voice to praise and to glorify the LORD, and when they lifted up their voice accompanied by trumpets and cymbals and instruments of music, and when they praised the LORD saying, “He indeed is good for His lovingkindness is everlasting,” then the house, the house of the LORD, was filled with a cloud, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of the LORD filled the house of God (1 Chron 5:11-14).

The theology of worship given to us in the Hebrew Bible is that when the congregation is in the presence of God, which is what the ark represents, singing and instruments (and dancing) are used in the celebration of His presence.

Are instruments used by the angels and God's people in heaven? Check.

In worship of the Lord Jesus Christ in heaven, the angels and men worship Him with instruments. 

"And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth. And He came and took the book out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne. When He had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each one holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. “You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.” (Rev 5:6-10)

Notice that they sung to Him a new song, not a Psalm either. 

So, in both the Old Testament and in the New Testament depiction of heaven, those who are assembled in God's presence respond to His presence in the joy of music, using psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, old and new, with all sorts of instruments made of metal, wood, animal hides, stringed and unstringed.

So why do some make the argument that the church when assembled in God's presence should not use them?

I would argue it is due to Gnostic assumptions. The first Gnostic assumption is that of the principle described in the NT as "do not taste, do not touch." Colossians 2:21 speaks of these teachers as those who strictly deny the use of certain objects in worship because they are considered worldly. Certain foods, certain items in the world that would be considered unclean, are forbidden by the Gnostic ascetics because what is spiritual should not incorporate that which is physically viewed as defiled. 

Some make the argument that because instruments were made by wicked men and used in the worship of their pagan worship, these instruments should not be incorporated into the worship of God.

They argue that this is confirmed from the fact that the New Testament never speaks of musical instruments being used in worship services. 

This brings me to the second Gnostic assumption: the argument for a radical discontinuity between the Old and New Testament. The New Testament actually doesn't describe a first century church service in detail at all. It just describes the essential components of a church assembly (i.e., the teaching of the Word/the apostles, the fellowship of the saints, and the taking care of the poor). We're never told of how the church is conducted beyond this because we already have sufficient pictures of worship in the Old Testament. I liken this to morality. We don't have any new morality given to us in the New Testament. It simply emphasizes that the morality that we are taught in the Old Testament needs to be thought of within the framework of love of God and neighbor and applied in a more consistent manner than was tolerated by God in the Old Testament. But the moral principles are the same. I would argue that the pictures of worship we are given in the Old Testament communicate principles that are also the same. One of those principles is that every created thing can be used to worship God because all of creation should worship God and this includes forming created things into instruments for use in the worship of God by his assembly.

But the Gnostic tendency is to see creation as corrupt and therefore only the created things that God tolerates can be used to worship Him. Everything else is too unclean to use in the presence of God and this is proven by the fact that pagans use them in their false worship. Instruments are worldly. Voices are invisible. Voices are spirit and therefore spiritual. Hence, only voices should be used. 

I'm sure those who argue this way would not like the Gnostic label applied to them but this appeal to the regulative principle is misguided. The regulative principle has to do with not just what is explicitly referenced within the New Testament but rather what is explicitly and by good and necessary consequence referenced in the entire Bible as fit for the assembly to use in worship of God in His presence.

Hence, arguing that musical instruments get in the way of worship and that the New Testament tells us to use our voices, and this somehow means that we are only to use our voices, is negated by the use of instruments both throughout biblical worship here on earth and in heaven. All other pragmatic arguments should give way to the fact that we are commanded in the Psalms, the Word of God, to use instruments in our praise of God. 

The Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace: Speaking in Terms that Relate to the Biblical World Rather Than Our Own

I'm trying to work through the biblical covenants using the frameworks of the biblical world instead of just the theological categories and definitions we have inherited. This post is my thinking out loud. I'm wanting to think more about how the new covenant fits into everything below, so I may refine these things at some point but here is where I am today.

There has been a massive debate raging for quite some time within Reformed circles concerning the nature of the covenants in the Bible. Some argue that there is a covenant of works and a covenant of grace but differ about where they appear in redemptive history. Others argue that there is no covenant of works but only a covenant of grace that is seen throughout Scripture. What I want to argue here is that much of the dispute is occurring due to theologians defining the nature of covenants apart from the biblical cultural and literary context.

But before we go there, let's list the places where covenants may or may not appear in the Bible.

1. The Adamic Covenant

2. The Noahic Covenant

3. The Abrahamic Covenant

4. The Mosaic Covenant

5. The Davidic Covenant

6. The New Covenant

I did not mention here the covenant of redemption, as this is not a genuine biblical covenant, as it is not founded upon the same principles. I would likely refer to what is typically called the covenant of redemption as a pact just to differentiate it in the terminology. I also don't divide up some of these covenants into sub-covenants or completely different covenants as some do because I simply think it's unnecessary and even incorrect to do so.

Here is what I would say about biblical covenants. They are familial covenants. By "familial covenant" I mean that they are covenants where one party is connected to another party by becoming a part of the first party's family. This is usually through adoption if one is not already a part of the family organically. Family members have particular obligations to one another in the ancient Near Eastern and biblical world. Fathers must protect and provide for their families. Sons must work to contribute to their fathers' families and interests rather than simply their own. Once a part of the family, via covenant, therefore, familial obligations kick in. The "father" in the family must provide for and protect the "son" in the family from chaotic forces. The "son" in the family has obligations to give himself as a contributor to the father's family as evidence that he is in that father's family. 

In this regard, the biblical covenants are framed along the lines of the suzerain-vassal treaty, which is where the stronger party agrees to protect the weaker party if the weaker party will show his allegiance to the stronger party by paying tribute in order to build up the stronger party's kingdom. His works display that he is a part of that kingdom. To not pay the tribute is to remove oneself from the covenant and its benefits. Likewise, if the stronger party attacks the weaker party it is a sign that the stronger party no longer considers the weaker party to be part of his family.

Some people argue that some of the covenants, at least, are grant covenants, where a stronger party, like a king, simply grants rights or gifts to a weaker party without requiring the weaker party to become a part of his family and pay tribute, which would be more of a universalist view. Some might argue that grant covenants function as adoptions into the family without conditions, which would be more of an antinomian view, but I would argue that this is not true of any biblical covenant, as God requires everyone in these covenants above to obey Him and be a part of His family in order to receive the benefits, i.e., the promises of the covenants. Law is a part of all of them.

In this regard, all covenants that are founded upon the structure of the suzerain-vassal treaty, which I would argue describe all of these covenants above, are conditional covenants, and therefore, all are the covenant of works. This includes the new covenant, which requires the evidence of works to show that one is a part of God's family, has God as Father, and therefore, is protected and provided for by God as the One who thwarts chaos from His sons. (The key difference with the new covenant is stated below.)

The problem is that the Bible also teaches that no one is faithful to these covenants, starting with Adam forward. Adam breaks it. Humanity in the Noahic covenant breaks that. Israel within the Abrahamic covenant that is expanded into the Mosaic covenant breaks that. The kings in David's line break the Davidic covenant. 

This is where the Lord Jesus Christ comes in. Instead of entering into covenants that require the tribute of hundreds of laws in order to display our familial allegiance with God, Christ fulfills all of those requirements for us. He pays the penalty for our transgressions when we should have given our allegiance and he fulfills all of the requirements of allegiance to God on our behalf. Christ, then, fulfills the covenant of works for us. But how does He do this?

He does this via federal headship. Federal headship is essentially where a stronger party is considered one entity with the weaker party so that the lot of the stronger party is the lot of the weaker. In other words, he does so through another type of suzerain-vassal treaty, one that is more organically familial than artificial, one that is more internally connected/united to the suzerain than externally. The key difference here is that this treaty only has one condition, one must have Christ as his Lord. Even though one's obedience to Christ displays that Christ is his Lord, forgiveness of disobedience to the suzerain stems from the very relationship one has with the suzerain Himself. In other words, the suzerain himself has protected the vassal from the wrath of the suzerain himself by paying the price of that wrath and fulfilling the obligations of the covenant Himself. So, although, at first, this may seem like the same thing as the previous covenant of works, it isn't. Because Christ has died to pay the penalties for any lack of allegiance displayed in our disobedient works, any show of disobedience, if confessed in repentance, is wiped away, and God does not see us as breaking the covenant so as to remove Himself from His obligations to us within the covenant. Furthermore, all obedience required has been given to God by Christ, and therefore, any lack in our allegiance has been achieved by Christ.

The only way to break this covenant is to refuse to repent. If one refuses to repent, then he shows that Christ is not his Lord, and therefore, the blood of Christ is not applied to his sins, and God therefore is not his Father. God has no obligations to this person to protect and provide for him because Christ is not his Lord and therefore the covenant he is left with is the covenant of works that has been broken by his sin. Having no protector/father stronger than chaos, he is then given over to the forces of chaos that will destroy him.

This federal headship relationship with Christ is rightly called a covenant of grace, not because works are not required to be a display of his allegiance to God but because the person in this covenant is covered by the favor of Christ that the Lord Jesus obtained from God so as to always be received into the family of God even when he fails to have the perfect allegiance he needs to remain within the family of God. This is why the church does not excommunicate a person for any sin except the sin of refusing to repent of sin. The only damnable sin that breaks this covenant, from a human perspective, is apostasy. As long as repentance is present, no sin can damn the person who is unified with Christ in this federal relationship.

In this regard, all covenants of works in the Bible are intermingled with the covenant of grace. There is law that curses and blesses, depending upon whether the person obeys it; but there is also grace that promises through the Messiah that the law is fulfilled so that blessing, and not curse, will be the lot of the one who is united to Christ. 

This informs us of the nature of the Christian life. Christ is our means of fulfilling the covenant of works that is over all of mankind. The Christian life, therefore, is a life of faith/allegiance to Christ as the means of unification to Him, and therefore, of our justification in the assessment of the covenant of works. Any works the Christian performs, and they should be in abundance, is evidence of our faith/allegiance to Christ, not the basis of the justification that we have in Christ (whether one wants to divide justification up as initial justification and final justification or not). Hence, works have no merit to keep us in the covenant with God nor to declare us as keepers of the covenant. They are simply evidences that Christ is our Lord, which is what actually keeps us in the covenant of grace and allows God to declare us as keepers of the covenant of works, truly adopted sons into the family of God and recipients of all of His blessings, provisions and protections.

This means the Christian life is a life of works that stem from our relationship with Christ as our Lord, and they are necessary in that they evidence our true relationship with Christ by confirming or denying our confession. But works are not merely the perfection of doing good but also the continual act of repentance in order to be acquitted of any claim that the covenant of works has gone unfulfilled by the individual and that his allegiance with God as his suzerain has been broken. The Christian life, then, is a life filled with good works and confession of sin that evidence one's right to receive the benefits of the covenant. 

[Side note: By "keep" the covenant, I speak from the human perspective, as many verses would argue that one who does not keep his allegiance to Christ as his Lord from the perspective of the visible church, from the divine view of things, was never "of us" (1 John and was never (lit. "at no time") known by Christ (Matt 7). His refusal to repent simply displayed that he was always under the condemnation of the covenant of works without the provisions of Christ.]

Federal Visionists and the Fundamentalist Cult of the "Truly Reformed"

 https://wedgewords.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/the-federal-vision-and-reformed-theology/

Barbie Dreams

 Kill Your Baby, Get a Dream House

1 Corinthians 10:1-6 and It's Implications for Paedocommunion

10:1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. 6 Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did.

It's clear that Paul wanted to teach here that going through the sea and eating the manna and drinking the water from the rock in the wilderness are the exodus' prefiguration of baptism and communion. 

Chrysostom noted, 

Just as the gifts are symbolic, so are the punishments symbolic. Baptism and holy Communion were prefigured in prophecy. In the same way the certainty of punishment for those who are unworthy of this gift was proclaimed beforehand for our sake, so that we might learn from these examples how we must watch our step (Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians 23.4).

Likewise, Ambrosiaster commented, "The manna and the water which flowed from the rock are called spiritual because they were formed not according to the law of nature but by the power of God working independently of the natural elements. They were created for a time as figures of what we now eat and drink in remembrance of Christ the Lord (COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES).

Origen argued that "These things were written as examples for us, so that when we read about their sins we shall know to avoid them (COMMENTARY ON 1 CORINTHIANS 4.46).

There are two major questions to answer here. The first is who partook in baptism and communion in the exodus according to this text? And the second is, How can one avoid the punishments of those who partook of these things in the wilderness?

The answer to the first is undoubtedly, "Everyone." All the men, all the women, and all the children went through the sea. All the men, all the women, and all the children ate of the manna and drank the water in one way or another. They were all partakers in it. 

This leads to the the answer of the second question. Paul says that the rebellion of the Israelites, not the partaking of the sacraments, caused God to bring wrath upon them in the wilderness and kill them. The answer was not that God's wrath was upon them because they partook of what was holy. They were supposed to do that. All of them. The problem is that they partook of what was holy and then rebelled.

Now, who rebelled? The children? One of the groups mentioned in 1 Corinthians 10 is the group that grumbled and were destroyed by the Destroyer, i.e., Satan. 

One of the groups that grumbled and rejected Moses' authority was the group of which Korah was the federal head. In fact, he was the one who led the rebellion. The text says that he and all of his household went down alive into the pit, his wife, his children, his cattle, his tent, and his infants. Yes, his infants. Why did his infants go down? Because they partook in communion? Nope. They would have survived on into the Promised Land had Korah not rebelled. So it was Korah's rebellion that landed his infants in that pit under the wrath of God. 

This then tells us that the answer is not to withdraw our households from the sacraments and what is holy but rather to be fully aware as federal heads that if we partake in what is holy and continue in sin, we place our households in grave danger. 

To withdraw from holy things in case we might sin is evil. We are commanded to partake in them. Hence, whether we have our children partake or not, they are partaking of what is holy through us either way and the remedy is not to act like they aren't partaking in them but rather to make sure that we, as the federal heads of our households, are not partaking in what is holy while indulging in the rebellion of the world at the same time. 

Don't save your children, therefore, by acting like they have no place at Christ's Table, but rather by following God through the wilderness rather than the devil, for if you are a Christian that is the only way to save them now, i.e., going all in rather than half in.

The Davidic Promise: Three Options for Jewish Interpreters

 The promise that God gave to David, that he would always have a descendent of David upon the throne, is a sticking point for Jewish theology because the throne of David was physically destroyed when the Romans leveled Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and then squashed the hopes of regaining the territory when the Bar Kokhba Revolt was finally put down in A.D. 136. 

The promise first appears in 2 Samuel 7.

12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, 15 but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.’ ”

There are, as far as I can tell, only three ways to interpret this promise.

1. It's a false prophecy. The Bible is not really the Word of God and this is just a prophecy that was given to encourage an exiled people but it utterly failed in the end as the Jews were without a king as soon as Nebuchadnezzar destroyed what remained of the city in 587/86 BC. The monarchy was officially destroyed and never restored.

2. The promise is contingent upon Israel's obedience and since they are not obedient, the promise is never fulfilled. 2 Chronicles 6:16-17 seems to suggest this, and it is what some Jewish interpreters might point to in order to make sense of the problem.

16 Now therefore, O LORD, God of Israel, keep for your servant David my father what you have promised him, saying, ‘You shall not lack a man to sit before me on the throne of Israel, if only your sons pay close attention to their way, to walk in my law as you have walked before me.’ 17 Now therefore, O LORD, God of Israel, let your word be confirmed, which you have spoken to your servant David. 

3. As containing both contingent and non-contingent elements to it. The contingent elements are not fulfilled and never can be since God already did not have a Davidic king on the throne since the time of the Babylonian Exile. The non-contingent element must be fulfilled.

The problem is that the original command seems to have both elements in it. It seems to be both contingent upon Israel's obedience and a promise that will be fulfilled by God so that the promise is not contingent upon Israel's obedience. In fact, in the midst of Israel's disobedience, God restates the promise in Jeremiah 33 as follows.

14 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will fulfill the promise I made to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 15 In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring up for David, and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 16 In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: ‘The LORD is our righteousness.’ 17 “For thus says the LORD: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, 18 and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to make sacrifices forever.” 19 The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: 20 “Thus says the LORD: If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night will not come at their appointed time, 21 then also my covenant with David my servant may be broken, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and my covenant with the Levitical priests my ministers. 22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered and the sands of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the offspring of David my servant, and the Levitical priests who minister to me.” 23 The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: 24 “Have you not observed that these people are saying, ‘The LORD has rejected the two clans that he chose’? Thus they have despised my people so that they are no longer a nation in their sight. 25 Thus says the LORD: If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the fixed order of heaven and earth, 26 then I will reject the offspring of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his offspring to rule over the offspring of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and will have mercy on them.” 

In other words, the covenant is not contingent upon Israel's obedience, since God has said that His promise to David here is unbreakable. What are we to make of this? Chronicles seems to suggest that it is contingent and Jeremiah seems to suggest that it is not, but has two different promises in it. But notice also that there seem to be two promises here rather than just one. The first seems to suggest that the throne will be filled with succession after succession of David's offspring. This promise extends to the Levitical priests always having offspring to minister as well. The second promise that is parallel, however, refers only to "one of his offspring" to rule. Now, this could simply mean that one of his offspring will be chosen successively, but again, we know that this did not happen. So we are left with two options here. Either the promise is contingent on Israel's obedience and they were not obedient, and haven't been for the past 2500 years, or the promise has an aspect that is both contingent upon the people's obedience and not contingent at the same time. In other words, Israel will always have a Davidic king on the throne from the time of David into eternity (as long as the Hebrew word is understood to mean that) as a reward for their obedience, but if they disobey, God will still bring about His promise to David, but through the singular Messiah who will reign forever.  

The Jewish interpretation must now see that the contingent aspect of the promise is over. God did not continually place a descendant of David upon the throne. In fact, in the Jewish system, God never put another descendant of David upon the throne after He gave this promise in Jeremiah. Foreign kings, governors, high priests, and the Herods ruled over the throne, but never a Davidic king again. 

According to the New Testament, however, He did choose one to rule over Israel and when rejected as their king, He expanded Israel to include anyone within the entirety of the world who would receive Him as their king. Christ reigns over Israel, the throne of David, and has for the past 2000 years. He is the offshoot of Jesse, the branch of David. God has fulfilled His promise by establishing Him over the throne of David and has fulfilled His promise to expand David's throne to the ends of the earth (Zech 2:11-12; 9:10).

Why the Children of Every Communicant Christian in Every Christian Denomination Is Baptized and Partaking in Communion

 I have often said that I have no need to convince anyone to allow their children to partake in either baptism or communion since I believe in federal headship. My only purpose of teaching that they should is to be consistent with what is already happening and to stop the unnecessary vitriol and division that often occurs around these issues. But make no mistake, every child of every Christian for all time has, is, and will always partake in whatever their parents partake in, and that includes baptism and communion. Every child is baptized with his parent. Every child eats the bread and drinks the wine if his parent does. Every child is holy to the Lord if his parent is. Every child is a Christian if his parent is. Every. Single. One.

All of the Baptists, all of the Presbyterians, everyone is causing their children to partake in baptism and communion to the degree that they do. If federal headship is true then anyone who condemns these practices condemns themselves, for all are doing it whether they realize it or not. By your words you will be justified and by your words you will be condemned. 

So you cannot avoid any harm to your little ones by barring them from the table or keeping them from baptism unless you yourself do not partake in those, but then you would fall under the warning of Christ, "Unless you eat of the Son of Man's flesh and drink his blood, you will have no life in yourselves" (John 6:53). If you do partake, therefore, which you must do so as a Christian, then your entire household is in danger if not taken in a worthy manner. It cannot be avoided except to take it in a worthy manner, i.e., not hoarding it. that seeks to love other Christians by allowing them to partake in it as well. And if all already are partakers in these sacraments then we ought to all be consistent in communicating that truth by allowing them to visibly partake in it with us whenever they can.

A Challenge to the Common Reformed Interpretation of the Phrase "He Is to Examine Himself" in 1 Corinthians 11:28

 The interpretation of this phrase is not up for grabs. It is a matter of proper hermeneutics and exegesis. It is my contention that, historically speaking, the traditional Reformed view commits the fallacies of context replacement in the form of an illegitimate referential transference. In other words, to what the phrase, "he is to examine himself" refers is changed by going outside of the context, ignoring what Paul is telling the Corinthians to examine themselves about, and then reading into the phrase a host of references from either experience (i.e., what the phrase sounds like to the modern reader likely due to tradition or an ignorance of the context--thus, reading it as though it was an unmarked phrase without a contextual referent) or by illegitimately transferring concepts from other biblical passages into the text so that the contextual referents can be ignored and new referents can be assigned to the phrase. This, of course, changes the meaning of the phrase and the logical application of the passage.

So here is my challenge. Conduct the following experiment with yourself.

Experiment: 

You can only define what it means "to examine oneself" by using other verses in the context of 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. You cannot add anything. You must use the verses alone in the text. You must also do the same for any verse you use to support your conclusion as to what this text refers. In other words, you can only substantiate your interpretation if you do not add referents through eisegesis to any other verse in the context as well. So only the verses in the context can be used to reconstruct the logical argument Paul is making in the passage. 

If you have to go outside the text, either to your own understanding of the words due to what it merely sounds like to you or to use other biblical passages that Paul does not reach out for in this passage, then you are committing eisegesis not exegesis because eisegesis is to put something into the context that is not there already but exegesis is to draw out from the book or passage what is there. It must be concluded that if the traditional Reformed argument cannot be made unless the phrase is defined by characteristics foreign to the text itself, whether experiential or biblical, then it must be concluded that its argument rests on eisegesis. The interpretation I have given you in the previous post is completely exegetical, as I have not had to go outside of the passage to make my argument but have stayed with Paul’s argument from v. 17 to the end in v. 34.

Paedocommunion and the Contextual Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:17-34

 One of the most abused texts in the Reformed tradition is 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. It is the locus classicus concerning the defense of the Reformed tradition's rejection of paedocommunion. Supposedly, this text teaches that each person needs to examine his own heart and life as to whether he is repentant and believing in the gospel for the forgiveness of his sins so as to be worthy enough to partake in the communion. 

Unfortunately for those who argue this way, this is nowhere close to what this text is talking about. Let's analyze the text below.

*17 Τοῦτο δὲ ⸂παραγγέλλων οὐκ ἐπαινῶ⸃* ὅτι οὐκ εἰς τὸ κρεῖσσον ἀλλʼ εἰς τὸ ἧσσον συνέρχεσθε.* 18 πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ συνερχομένων ὑμῶν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀκούω σχίσματα ἐν ὑμῖν ὑπάρχειν καὶ μέρος τι πιστεύω. 19 δεῖ γὰρ καὶ αἱρέσεις ⸋ἐν ὑμῖν⸌ εἶναι,* ἵνα °[καὶ] οἱ δόκιμοι φανεροὶ γένωνται ⸋1ἐν ὑμῖν⸌.* 20 Συνερχομένων ⸀οὖν ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ οὐκ ἔστιν κυριακὸν δεῖπνον φαγεῖν· 21 ἕκαστος γὰρ τὸ ἴδιον δεῖπνον προλαμβάνει ἐν τῷ φαγεῖν, καὶ ὃς μὲν πεινᾷ ὃς δὲ μεθύει. 22 μὴ γὰρ οἰκίας οὐκ ἔχετε εἰς τὸ ἐσθίειν καὶ πίνειν; ἢ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τοῦ θεοῦ καταφρονεῖτε,* καὶ καταισχύνετε τοὺς μὴ ἔχοντας; τί εἴπω ὑμῖν; ⸀ἐπαινέσω °ὑμᾶς;* ἐν τούτῳ οὐκ ἐπαινῶ. 

23 Ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ⸂ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου⸃,* ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν,* ὅτι ὁ κύριος °Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾗ παρεδίδετο ἔλαβεν ⸆ ἄρτον 24 καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ εἶπεν·⸆ τοῦτό ⸉μού ἐστιν⸊ τὸ σῶμα °τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ⸇· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.* 25 ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι λέγων· τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ⸂ἐμῷ αἵματι⸃·* τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, ὁσάκις ἐὰν πίνητε, εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. 26 ὁσάκις γὰρ ἐὰν ἐσθίητε τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ⸆ πίνητε,* τὸν θάνατον τοῦ κυρίου καταγγέλλετε ἄχρι οὗ ἔλθῃ. 

27 Ὥστε ὃς ἂν ἐσθίῃ τὸν ἄρτον ⸆ ἢ πίνῃ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦ κυρίου ἀναξίως⸇,* ἔνοχος ἔσται τοῦ σώματος καὶ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ κυρίου.* 28 δοκιμαζέτω δὲ ἄνθρωπος ἑαυτὸν καὶ οὕτως ἐκ τοῦ ἄρτου ἐσθιέτω καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ποτηρίου πινέτω· 29 ὁ γὰρ ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων ⸆ κρίμα ἑαυτῷ ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει μὴ διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα⸇. 30 διὰ τοῦτο ἐν ὑμῖν πολλοὶ ἀσθενεῖς καὶ ἄρρωστοι καὶ κοιμῶνται ἱκανοί. 31 εἰ ⸀δὲ ἑαυτοὺς διεκρίνομεν,* οὐκ ἂν ἐκρινόμεθα· 32 κρινόμενοι δὲ ὑπὸ °[τοῦ] κυρίου παιδευόμεθα,* ἵνα μὴ σὺν τῷ κόσμῳ κατακριθῶμεν. 33 Ὥστε, ἀδελφοί μου, συνερχόμενοι εἰς τὸ φαγεῖν ἀλλήλους ἐκδέχεσθε.* 34 εἴ ⸆ τις πεινᾷ,* ἐν οἴκῳ ἐσθιέτω, ἵνα μὴ εἰς κρίμα συνέρχησθε. τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ ὡς ἂν ἔλθω διατάξομαι.* 

17 "But in instructing the following I do not praise you because you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For first and foremost, when you come together in the assembly I hear there exist cliques among you and I partly believe it. 19 Since indeed it is necessary for there to be divisions among you in order that those who are tried and true might be made known among you. 20 Therefore, when you come together for the self, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper, 21 for each one prematurely grabs his own supper at the meal, one is hungry and one gets drunk. 22 Do you not have houses in which you can eat and drink? Or do you think poorly about the church of God and shame those who are without. What should I say to you? Should I praise you? I will not praise you. 

23 For I received from the Lord what I also have passed on to you that on the night in which the Lord Jesus was handed over, 24 he took bread and giving thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this as a reminder of me." 25 Likewise, also the cup after the meal, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, as a reminder of me." 26 For as often as you might eat this bread and drink the cup, you herald the death of the Lord until he comes. 

27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in a way that does not suit it will be considered guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a person evaluate himself and in this manner eat of the bread and drink of the wine. 29 For the one who eats and drinks judgment upon himself when he eats and drinks without evaluating the body. 30 Because of this, many among you are sick and ill and quite a few have fallen asleep. 31 But if we evaluate ourselves, we will not be condemned; 32 but when judged by the Lord we are disciplined in order that we might not be damned with the world. 33 So, my brothers, when you come together to eat wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, he is to eat at home in order that you might not be judged when you come together. What is remaining I will put in order when I come."

Let's summarize the argument.

1. There are cliques where one group is taking all of the elements because they are hungry and so eating and drinking all of it as though it is their own personal dinner. Hence, some are hungry and some are drunk, i.e., some people are getting all of the communion and some people are getting none.

2. Because of this inconsideration of other believers, those who get to the elements last are not getting to partake in the Lord's supper.

3. The Lord's supper was implemented by the Lord for the purpose of communicating the gospel of the new covenant of which all Christians are included.

4. When it is taken in a way that excludes other Christians from partaking in it, it is being taken in a way that is not fitting to the message, proclaiming that the gospel does not cover, and is not for, the group that is excluded.

5. Therefore, every person is to examine himself, which is parallel to examining the body, i.e., his body, so that he does not do what is condemned above. In other words, if he is eating in a gluttonous or drunken manner then that means he is taking too much of the bread and wine and not leaving enough for those who "have not" (v. 22).

6. Therefore, if anyone is hungry, he is to eat at home rather than coming to the supper and be tempted to take too much. 

As we can see from the argument in this text, it has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone is evaluating his heart and lifestyle and understanding the mysteries of the gospel. What it is talking about is that no one who partakes in the communion should hoard it in a way so as to exclude other Christians from participating in it because this is contrary to the message of the gospel expressed in the communion meal. Paul just laid out this analogy of the supper with eating things sacrificed to idols in 1 Corinthians 10:16-18. Those who partake in the meal communicate that they have a part with Christ and the entire body is communicated as one with Christ and with one another through it.

16 Τὸ ποτήριον τῆς ⸀εὐλογίας ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν,* οὐχὶ κοινωνία ⸉ἐστὶν τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ⸊;* τὸν ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐστιν; 17 ὅτι εἷς ἄρτος,* ἓν σῶμα οἱ πολλοί ἐσμεν, οἱ γὰρ πάντες ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἄρτου ⸆ μετέχομεν. 

16 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? 17 Because we, the many, are one bread, one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? 

Notice the parallel between the one bread and the one body. The entirety of the Christian church is one body and here it is said to be one bread because it all partakes of the one bread. So the fact that all Christians are united into one body is communicated from the fact that they all partake in the one bread. They participate in Christ and his death through their participation in the communion which represents the gospel. It is a picture of the truth of the entire church's participation in Christ and his death for the forgiveness of their sins in the same way that the sacrifices in the Old Testament are pictures of the participation of the Old Testament believer in the one community of Israel. To be excluded from the participation of the sacrifices would be a picture of exclusion from the salvation of Israel. Likewise, to be excluded from participation in the communion, i.e., the sacrifice of Christ, would be to communicate that one is excluded from the salvation of Christ. 

To, therefore, give a picture in one's taking of communion that one who is saved by Christ is excluded from him and his salvific work is a rejection of the gospel. The one who rejects the gospel becomes guilty of the death of Christ, and therefore, is judged for it in the temporal sense of being made sick or killed as a discipline for distorting the message of the gospel and thus preaching a false religion to the community of the church, which in the law, carries with it the penalty of death.

This is the context of the passage. Hence, the statement that is continually ripped out of context, "Each person is to examine himself" refers to whether he is hoarding the communion so that others do not get to partake. It is parallel to his "examining the body" in v, 29. 

27 Ὥστε ὃς ἂν ἐσθίῃ τὸν ἄρτον ⸆ ἢ πίνῃ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦ κυρίου ἀναξίως⸇,* ἔνοχος ἔσται τοῦ σώματος καὶ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ κυρίου.* 28 δοκιμαζέτω δὲ ἄνθρωπος ἑαυτὸν καὶ οὕτως ἐκ τοῦ ἄρτου ἐσθιέτω καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ποτηρίου πινέτω· 29 ὁ γὰρ ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων ⸆ κρίμα ἑαυτῷ ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει μὴ διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα

"So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner is guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But a person is to examine himself and in that manner he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For the one who eats and drinks eats and drinks judgment upon himself when not examining the body."

So examining oneself is to make sure a person is eating and drinking a particular way, and that particular way is by examining one's body so that he does not eat and drink it in a way that excludes other Christians from the picture of Christ's death covering the entire Christian community by eating and drinking too much of the communion elements. 

You can see, therefore, that the practice that would exclude Christians (i.e., the little children who Christ told his disciples to allow to come to him) from the communion is the only practice guilty of this, an irony since those who do not exclude certain members of the church from communion are the ones often accused of violating these divine instructions.

The real issue is whether children are considered Christians. Any church that agrees that they are but bars them from the table runs the risk of being guilty of what Paul is arguing here absent of a robust federal headship argument where the children partake in the communion through the parents. But that is for another post.