Scripture Coming into Its Own

"A doctrine develops when the need arises. It was precisely because of the conflict over the locus of authority in the church that the doctrine of Scripture came into its own in Reformation confessions and Post-Reformation Reformed dogmatics"[1] (Vanhoozer, "Holy Scripture: Word of God; Word of Christ; Sword of the Spirit," Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL, October 14, 2015).

---

[1] Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics vol. 2 Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 152.

A Large Echo Chamber

"The Academy is a very large, self-authenticating plausibility structure, with the words Echo Chamber stenciled on the door."

—Doug Wilson, Seven Reasons Why BioLogos Is a Threat to Classical Christian Education

The Context of Kids Drinking in Corinth Considered

In my previous post on 1 Cor. 11:17-34, I said I’d be considering the context of this text next. Considering the context carefully appears to me to be important if we’re not to miss Paul’s purpose in penning this portion of his letter to Corinth. Understanding his purpose, we’re in a much better position to ask the right questions of the text and follow its flow of thought for a right application with respect to children at the family meal.

Discussion of the context will move from the wider to the nearer context, from the periphery to the center. So I’ll discuss first the larger context of the whole letter, its broad occasion. Second, I’ll then briefly canvass the situation that occasioned the broader section (7:1-14:40) in which 1 Cor. 11:17-34 comes. Third, I’ll briefly consider the narrower section that embraces the common concerns (11:2-14:40) in which the section on the Lord’s Supper finds its appropriate place. And last, we’ll think over what’s going on in the immediate context of the text that concerns us.

So, first, why did Paul write 1 Corinthians?[1] He wrote because the Corinthian church was divided and dirty. Paul had apparently been informed by way of an oral report of a number of problems in Corinth, not the least of which was disunity (1:11). The report communicated not only that the Corinthians misunderstood Paul’s first letter (5:1), but also that there was divisiveness, sexual sin, and social snobbery (1:10; 5:1; 11:18). Paul also received a letter from the Corinthians that communicated considerable confusion over marital matters, participation in pagan practices, order in corporate worship, and the bodily resurrection of believers (7:1; 8:1; 12:1; 15:12, 35).

So he wrote his letter to get this church, divided on account of the arrogance of its more influential members, to work together for the advance of the gospel. He wants them to drop their divisive one-upmanship, build up the faith of the weak, and witness effectively to unbelievers. He argues that much of their conduct was out of step with the gospel. At root of their disunity lay an arrogance (3:21; 4:6, 8, 18–19; 5:2, 6) totally incompatible with God’s free grace in Christ: wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption (1:30; 4:7). The arrogant divisiveness and selfish disregard of others going on generally in Corinth shows up in a particular way at the Lord’s Table.

Now, second, and more briefly, it seems salutary to take note that the text on the Lord’s Supper comes in a much broader section spanning from 7:1 to 15:58. This broader block of text deals mainly with the questions from the Corinthians (see, e.g., 7:1; 8:1; 12:1). Paul responds to the queries of the Corinthians one by one. As many commentators comment upon, 1 Cor. 11:17-34 may be the only passage in the broader block that does not address specific questions.[2] Paul appears to bring up the ethical chaos at the Lord’s Supper in response to oral reportage, supported by the “I hear” of 11:18. Which leads to the third, even narrower still, context in which 11:17-34 finds itself embedded: 11:2-14:40.

This third, narrower context—11:2-14:40—addresses the gathered assembly, or corporate worship, in Corinth. The section right before our text speaks to the head coverings question (11:2-16). Then chapters 12-14 concern the use and abuse of spiritual gifts. So 1 Cor. 11:17-34 comes in where it does because of its thematic links with the forgoing and succeeding sections. It deals with matters of unity and edification when the church gathers together as one body.

Now last, we ought to think about what the immediate context reveals about Paul’s concerns at the Lord’s Supper and the implications for the practice of the gathered people of God. This context brings still more clarity for how we ought to think about the participation of children in the family meal. And to this clarity I shall turn our attention in the next post. So more anon. 

But for now one might just ask this question: how would our questions about kids eating and drinking with the adults at the church's family meal find a place in the questions and concerns at Corinth? Would they?

---

[1] Much of what follows in this first "context" simply comes from Theilman’s introduction in the ESV Study Bible. Though the commentaries cover much of the same ground, and indeed more, Theilman states succinctly and nicely what was going on in Corinth and Paul’s chief concerns.

[2] See, for example, the commentaries of Fee, Thiselton, and Garland. 

On Controversy and a Little Math

A good word over at Ligonier from John Newton about engaging in controversy. If you are sixty years old or older, read it twice a year, or roughly every six months. Multiply this recommendation of twice a year by two for every ten years that you fall short of sixty. If you are over eighty, you don't need to read it anymore.

I can hear the sophomoric nineteen-year-old's voice crying out vehemently in objection and gathering up a steam of polemic against legalism: "But where does the Bible require that!? And, in any case, if I did that, do you know how little time I'd have for fighting the enemy who is threatening to overthrow Christendom if I don't act now." Exactly.

God's Demands and Man's Inability

Augustin on God's demands in the face of human inability:

The Pelagians think that they know something great when they assert that "God would not command what He knew could not be done by man." But God commands some things which we cannot do, in order that we many know what we ought to ask of Him [italics mine]. For this is faith itself, which obtains by prayer what the law commands.

 —"On Grace and Free Will," in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (transl. Peter Holmes and Robert Ernest Wallis; transl. rev. Benjamin B. Warfield; vol. 5, ed. Philip Schaff; Hendrickson: Peabody, 1999), p. 457.

Pastoral Polemics

In his sturdy work on The Doctrine of Justification by Faith (vol. 5, Works, Banner of Truth), John Owen models engaging in polemics in the presence and sight of God. In the preface, he tells us his aim in defending and teaching the doctrine (p. 4):

I have ascribed no opinion unto any particular person—much less wrested the words of any, reflected on their persons, censured their abilities, taken advantage of presumed prejudices against them, represented their opinions in the deformed reflections of strained consequences, fancied intended notions, which their words do not express, nor, candidly interpreted, give any countenance unto—or endeavored the vain pleasure of seeming success in opposition unto them; which, with the like effects of weakness of mind and disorder of affections, are the animating principles of many late controversial writings. 

To declare and vindicate the truth, unto the instruction and edification of such as love it in sincerity, to extricate their minds from those difficulties (in this particular instance) which some endeavor to cast on all gospel mysteries, to direct the consciences of them that inquire after abiding peace with God, and to establish the minds of them that do believe, are the things I have aimed at. . . .

Then in the first chapter on general considerations, Owen urges pastors and teachers to direct their energies toward the good conscience of the believer (p. 8):

Whereas we cannot either safely or usefully treat of this doctrine, but with respect unto the same ends for which it is declared, and whereunto it is applied in the Scripture, we should not, by any pretences, be turned aside from attending unto this case and its resolution, in all our discourses on this subject; for it is the direction, satisfaction, and peace of the consciences of men, and not the curiosity of notions or subtlety of disputations, which it is our duty to design. . . . For more weight is to be put on the steady guidance of the mind and conscience of one believer, really exercised about the foundation of his peace and acceptance with God, than on the confutation of ten wrangling disputers. 

So let's be found following Owen's model of pastoral concern in handling this holy and happy doctrine, shunning all temptations to display, vanity, and pride.

A Submissive Woman in the White House?

Pastor Doug Wilson's post addressing Michelle Bachmann's flubbing the questions coming her way regarding submission ought to be read widely. We need to think like Christians regarding these issues, and we need to respond with backbone and shrewdness. Bachmann, for all her talk about having a titanium spine, rather leaves us doubting whether she can stand firm. And many of us are wondering about her husband's spine, too. If any is to vote for Bachmann, her husband needs to be taken into account. And what kind of man is he?

The Israel of God

After my conversion about a dozen years ago, I read the Bible voraciously.  After graduating from college, I think I typically read carefully about 10-20 chapters a day for a number of years, initially getting up at 4:30 or so in the morning to fit it all in before starting work at 8:00.  As a newborn believer, I was reared in what could be called moderate dispensationalism, heavily influenced by John MacArthur (especially, I think, the earlier, less Calvinistic, John MacArthur). 

Well, to get to the point, in the course of my regular Bible reading over the first six or seven years or so, I continued bumping up against texts that rocked my world and jarred the inherited system.  My wife and I read some verses this morning that were part of the shaping and shifting that began some years ago.  I don't think I'll ever get over being stunned by these texts.  Here are just a couple from this morning, with brief commentary, from amid the dozens of similar texts strewn across the revelation of God.

Gal. 3:29:  "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise."  Those who belong to Jesus, and they alone, are the true children of Abraham and inherit God's promises to him.  National Israel and Jews detached from Jesus have no portion in this inheritance.  Apart from union with Christ, they remain children of the devil, as Christ himself taught, lost and dead in tresspasses and sins.