Bread and Generalizations

Several issues need to be addressed before moving on. Doug’s post is here.

First up is whether my position is paedo-communion, of the so-called “soft” variety. Ultimately, I would have to say yes, but that would need some qualification. I do not think that most 6-year-olds would be able to understand the significance of the Lord’s Supper. Maybe I have seen too many modern-day public school educated 6-year-olds. My daughter is 5 and nowhere near ready, in my opinion, and she will not be publicly educated, at least for the first grades. In fact, to my knowledge, she hasn’t even asked about what the bread and the wine mean yet. We’re still working on what Jesus Christ means, and His sacrifice. After that, we’ll move on to the physical sign He has given us of His Person and work.

The second issue is the comma in the text of 1 Corinthians 10:17. Of course the comma was not original to the Greek text. I was not seeking to make a theological point about it, but rather seeking to explain why modern translations read differently than the KJV and NKJV. The exegetical question is whether the phrase “for/because/that (there is) one bread/loaf” is a subordinate clause to the rest of the sentence, as the more modern translations interpret it, or whether it is actually part of the predicate, as the KJV/NKJV translates it. In other words, should the translation be “because there is one loaf, we (though many) are one body,” thus making the loaf a point of analogy with the church? Or should it be translated as the KJV has it “For we being many are one bread and one body,” thus making the bread a description of the people themselves? Several points need to be made. First of all, as Fee notes (p. 469 of his commentary), there is a chiasm with the mention of bread, many, all, bread. On the KJV reading, this chiasm would not exist, since the A and B would be reversed in word order for good English translation. Second point: the preposition “out of” (Greek “ek”) should not be read as saying that we are out of one bread, but rather that we share out of one loaf. Fee notes that it is a Hebraism, and should be translated “all eat from the one loaf” (p. 470, n. 35). Fitzmyer disputes the KJV translation as well (via rejecting Conzelmann’s interpretation), arguing that “that is not what Paul has written, because we are not ‘one bread.’ The ‘one bread,’ of which we partake makes us ‘one'; it unifies us” (p. 391). Thiselton has reminded us of Meyer’s caution that “the unity of the bread [is understood] not numerically…but qualitatively,” and that “The meaning is more likely to spring from the generic oneness of bread as “one kind of thing” (p. 770). Thiselton acknowledges the other translation immediately after, but seems to dismiss it. The ESV and NIV seem, on the whole, better translations, as they show the chiasm clearly.

Thirdly, I note that Doug has not engaged whatsoever Venema’s argument that 11:27 involves a broadening of perspective to include not just the particular abuse that some of the Corinthians had, but rather to delineate how anyone ought to observe the Lord’s Supper. Even if Doug’s reading of 10:17 is correct, then, it falls to the ground when one realizes that it comes before 11:27.

About these ads

36 Comments

  1. J.Kru said,

    March 31, 2009 at 3:04 pm

    Lane, I wonder if you are concerned that your daughter is not a Christian? If that’s not the case, are you still concerned that she might eat and drink death upon herself?

    Is this a discussion that comes up in the confession? I’m don’t know where it outlines requirements to take communion – is it understood to simply be assumed?

  2. greenbaggins said,

    March 31, 2009 at 3:27 pm

    I believe that Ila is a Christian. “Death” is unnecessarily pejorative, although that can be one result, according to Paul. Yes, I am concerned, because, although acknowledging an objective side to the Lord’s Supper, there is also a subjective side which is active.

    There are many places in the confessions where the nature of partaking is addressed. WCF 29, WSC 97, and WLC 168-175.

  3. tim prussic said,

    March 31, 2009 at 5:22 pm

    Pr. Lane, shouldn’t the bread and wine be teaching tools for our children? Even though my children (younger than Ila) don’t eat at the table, I make good and sure they see everything that goes on. I make sure they smell the bread and wine. I make sure we talk about the body of Christ broken for us and his blood shed. My 4-year-old asks plenty of questions about Communion because I use it to instruct him, and that specifically on what Jesus Christ means and his sacrifice.

    God’s given us tangible pictures, the visible Word, to use with our children. Let’s use ‘em.

    Kids love pictures!

  4. J.Kru said,

    March 31, 2009 at 6:36 pm

    I’m sorry, I wasn’t trying to pejorative.

    I was only trying to cite was I though was one of the concerns of a CC.

  5. J.Kru said,

    March 31, 2009 at 7:42 pm

    Let me follow up with myself –

    Again, I wasn’t trying to be a Mr. Smarty – I thought that a CC’s concern was that an unsaved (but covenanted) member may take communion improperly, and thus bring “death” on themselves. Only quotin’ Paul. Please accept my apologies for my poor use of words and tone – I know I would hate it if someone spoke about my kids in a way that might even seem to be negative.

    I guess I don’t understand why she would be nowhere ready, and what would convince you that she is.

  6. Lauren Kuo said,

    March 31, 2009 at 10:18 pm

    In a joint document, Doug Wilson stated that “membership in the one true Christian church is visible and objective”. Does this mean that a personal relationship and trust in Jesus Christ which is invisible and subjective is not a prerequisite or requirement for receiving the Lord’s Supper?

    Since Doug has stated that the visible church is the one true church, then does he believe that every member of the visible church is said to be God’s elect and saved? Being elect and saved are spiritual qualifications for the Lord’s Supper. How can this so-called “true” church which is only visible and objective claim to possess any spiritual or invisible reality? All one can claim is that the members observe external outward religious ceremony.

    In Doug’s view, are there any spiritual “invisible” qualifications necessary before taking communion?

    If the true Church is only visible and objective, then where is the presence of Christ and the Holy Spirit who are invisible? And, why are children considered spiritually starved by not being allowed to partake of the Lord’s Supper, if the true Church is only visible and objective? I can see how they might possibly be physically starved by missing breakfast and not getting to eat the bread and drink the wine. But how can one claim that anything spiritual has taken place in the Lord’s Supper if Wilson denies the invisible subjective reality of what I believe is the true church – the invisible kingdom that Christ describes as spiritual and not of this world?

  7. Matt Beatty said,

    April 1, 2009 at 3:55 am

    Lauren,

    You need to read Doug more carefully. When the joint statement says, “membership is the Christian church is visible and objective” he’s not saying there isn’t something called the church invisible (or, as he puts it, eschatological), but that as you and I think about the Church, we would be wise to think about her as first and foremost the “visible and objective” body of Christ. The Church isn’t ONLY (your words) visible and objective; Doug’s denied this countless times. He prefers the categories “historical and eschatological” to “visible and invisible.” Lane has interacted with Doug’s thoughts on this (RINE) – search the archives.

    No less than John Murray had similar if not identical reservations.

  8. Jeff Cagle said,

    April 1, 2009 at 6:50 am

    Actually, Matt, there is a substantial difference between the FV view of the Church and Murray’s.

    We affirm that membership in the one true Christian Church is visible and objective, and is the possession of everyone who has been baptized in the triune name and who has not been excommunicated by a lawful disciplinary action of the Church. We affirm one holy, catholic and apostolic church, the house and family of God, outside of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. In establishing the Church, God has fulfilled His promise to Abraham and established the Regeneration of all things. God has established this Regeneration through Christ—in Him we have the renewal of life in the fulness of life in the new age of the kingdom of God.

    We deny that membership in the Christian Church in history is an infallible indicator or guarantee of final salvation. Those who are faithless to their baptismal obligations incur a stricter judgment because of it.

    We affirm that there is only one true Church, and that this Church can legitimately be considered under various descriptions, including the aspects of visible and invisible. We further affirm that the visible Church is the true Church of Christ, and not an “approximate” Church.
    We deny that such a distinction excludes other helpful distinctions, such as the historical church and eschatological church. The historical Church generally corresponds to the visible Church—all those who profess the true religion, together with their children—and the eschatological Church should be understood as the full number of God’s chosen as
    they will be seen on the day of resurrection.

    This statement goes beyond Murray in two important ways. First, in language, Murray did not give priority to the visible Church as “the true Church of Christ.” For Murray, the true Church had a visible and an invisible aspect, and both were needed, held in tension, to fully capture the essence of the Church. The FVJS uproots this dual perspective emphasis in favor of a “visible-primarily” emphasis, or (in the bolded statement) a “visible-only” language (regardless of intent).

    Second, for Murray, the visible-invisible dual aspects were needed on account of the problem of knowledge, AFAICT. For him (and he is clear on this in Christian Baptism), unsaved Church members are not legitimate members of the Church; they do not have a proper right to belong. But because we do not know who these are, we treat all Church members as visible saints unless they give us cause to excommunicate them.

    This view is in stark contrast to the picture of NECMs painted by the Federal Vision. In their view, non-elect covenant members are legitimate members of the one true (visible!) church, until they demonstrate apostasy.

    And finally, the historical/eschatological distinction is not identical to the visible/invisible distinction. Both distinctions cover the same sets of people, but they do so in different ways. The historical/eschatological distinction delineates groups over time, while the visible/invisible distinction delineates groups according to current salvific status: the visible and invisible coexist in time.

    For the FV, the “invisible church” is timeless — elect unsaved people who will become believers in the future are currently members of the invisible church.

    Jeff Cagle

  9. greenbaggins said,

    April 1, 2009 at 8:06 am

    Fair enough J. Kru. I think what would convince me of her readiness is an understanding of the Gospel that she can articulate, even if simply, connected to an understanding of the Lord’s Supper.

  10. greenbaggins said,

    April 1, 2009 at 8:08 am

    I have no disagreement that the bread and wine should be teaching tools. But should they be used as teaching tools by giving it to them even before they understand, or as a goal to which they strive by learning more about Jesus? I would argue the latter.

  11. Ken Pierce said,

    April 1, 2009 at 8:12 am

    First, Jeff does a great job of answering the “Wilson is no different than Murray” line.

    Second, there is a huge difference between visible/invisible and historical/eschatological.

    In the former, the difference is between regenerate and unregenerate. In the latter, the difference appears only to be endurance in the covenant community without visible apostasy until death.

    This ignores the very real (and I fear, common) reality that unregenerate people do remain in our pews without visible apostasy and die unregenerate.

  12. Reformed Sinner said,

    April 1, 2009 at 8:28 am

    Interesting, IIa is a Christian but just not allowed to enjoy the full benefits of her identity, even thought Paul made it clear as new person in Christ we all have partake the full blessings of the identity as Christian.

  13. Lee said,

    April 1, 2009 at 8:34 am

    Reformed Sinner,
    So you think that the Lord’s Supper conveys a benefit that cannot be had in any other way. I guess you disagree with the Heidelberg Catechism that the sacraments “confirm” grace that is already had.

  14. Joshua W.D. Smith said,

    April 1, 2009 at 11:21 am

    “Does this mean that a personal relationship and trust in Jesus Christ which is invisible and subjective is not a prerequisite or requirement for receiving the Lord’s Supper?”

    If the requirement for receiving the LS were invisible and subjective, there would be no point in the elders examining someone for admission to the table, since no human being can examine another’s heart.

    And they never say the true church is only visible, just that the visible church is the true church. Something can be true but not exhaustive. The visible church is truly the church, not some second-rate knock-ff, but not the entirety of it.

  15. Joshua W.D. Smith said,

    April 1, 2009 at 11:22 am

    And the access to anything spiritual and invisible is faith, but that faith has a very external and visible basis, which is the revealed promise of God, which is to believers and to their children…

  16. Jeff Cagle said,

    April 1, 2009 at 11:28 am

    It’s the “not approximate” lanuguage that’s most difficult.

    Under most I/V distinction schemes, the visible church is a concession to the problem of knowledge — we don’t have salvation-o-meters, so we can’t know who really belongs.

    On these accounts, “approximate” is exactly the word to describe the visible church. The Joint Statement appears to explicitly deny that way of thinking.

    So how do you put it together — how can the visible church be “the true and not approximate church”, but also not the entirety of it?

    Isn’t “not approximate” equivalent to “exact”?

    Jeff Cagle

  17. Ken Pierce said,

    April 1, 2009 at 11:29 am

    Joshua,

    It is not that the individual and subjective alone is a requirement for partaking of the Lord’s Supper, for “out of the heart, the mouth speaketh.” IN short, profession is a necessary thing –some sort of understanding and personal appropriation of the great truths of the gospel. One is not saved by occupying space in teh covenant community, but by believing on Christ.

    And, the third paragraph makes no sense. Yes, things can be true but not exhaustive. But that is not relevant here. That seems to be on a horizontal plane. Everyone knows there is one true church. The Reformers have held nigh unanimously that the true church was the company of all the redeemed –those chosen by God and regenerated. Others are pretenders among the covenant community.

    That is altogether different from what the paedo-commuionist of the Wilsonian persuasion says. They argue that the company of the redeemed and the visible church are coextensive at any particular point in history. They judge who is and who is not in merely by perseverance –not by regeneration (which is how God judges). Our judgments, of course, can only be an approximation of God’s judgments, since God alone knows the heart.

    Therefore, we can only judge an understanding of saving doctrine, some indication of a changed heart, and a consistent life.

  18. Joshua W.D. Smith said,

    April 1, 2009 at 11:31 am

    Mike Horton suggests that historical/eschatological is actually better, more Pauline, than visible/invisible or internal/external. He also says that the visible church is really the only church we know.

    http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=182&var3=authorbio&var4=AutRes&var5=1

  19. Ken Pierce said,

    April 1, 2009 at 11:35 am

    With all due respect to Dr. Horton, your citing him as an authority is not a substitute for an argument.

    When God sees the visible church, what does he see? He sees wheat and chaff, sheep and goats. What is the dividing line there? Is it perseverance in the covenant community, or is it regenerated hearts? True, the regenerated will persevere. But, not all who persevere in the bounds of the covenant are regenerate. And that is the fatal flaw of the FV.

  20. tim prussic said,

    April 1, 2009 at 11:58 am

    Pastor, just a thought: don’t we mostly come to understand something by doing it? When instructing our children in worship, I’d rather work through the service with them than coach them about it on Thursday evening. No false dichotomy, here. BOTH are necessary, but the one is far more powerful in teaching.
    So it is with the Supper, I think. We teach our little one as we partake. That’s quite potent teaching because they’re doing. We also teach them on a daily basis leading to the weekly partaking. That weekly partaking is the goal of the daily instruction. It also, I think, provides the basis for that daily teaching.

  21. Lauren Kuo said,

    April 1, 2009 at 12:45 pm

    Faith is an invisible reality. It is neither historical nor eschatological – it transcends both. If Doug defines the “true” church as one that is visible and objective, then does he believe that faith is not necessary for the “true” church? And, therefore, the Lord’s Supper is restricted to a visible objective outward observance?

    Hebrews tells us that without faith we cannot please God. There is a very present invisible reality that defines the nature of the church – both the historic and the eschatological church. Without that invisible reality, all that’s left is what JC Ryle calls the scaffolding – empty outward religious observance.

    Could it be that Doug views the bread as the body of Christ which is the visible church and not the body of Christ who died on the cross and is now sitting at the right hand of the Father – in an invisible kingdom? Does he not hold to the amillennial position that Christ has already come to rule on earth in the form of the church? That the church and Christ are synonymous? Isn’t that why he affirms in the joint statement: “We affirm one holy, catholic and apostolic church, the house and family of God, outside of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation”?

    In his view, one who is outwardly baptized and made a member of the visible church is qualified to take communion.

    In my church the requirement is spiritual or invisible – “We invite all believers who have put their trust in Jesus Christ to share in our communion time.”

    Why the different requirements – one outward – one inward; one visible – one invisible?

  22. Jeff Cagle said,

    April 1, 2009 at 1:19 pm

    Yes, he does. But admitting to an eschatological view of the church (which I would — it’s a legitimate framework) is not the same as denying that the visible church is approximate.

    So the problem is not the introduction of historical/eschatological as a perspective. Rather, it is

    (1) Denying the approximate nature of the visible church — which runs contra WCoF 25.4,5

    (2) Insisting that the invisible church *now* consists of all the elect that ever will be saved (including those not yet saved or even born), which rests on a tendentious reading of WCoF 25.1 and WLC 64, but ignores the language of WLC 65 and 69.

    That’s the short of it; does it make sense?

    Jeff Cagle

  23. Dan Seitz said,

    April 1, 2009 at 1:52 pm

    The visible church, as mentioned above, is the only church we can see. It is the Church of Jesus Christ with all its spots and wrinkles. We live here and now so this is the Church we have. This is the Church He has given us. At some point in history, known only to God, this age will end, the Church will be purified and only the God’s precious elect will remain. All the goats and tares will be gone.

    But we are not there yet. We have only the visible church now and God loves it. So, how do we live together in His Church? Do we engage in ever-ongoing, mini inquisitions to purify the Church–sniffing out the fakers and slackers? I don’t think that’s helpful or biblical. We have been given other things to do. Church discipline, given to us by our Lord is sufficient, if we practice it biblically, to keep the Church going. So until someone is unrepentant under discipline, they are our brother and sister in the Lord having been admitted to the Church by repentance and the entry rite of baptism. We are the historical church.

    With the understanding that some of you seem to have about the visible church you must think that Paul’s letters to the sinful churches were either directed only to the elect or that he was in error with his salutation. Some of you, it appears to me, would be more comfortable if Paul opened his letters with something like: “To the saints of God gathered at (pick a place), and to those who we see some evidence of faith, and to those who we are having grave doubts about and to those who we know very well will perish in the Lake of Fire, grace and truth to you from our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Paul’s manner was pastoral. He was talking to his flock. He knew very well that not all the flock were the elect. And that’s exactly where we find ourselves in the Church today. Jesus said not to rush out there and yank out the weeds. He said we’ll wait to the end and them take care of that. And in the end we will have the eschatological church. The kingdoms of this world will be come the kingdom of our Lord and Christ.

    We have no power to see the heart, so we should stop trying to do it. That’s not only unbiblical; it’s sinful.

  24. Ken Pierce said,

    April 1, 2009 at 2:04 pm

    DAn,

    Do you actually think those who hold to the historic Reformed practice do what you say, that is, go on hunts to find the unregenerate, and pluck them out of the pew?

    Or, instead, do you think we use it as a foundation for preaching to the covenant community the necessity of personal regeneration, repentance and faith, and not resting on their objective covenantal standing as the ground of their relation with God?

    Paul also told people to examine themselves, and to test themselves to see if they were in the faith. He told them if the Jews were cut off by unbelief, they stood by faith, and not to be boastful, but fear. He warned the Galaatians taht they might in fact not be regenerate, and that certain segments of professing Christendom ought to emasculate themselves. He did this because he knew there were some out there who were strangers to grace, however covenantally faithful they might be.

    So please do not come on here and accuse those of us who hold to the historic understanding of going out and seeking some sort of gnosis into people’s hearts, before we admit them to the Lord’s Table. It just doesn’t happen.

    Honestly, I am sick and tired of that argument, with scant evidence that this is what is happening in churches holding to after all what has been the established Reformed practice of admitting professing believers to the Lord’s Table.

  25. Jeff Cagle said,

    April 1, 2009 at 2:34 pm

    Sorry, my comment “Yes, he does. But admitting to an eschatological view of the church…” etc.

    was a response to Joshua’s comment:

    “Mike Horton suggests that historical/eschatological is actually better, more Pauline, than visible/invisible or internal/external…” etc.

    JRC

  26. Dan Seitz said,

    April 1, 2009 at 2:35 pm

    Ken,
    I am indeed happy for you if you have never encountered a reformed church who spends way too much time determining who in the congregation is a goat. But it certainly does happen. Sometimes, the Table of the Lord is audibly fenced in such a way as to include none but those who are seemingly flawless in the Christian life. In my church that is not the case, but I have seen it.

    I think a lot of these type of problems–determining the faith of people–is a direct result of not understanding the Bible’s teaching on the Church. First John tells us how one can tell if he is one of God’s people. It doesn’t tell him, nor does any other place in Scripture, tell him how he can tell if someone else is.

    My point, here, is that we have to live with one another in the Church. We can’t determine who the elect are–only God knows. He will take care of all that.

  27. Reed Here said,

    April 1, 2009 at 2:37 pm

    Dan (with reference to your comment on no. 6, Ken Pierce):

    So, do you think it is biblically appropriate to ask a believer to offer a profession of faith?

    Do you believe it is the elders’ responsibility to guage the condition of the sheep’s profession?

    Do you think suc practices are sinful?

  28. Dan Seitz said,

    April 1, 2009 at 2:52 pm

    First, let me say that I am more or less a high-church Calvinist. I believe that baptism is the entry rite into the Church of Jesus Christ. I also believe that the baptised community is the covenant people of God. I think it is perfectly appropriate to ask an adult for a profession of faith prior to baptism and/or admittance into the covenant community (local church). And I believe it is indeed the elders’ responsibility asking for wisdom from God to determine the sincerity of the profession. And if the elders accept the profession–and we’re not talking about a theological treatise which includes explanations of supra and infra lapsarianism–they should welcome the brother or sister into the church understanding that we are all sinners and will not be perfect in this life. I then believe that membership brings them under the discipline of the church and they should be encouraged to enjoy the fellowship of God’s people (some of whom may ultimately not be) and certainly come to the table of the Lord to feed spiritually.

    I hope that answers your questions.

    On paedocommunion I am with Pastor Wilson and his understanding of I Cor 11 although my church requires a profession for young people.

  29. Reed Here said,

    April 1, 2009 at 3:01 pm

    Dan: thanks for your reply. In light of your responses, may I ask whom do you think is characterized by your descriptions (last paragraph) to Ken? In particular, do you think those in the reformed camp, who affirm cc against pc, are trying to examine hearts (i.e., verify the inward salvific state of an individual)? If so, why?

    I.e., on what basis (evidence) do you believer such a characterization is accurate and fairly applied to reformed cc adherents such as myself? In what way am I doing what you say is sinful in my cc position?

  30. dan seitz said,

    April 1, 2009 at 6:18 pm

    Reed Here,
    One problem in these debates is that we say things from different premises and end up in dual monologues. You believe only in credo communion. You get from I Cor 11 the understanding that Scripture here requires a certain level of understanding, a “discerning” of the Lords body by a communicant. Believing that position to be Scriptual, you may find it incongruent that you may be looked on by others as trying to inappropriately examine the heart of a child. In your mind that is exactly what is called for. And aren’t we warned of the consequences of a failure to “discern” the Lord’s body? Of course we are.

    So, yes, I do think that those in the reformed camp who affirm cc against pc are trying to examine hearts to verify an inward salvific state of an individual. I believe that because that is what they believe is required of them to do.

    So is that sinful behavior? If your understanding of I Cor 11 is in error and because of that you are excluding Christs little ones from the Table, that most assuredly is sin. The Westminster Confession says that it is a very great sin to neglect or condemn baptism. I can’t think why excluding Christs little ones from the Table wouldn’t be a great sin as well.

    That is of course if your understanding of I Cor 11 is in error. And that is what this debate is all about.

  31. Uri Brito said,

    April 1, 2009 at 8:26 pm

    Lane, do you have weekly communion? What matures young ones in the ritual of the sacramental meal is the weekly practice of it. I can see how little ones can be far from asking about bread and wine if they do it only once a month. I don’t even remember what I preached on a month ago.

  32. greenbaggins said,

    April 2, 2009 at 7:31 am

    I wish I had weekly communion, Uri. Every other month is as frequent as I’m going to be able to convince the consistories to agree to. Some even thought that was too frequent!

  33. April 2, 2009 at 11:36 am

    [...] via Bread and Generalizations « Green Baggins. [...]

  34. Lauren Kuo said,

    April 2, 2009 at 2:35 pm

    Since you along with Doug Wilson and others have defined the true church as visible and objective, I see no problem with your view of paedocommunion. If you rule out a personal faith relationship and trust in Jesus Christ as a requirement for communion, then paedocommunion is an acceptable external observance in your restricted definition of the true church. If you want to raise your children in church then faith is not needed to observe the Lord’s Supper – only reciting “Lord, Lord” (Matthew 7:21-23).

    But, Mark, I want so much more for my children and I think you do too. I want to raise them in Christ. It would break my heart if I were to hear Jesus saying to me or to my family, “I never knew you; depart from Me…” I do not want them to ever be deceived into thinking they are rightly related to God and can enter the kingdom of heaven because they are always at the Lord’s Table. I want them to be able to honestly examine their hearts for repentance, for faith; I want them to honestly examine their lives for evidence of a new heart, for evidence of the work of the Holy Spirit, for evidence of regeneration. This, I believe, is the heart faith principle of 1 Cor. 11.

  35. Matt Beatty said,

    April 2, 2009 at 3:36 pm

    Jeff,

    Thanks for the interaction. Honestly, I don’t recall the insights from Murray that you raise here – I’ll go and re-read and, if I need to correct something, I’ll come back and re-post. Thanks.

  36. Matt Beatty said,

    April 2, 2009 at 3:38 pm

    I disagree. Citing Mike Horton’s preference for the language of historical/eschatological is an argument of sorts. It may not be a full argument, but it’s not insignificant, especially considering the contempt he holds for the FV.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 349 other followers

%d bloggers like this: