A few thoughts coming out of last night’s H&S:

First of all, the term “Creation Ordinance” gets tossed around a lot in discussions of the Sabbath.  It seems to me that “Creation Ordinance” is not particularly-well defined.  Kazooless and I may have been working to different definitions.  K is probably thinking “Creation=Universal” and “Ordinance=Commandment”.  But for me, calling the Sabbath a Creation Ordinance has nothing in particular to say about its nature, but only when it was instituted, i.e. in Creation.  In fact, I think the term “Creation Institution” works better for the Sabbath than “Creation Ordinance”.

Another thought is that the fatal flaw of the Westminster/Sabbatarian position is that they approach the whole day from a Regulative perspective.  Which means that questions of the form “is X permissible” are not even meaningful; only “is X commanded?”  And there are only 4 things commanded by Westminster: public worship, private worship, works of mercy, and works of necessity.  Any further questions “is X permissible?” are answered only with “no works, words, or thoughts concerning your own employments or recreations.”  But one point I had in my notes, but didn’t have time to articulate, is that this strict stance is entirely reasonable within a worship service — i.e. in the context where the Regulative Principle applies.  But Westminster goes that extra distance of extending the RPW to the whole Sabbath Day, whereas I would confine it (like the external observance of the Sabbath) only to corporate worship.

MP3 are up!  Come & get ‘em!

• Part 1 (Debate) 1:15:08, 17MB
• Part 2 (Q&A) 21:40, 5MB

Thanks to Jeff for hosting the audio, and of course thanks more for a good discussion!

Everybody mark your calendars for the next event: the date is as easy to remember as 1/23!

Just ran across a nice quote from Calvin showing what he had to deal with in his day:

Certain Anabaptists of our day conjure up some sort of frenzied excess instead of spiritual regeneration. The children of God, they assert, restored to the state of innocence, now need not take care to bridle the lust of the flesh, but should rather follow the Spirit as their guide, under whose impulsion they can never go astray. It would be incredible that a man’s mind should fall into such madness, if they did not openly and haughtily blab this dogma of theirs. The thing is indeed monstrous! But it is fitting that those who have persuaded their minds to turn God’s truth into falsehood should suffer such punishments for their sacrilegious boldness. Shall all choice between dishonest and honest, righteous and unrighteous, good and evil, virtue and vice, be thus taken away? “Such difference arises,” they say, “from the curse of old Adam, from which we have been freed through Christ.” Therefore, there will now be no difference between fornication and chastity, integrity and cunning, truth and falsehood, fair dealing and extortion. “Take away,” say the Anabaptists, “vain fear — the Spirit will command no evil of you if you but yield yourself, confidently and boldly, to his prompting.” Who would not be astonished at these monstrosities? Yet it is a popular philosophy among those who are blinded by the madness of lusts and have put off common sense.

Tossed about by every wind of doctrine.

Nothing too organized here, just some post-debate thoughts:

• Everybody there had an astounding time!
• One thing you can’t get from the audio: a couple of times, Davie said “scripture” or “my bible”, and reflexively held up his iPod.  I’m not saying it’s bad to read the bible on an iPod, it’s just funny.
• Also, when Davie recommends that all the heads of all the denominations in the world be locked in a room with only bibles until they come to an agreement, the hilarious interjection of “they’d write a confession” came not from Brian, but from Blogorrhea regular, Kazooless, a.k.a. The Onomist, sitting with me in the front row.  Audio listeners will miss out on the look on Davie’s face.
• On that topic, I thought the whole “lock ‘em in a room” idea was pretty silly (or at least naive).  Even without their confessions, the heads of all the world’s denominations would still be bringing in their disparate hermeneutics and interpretations, which are equivalent to their confessions, which is the whole (correct) point of Brian’s argument that confessions are like bellybuttons: everybody’s got one.  (And for that matter, why doesn’t Davie want to lock the heads of all the world’s non-denominations into that room too?)
• I’d like some historical backup for those claims about Calvin and Zwingli executing people.  I know what was going on with Servetus in particular, but I had never heard those charges about so many others.

So if you were there, or if you listened to the .mp3s, what did you think?

MP3 are IN:

• Part 1, 18MB, 1:18
• Part 2, 6MB, 0:28

If you want .mp3 for any other H&S, head on over here and poke around.

In other news, here’s a real quick beer survey, so you can give the Brewmaster feedback on how he could possibly make his beer any more awesome!

Also, thanks to Frank Hueso, who thanked me for my work with H&S by giving me a T-shirt he designed with a cool Sola Scriptura graphic on it. I’ve asked for some graphics of all his designs, so stay tuned to this site for images when I get ‘em!

Some thoughts on last week’s Hoagies & Stogies: Communion.

It was a really good one — the largest ever with about 80 men present, and many told me how much they liked the debate.  The distinction between Lutheran Real Physical Presence and Reformed Real Spiritual Presence was clear, and the debate was vigorous.

Interestingly, Reformed pastor Mike Brown experienced a bit of a switch-up.  Last time, he was able to claim the “literal” high-ground, camping out on “it is a great sin to neglect baptism” in his argument for requiring all (Reformed) church members to baptize their infants.  But this time, Lutheran Pastor John Kent got to camp out on “This is my body,” forcing Brown to be on the defensive most of the time (until nearer the end, when he started to land some counterpunches).

Speaking of “literal high ground,” the Lutheran position’s boast of having the most literal, direct interpretation of Jesus’ words reminded me a lot of discussions with 6×24 advocates; as if “most literal” automatically means “most correct”.

Even though the Lutheran doctrine of Real Physical Presence is also known as Consubstantiation (contra RC Transubstantiation), the debate never really centered on the word or concept of substance.  How is the substance of Christ present in communion?  (I’m sure the Lutheran answer would have just been “Mystery! This is my body — just believe the words!”)  If Christ’s substance is physically present in, with, under the substance of the bread, then shouldn’t it be somehow scientifically detectable?  Conversely, if the bread remains as physically, substantively bread as it was before, where is there room for Christ’s physical substance?

Which brings me to another point; what is the precise working definition of “physical”?  Does it mean “material,” or “having mass”?  How does our modern, scientific notion of “physical” relate to to whatever Luther or Calvin might have been arguing about (being from an age that still thought in terms of the classical elements of fire, earth, air, water).  And if Christ’s presence doesn’t mean “having mass,” wouldn’t a good description of that be “spiritual”?

One more question I forgot to ask of the Lutheran side: what do they do with the leftover bread and wine?  I know that since the Reformed view is that the bread remains truly and only bread, as it was before, it is not uncommon at my church to see high-schoolers snacking on the leftovers.  But for Lutherans, that bread has the Real Physical Presence of Christ in, with, under it — how can they avoid adoration of the elements like the Catholics?

What did Jesus mean by “this is my body”? Real Physical Presence (Lutherans) or Real Spiritual Presence (Calvinists)? About 80 men showed up at the largest H&S event ever, to hear pastors John Kent and Mike Brown tackle this question that is as old as the Reformation.

If you missed it (or if you didn’t!), you can download .mp3 from The Onomist’s archive:

• Part 1: Opening, rebuttal, and closing statements (1:14:02, 16.9MB)
• Part 2: Q&A (0:15:44, 3.6MB)

It was a great event, well-attended and well-enjoyed, despite intermittent rain.  Thanks especially to the speakers (Brian Tallman and Mike Brown), for putting up with damp heads and soggy papers.

Anyways, the .mp3 are available, hosted by The Onomist:

• Part 1: Three opening statements
• Part 2: Rebuttals, closing statements, a “pious statement” by Dr. Tom, and a (rain-shortened) Q&A.

All H&S recordings can be found here.

For any who have listened, what did you think?

OK folks, the .mp3s are ready! Fetch ‘em from this link (or download directly: part 1, part 2). If you were there, or if you just listened to the .mp3 (or both!), drop a comment here with your reaction.

If you want to research more, I suggest you start with two articles and one “joint interview” (not quite to the level of a debate, I don’t think):

• “The Federal Vision in One Easy Lesson,” by Doug Wilson (2007)
• “Covenant Theology Under Attack,” by Meredith Kline (1994)
• St. Anne’s Public House “Federal Vision”, Doug Wilson and Michael Horton (2004).

If you want to dig deeper, you will want to look into:

• Federal Vision Joint Statement (2007)
• OPC Report on Justification (2006)
• PCA Report on Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theology (2007)

There are certainly many, many more resources out there.  If you want to recommend some, drop a link into a comment!

Hoagies & Stogies Dispensationalism came and went last Saturday, and now the .mp3 is available.

• Part 1 (Opening statements)
• Part 2 (Rebuttals, closings)
• Part 3 (Q&A)

As a matter of fact, good friend of Blogorrhea, The Onomist, has made available space on his personal server for all H&S that have been recorded, and even set up a podcast with an iTunes RSS feed! Thanks, Onomist!

Any attendees (or listeners) who have feedback, feel free to drop a comment here!