thanks

Joined: 16 Mar 2005 Posts: 6

thank you adam for starting this.
ive been talking to baptists to long. or should i say trying to persaude baptists to long. this will be a good place to post my questions etc. to get some truly reformed feedback.

Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:00 am

Sean,
Great to hear from you. Feel free to join in the discussion. I just got this forum started and I hope that it will grow and be helpfull. As you read my posts at Theology log or (adam)daily, feel free to comment on them hear, or ask questions. That's what this forum is for.

We miss you guys a lot! Say hi to Betsey for us. And, as I always say, remember that you always have a place here in Moscow if you want one. Very Happy

I always think fondly of worship in your home - it was beautiful.
P.S. When is Betsey due?

Joined: 16 Mar 2005 Posts: 6

betsey is due aug 2. it is a boy.

we are currently going to put our house up for sale in order to downsize financially.

moving to moscow is always in the back of my mind. maybe someday it will happen.

Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2005 2:57 am

Moscow is great, and personally I hope you do move up, you would love it! Perhaps you can come visit while Betsey can still fly (with the baby and all). I know of others who are thinking of making the move too. Lots of people have moved here and the community is great because of it. Anyway, I've said all that before. Maybe you can move up and we can open a pub. They need an Irish styled pub up here really bad! I bet anything it would make money. One of our friends from Lousville is thinking about visiting during the Annual History Conference (Now known as the Trinity Festival). Unfortunately the Festival is Aug 8-10 and that would be a bad time for you Crying or Very sad

So, maybe you and besty will just have to come up earlier...in the next couple of months Exclamation

I talked to zack a couple of weeks ago. I don't really know what's up with him. He never calls. I pray for him often and hope that he just moves up here. It would be really good for him. He could finish his degree up here at U of Idaho or U of Washington. Both campuses are right here. Not to mention the fact that he could meet a great girl up here. Get married, start having kids - you know, the whole dominion thing.

I've been praying for your little boy...any thought on a name? Well, let me know what you're thinking, and if you have any more questions. I hope I my answers were detailed enough, if not let me know. If you wan't I will send you the CD's from the 2003 ministerial conference on the Sacraments ... in fact, consider it done! Doug Wilson talks about the Calvinistic view of the real presense, which goes much deeper than the Catholic view, which tends to localize the presense of Christ in the Eucharist alone while the Scripture speaks of Christ as our "host" at the table (not just IN the bread/wine). See, Christ is IN the church (who is His body); He is IN the bread and wine; He is IN the sacramental cerimony itself; He is IN the minister who acts as our "host" on behalf of Christ. If we are the body of Christ, then the bread and wine is a type of us as well. Furthermore we don't eat Christ only in our physical eating, but we eat Christ by faith as well. Our faith feeds on him, and our mouths feed on him. Christ's glorified body is eaten in a mysterious miracle - not through transubstantation (which allows for miracle, but doesn't really allow for mystery). It could be said that in the Catholic view we could eat and then throw up and take a DNA sample of Christ. I don't think that Christ's glorified body could be summed up in physical DNA...I think bodily glorification is much more than that. Catholics don't really take that into account in their theology, or better yet, philosophy. (Which was not formulated to until Thomas Aquinas, and was not widely held to until after that.) I've read nearly all, if not all, of the evidence used to support transubstantiation by Catholic apologists. The fact is, the early fathers speak the same way Calvin did about the eucharist. For example: "In the type of bread is given thee the Body, in the type of wine the Blood is given thee" [St. Cyril of Jerusalem 300's]. The bread and wine look like bread, but are not to be understood according to the EYE (because they are physically still bread and wine) but according to the eyes of FAITH. "Do not THINK it mere bread and wine, for it is the Body and Blood of Christ, according to the Lord's declaration." The reason Cyril says not to THINK of it is bread and wine is because it is physically still bread and wine, and thus some may be tempted to think of it that way. But we are to think of it as the body and blood, becaues God has said that we eat the body and blood in the cerimony and thus it is so. So, in the TYPE of bread we have the body. Even though the TYPE is still bread, we are to think of it as the body and eat the body of Christ by faith. The bread and wine, according to Cyril are types. BUT they are not mere types apart from the reality as Calvin says.

The following is from Calvin's Geneva Catechism:

Master. - Let us now pass to the Supper. And, first, I should like to know from you what its meaning is.

Scholar. - It was instituted by Christ in order that by the communication of his body and blood, he might teach and assure us that our souls are being trained in the hope of eternal life.

Master. - But why is the body of our Lord figured by bread, and his blood by wine?

Scholar. - We are hence taught that such virtue as bread has in nourishing our bodies to sustain the present life, the same has the body of our Lord spiritually to nourish our souls. As by wine the hearts of men are gladdened, their strength recruited, and the whole man strengthened, so by the blood of our Lord the same benefits are received by our souls.

Master. - Do we therefore eat the body and blood of the Lord?

Scholar. - I understand so. For as our whole reliance for salvation depends on him, in order that the obedience which he yielded to the Father may be imputed to us just as if it were ours, it is necessary that he be possessed by us; for the only way in which he communicates his blessings to us is by making himself ours."

Master. - Have we in the Supper only a figure of the benefits which you have mentioned, or are they there exhibited to us reality?

Scholar. - Seeing that our Lord Jesus Christ is truth itself; there cannot be a doubt that he at the same time fulfils the promises which he there gives us, and adds the reality to the figures. Wherefore I doubt not that as he testifies by words and signs, so he also makes us partakers of his substance, that thus we may have one life with him.

Master. - But how can this be, when the body of Christ is in heaven, and we are still pilgrims on the earth?

Scholar. - This he accomplishes by the secret and miraculous agency of his Spirit, to whom it is not difficult to unite things otherwise disjoined by a distant space. "

Thus, according to Calvin, our Lord Jesus Christ is truly and really present in the holy Supper. Christ's presence is mediated through the bread and wine by the mystical work of the Holy Spirit; as Calvin wrote in his Short Treatise on the Lord's Supper:

"We must confess, then, that if the representation which God gives us in the Supper is true, the internal substance of the sacrament is conjoined with the visible signs; and as the bread is distributed to us by the hand, so the body of Christ is communicated to us in order that we may be made partakers of it. Though there should be nothing more, we have good cause to be satisfied, when we understand that Jesus Christ gives us in the Supper the proper SUBSTANCE OF HIS BODY AND BLOOD, in order that we may possess it fully, and possessing it have part in all his blessings. For seeing we have him, all the riches of God which are comprehended in him are exhibited to us, in order that they may be ours. Thus, as a brief definition of this utility of the Supper, we may say, that Jesus Christ is there offered to us in order that we may possess him, and in him all the fulness of grace which we can desire, and that herein we have a good aid to confirm our consciences in the faith which we ought to have in him" (17).

I believe that in this cerimony we are brought into union with the glorified resurrected Lord in a mystery and recieve Grace and resurrection power to walk in newness of life.

As you can see, the true historic view of the real presense is closer to Calvin than to Trent. (I could go on to offer more evidence of this later, but you may find some stuff online) Calvin was known for his desire for the reformation of the Churches original doctrinal stance on these issues. Calvin was known as being a great student of the Church fathers. In fact, to go Cathlolic would be to deny much of the sacramental and soteriological beliefs of the historic Church for a soteriological novelty of the 11th and 12th century.

I have to go, take care. The Peace of the Lord be With You.
Adam

Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2005 3:18 am

Let me mention another quote, Calvin said:
"...to enclose the body within the sign, or to be joined to it locally, is not only a reverie, but a damnable error, derogatory to the glory of Christ..."

The Roman Church unfortunately holds to a Local presense of Christ which in unbiblical. The body of Christ is not Localized and enclosed in one space.

Calvin said this of the idea of "Perpetual Adoration" of the Bread and Wine, wherin Catholics worship the bread as Christ himself:

"...to prostrate ourselves before the bread of the Supper, and worship Jesus Christ as if he were contained in it, is to make an idol of it rather than a sacrament."

It is also NOT a NEW sacrfice purchasing forgiveness:
"abominable blasphemy to regard the Mass as a sacrifice by which the forgiveness of sins is purchased for us."

Finally, let me give some more Calvin quotes:
"The bread is his body. For we have it for this reason, that it may be a covenant in his body, that is, a covenant which has been once for all ratified by the sacrifice of his body, and is now confirmed by eating, namely, when believers eat that sacrifice...For the blood was poured out to reconcile us to God, and now we drink it spiritually in order to have share in that reconciliation." (Commentary on 1 Corinthians)

"by the power of the Holy Spirit may be united to him, in order that the death and passion that he has undergone may belong to us and that that sacrifice, by which we are not reconciled to God, may be attributed and imputed to us now as if we had offered it ourselves in person" (Sermon 7 of 1 Corinthians).

"the Lord does not offer his body to us, just his body with nothing else said about it, but his body as having been sacrificed for us" (Commentary on 1 Corinthians).

Joined: 16 Mar 2005 Posts: 6

seems catholic to me at first glance.

i truly dont know what the lords supper is. ive come to a point of doing it because christ commanded it. regardless of my understanding, it shall be what it really is and have its effect. when i really think about it i understand all arguments and i tend to lean more on the catholic side of this. it seems to me that protestants often "spiritualize" it and catholics often fall into "worship" of it. but if we go on christs words alone i think we can conclude that it "is" the body and blood of christ like he says it is. he doesnt say "spiritually represents my body and blood" he says it in fact "is" his body and blood. now what we do with that statement makes all the difference.

i would love to hear that audio about the sacraments that you have. i have and mp3 player.
can you send them to me?

heres my address

1527 e. oak st.
new albany, in
47150

we are thinking about the name Isaac for our son.

im just finished a book about why the jews rejected jesus. it was interesting and made me ask basic questions about my faith again. have you read anything on this topic?

ie. why did christ have to rise from the dead? is there any old testament passages that point to this?

thanks,

s.

Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2005 6:43 am

Regarding the Eucharist. Catholics and reformed Protestants don't disagree on the fact that it "is" the body of Christ. We disagree on what state the body of Christ is in, and how the body of Christ is "eaten". Catholics focus on physicality and locality - Protestants focus on the Resurrected Christ (Glorified or Spiritual Body) and that Christ is in the whole meal. If Christ's body has been "glorified" (according to scripture) than we eat of Christ in a "glorified" way - for if we eat of Christ's pre-resurrection body, then we are still in sin and damned. This was Calvin's focus, on the resurrected Christ. Christ's body is both physical and spiritual, but not in the sense that we often think of. Of resurrected bodies Paul says:

Quote:

There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 1 Corinthians 15:40-45

Resurrection is a transfer from a physical body to a Spiritual body. This does not mean that it is a different body, but it means that the body has changed! I don't say this to "spiritualize" anything, I say it becaue the Bible says it. I don't mean that we don't eat the very body of Christ, I mean that we eat the resurrected body of Christ. If we ate a merely physical body we would remain mortal and Christ would be of no use to us. But for this reason Christ had to raise from the dead, to give spiritual and eternal life to us mortal men. When we eat of Christ we eat of resurrected life, and we become one with him.

So, what I'm saying is that I agree with the Roman church that we eat the very body and blood of Christ. Yet, and this is very important, I hold that we do not eat it as Aristotilian philosophers - we eat it a Christians who's basic philosophy is faith, not pagan philosophy. This is where the reformers were coming from.

Now, if the catholics are right, and the bread is the physical body of Christ after blessing it, and it remains the body of Christ, then it ought to be worshiped. However, this error follows from their immature view of the Eucharist. They take the Eucharist out of it's context (the Church meal) and they make it into a magic show that can be done anywhere. As far as I'm concerned catholics miss the whole point.

In the light of the passage I just quoted read these verses:

After Jesus had feed the people physical food, and they came to him wanting more, he said:
John 6:27 "Do not work for the food which perishes [physcal food perishes, or rots], but for the food which endures to eternal life [spiritual food which lasts forever], which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal."

So, given this statment it makes sense that Christ's spiritual resurrected body feeds us, not his physical pre-resurrection body (upon which the Catholics focus too much, even thought they would not admit to)

John 6:31-32 31 "Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'HE GAVE THEM BREAD OUT OF HEAVEN TO EAT.'" 32 Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven.

Notice the focus on "heavenly" food. When we worship every sunday we ascend into the heavens and worship with the Angels and Archangles and all the hosts of heaven, and all of those who have gone before us. This worship is inherently spiritual. Of course, by spiritual I mean "Glorified". Which is the physical reborn into a Glorified state. I don't mean spiritual as opposed to physical. I mean the physical renewed in to a "higher" physical state which is called in scripture a "glorified", or spiritual state.

When Jesus says, "I am the bread that came down out of heaven." [John 6:41], he doesn't mean that he is physically bread...No, in this context he is speaking typologically or allegorically. He goes on to contrast the Physical bread which he gave the people to eat (and the manna they ate in the wilderness, John 6:49-50) with the Spiritual food which is Christ. Christ describes the physical food (manna) as worthless for eternal life, and contrasts it with his body which gives eternal life. The contrast is nothing more than Physical and "glorified" or "Resurrected" body.

John 6:55 "For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink."

He contrasts "true" as opposed to "physical" bread in this context. He says that "true" is something different than the "physical" bread they ate in the wilderness.

I believe that his true bread is the glorified body of Christ, present in the Eucharistic meal every sunday. Also note that futhre discussion in the Bible focuses on the "meal" and not on the actual "food" at the meal. For example revelation talks about the "Marriage Supper of the lamb", where Christ is the meal, and the host of the meal, and the Groom, etc, etc...
The Roman churches view is not glorious enough, in my view!

Well, I gotta go for now. But I plan on writting some more on this issue later...take care,
Adam

Joined: 16 Mar 2005 Posts: 6

that helps a lot. thank you.

there has been a discussion on sojourns website about what luke 5v36 means. i think i understand it until he gets to "the old is better than the new" what do you think this means. it seems to negate everything said prior to this sentence.

also what do you think the thrust of heb. 7-10 is?

no priesthood any more?

Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 12:29 am

Luke 5:29-39; Mark 2:18-22; Matt 9:14-17

Christ is not speaking here about some general covenantal issues. Christ is speaking directly to his CONTEXT! In this context the pharisees are calling him out becuase THEY fast, and he eats with tax collectors and sinners. Christ responds by saying in essence, "You like your old wine traditions, but you're applying your new fabric traditions to old fabric. You ought to be celebrating by eating and drinking while the bridegroom is at the party - there will be plenty of time to fast after I'm gone!" Christ is speaking within His context - he's talking about the fasting traditions of the pharisees - and why they should be celebrating the bridegroom. Christ even says that there will be a time to return to their tradition of fasting after the bridegroom leaves.

To ansewr your question about v39. When Christ notes that those who drink the wine will say, "the old is better than the new," he is simply noting that the pharisees prefer the old pharisaical traditions to clear scriptural theme of rejoicing with the Bridegroom.

After reading some more commentary on Luke 5 I have to say that it is even more evident that Christ is not speaking of the Old/New Covenant distinction.

Another view of the passage is that Christ is simply speaking about how hard it is for the Pharisees to "party" (the Biblical response to the coming of Christ) when they are so used to their (unbiblical) weekly fasts.

See, the Pharisees used to fast twice a week, and they would have never eaten with tax collectors. However, as Christ points out (by inference) the scripture sets forth a theme of celebration when the Bridegroom comes, not fasting. (Isa 54:5 Zep 3:17 Mt 22:2 Joh 3:29) They added prayers and sorrowful repentance to their weekly fasts as well â€“ making them evermore unacceptable in the presence of the Bridegroom. Jesus is calling them out for reacting the wrong way to his coming. It's hard to accept rejoicing with the Bridegroom when your unbiblical traditions require that you fast sorrowfully. There is nothing wrong with fasting, but fasting while the Bridegroom is in your presence is unacceptable. This is why Christ says that there is time for fasting AFTER he leaves, but while the Bridegroom was with his bride it was not right. So the Lordâ€™s point is that the Pharisees found it too difficult to accept an â€œun-shrunkâ€ patch and â€œnew wineâ€. They would rather go along with what they were used to. Again, there was nothing wrong with what they were used to, that is fasting - as long as the fasting is done at the proper time. Read the passage again and it makes much more sense this wayâ€¦.

Luke 5:29-39
And Levi gave a big reception for Him in his house; and there was a great crowd of tax collectors and other people who were reclining at the table with them. The Pharisees and their scribes began grumbling at His disciples, saying, "Why do you eat and drink with the tax collectors and sinners?" And Jesus answered and said to them, "It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance." And they said to Him, "The disciples of John often fast and offer prayers, the disciples of the Pharisees also do the same, but Yours eat and drink." And Jesus said to them, "You cannot make the attendants of the bridegroom fast while the bridegroom is with them, can you? "But the days will come; and when the bridegroom is taken away from them, then they will fast in those days." And He was also telling them a parable: "No one tears a piece of cloth from a new garment and puts it on an old garment; otherwise he will both tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old. "And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled out, and the skins will be ruined. "But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins. "And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says, 'The old is good enough.'"

I've heard this passage used as a defense for "new covenant" theology, which holds that there is no continuity between the old and new Covenant. Of course this is an attempt to build a theological paradigm from a metaphor, which is often a bad idea particularly when the metaphor could be understood differently and when other passsages are very clear about the nature of the New Covenant. The New Covenant sums up the Old covenants together, and surpasses them in 1) Glory, 2) Power, 3) and Finality. The New Covenant does not bring a new Law, or Ethic. It does not bring a new hatred of God upon our children. It does not bring a new salvation which was not known in the Old Covenant. Such over simplifications of scripture are exemplified in their most consistent form by dispensationalism. New Covenant theology is closet dispensationalism by a different name.

With regard to Hebrews 7-10 there actually a number of different views. One of them is that 7-10 focuses on the supremacy of Christ over the Old Covenant. This is pretty solid in my opinion. The point is made that Christ is the high priest. Because of this it would follow that the distinction in the Old Covenant between those who "knew" God (the Priests) and those who did not "know" God (the lay people) no longer exists, "FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM." [Hebrews 8:11] Bahnsen has a very good study on this passage where he shows that in the Old Testament the priests are referred to as those who "knew" God, as opposed to the lay people.

Isaiah speaks of the same New Covenant promise, and applies it to the Children, "All your children shall be taught by the LORD, and great shall be the peace of your children." Of course, this makes sense given that God has made it is practice to always include Chrildren in the Covenantal promises.

Chapter 9 developes the fact that the outward tabernacle was a "type" of the true tabernalce which is in Heaven. "when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. " [9:11]

This is why it is important, in our liturgy, to recognize that we acsend into heaven, into the true tabernacle, and we recieve the sacrifice of Christ in the temple in heaven - not a physical sacrifice on earth.

I'm not sure if this helps at all, so let me know.

Take care brother,
Adam (ps, tell betsey we said hi)

Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 12:56 am

PS, I'm not able to get onto the sojourn forum to read the discussion you mentioned. So, If you gave me your username and password I could get on the forum and read it.

Joined: 16 Mar 2005 Posts: 6

thanks. that makes more sense. in the discussion mike said to look at the hebrews passage to see how much better the new is over the old. but i know where he wants to go with this, or how he interprets it. but i posed the question, what is the newness of the new covenant. so far no replies.

got to go for now.

check it out

i like to have good discussions on here but its hard to get anyone to join in, every once in a while there will be a good one though.

Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 7:33 am

After reading some more commentary on Luke 5 I have to say that it is even more evident that Christ is not speaking of the Old/New Covenant distinction.

Another view of the passage is that Christ is simply speaking about how hard it is for the Pharisees to "party" (the Biblical response to the coming of Christ) when they are so used to their (unbiblical) weekly fasts.

See, the Pharisees used to fast twice a week, and they would have never eaten with tax collectors. However, as Christ points out (by inference) the scripture sets forth a theme of celebration when the Bridegroom comes, not fasting. (Isa 54:5 Zep 3:17 Mt 22:2 Joh 3:29) They added prayers and sorrowful repentance to their weekly fasts as well â€“ making them evermore unacceptable in the presence of the Bridegroom. Jesus is calling them out for reacting the wrong way to his coming. It's hard to accept rejoicing with the Bridegroom when your unbiblical traditions require that you fast sorrowfully. There is nothing wrong with fasting, but fasting while the Bridegroom is in your presence is unacceptable. This is why Christ says that there is time for fasting AFTER he leaves, but while the Bridegroom was with his bride it was not right. So the Lordâ€™s point is that the Pharisees found it too difficult to accept an â€œun-shrunkâ€ patch and â€œnew wineâ€. They would rather go along with what they were used to. Again, there was nothing wrong with what they were used to, that is fasting - as long as the fasting is done at the proper time. Read the passage again and it makes much more sense this wayâ€¦.

Luke 5:29-39
And Levi gave a big reception for Him in his house; and there was a great crowd of tax collectors and other people who were reclining at the table with them. The Pharisees and their scribes began grumbling at His disciples, saying, "Why do you eat and drink with the tax collectors and sinners?" And Jesus answered and said to them, "It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance." And they said to Him, "The disciples of John often fast and offer prayers, the disciples of the Pharisees also do the same, but Yours eat and drink." And Jesus said to them, "You cannot make the attendants of the bridegroom fast while the bridegroom is with them, can you? "But the days will come; and when the bridegroom is taken away from them, then they will fast in those days." And He was also telling them a parable: "No one tears a piece of cloth from a new garment and puts it on an old garment; otherwise he will both tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old. "And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled out, and the skins will be ruined. "But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins. "And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says, 'The old is good enough.'"

Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:34 am

Sean, I noticed you posted my comments at the sojourn forum. I just wanted to let you know that it is totally cool to do that, and don't mention it's me.

Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 2:53 pm

Oh man, I miss richos...Jaime and I have really been missing Louisville lately - primarily you and Betsey and just being in the 'big' city. I really miss our liturgy. The more I study liturgy the more I really liked the one we had. Anyway.

I like Mike a lot, and he's a good guy, but I doubt that Mike has ever read a pro-paedo-baptist book in his life. Through our conversations it was evident that he knew very little about Covenantal theology, or Historic theology. (The theology of the Church through history) So, with Mike it would be hard to know where to start. The funny thing is that Baptist students of theology are increasingly seeing the consistency of paedo-baptism. I'm an example of this along with most of the folks at Christ Church in Moscow - we were all ex-Baptists who loved to study theology. After a while you just cannot deny the facts of the case. However; do you want to here the facts, are you willing to follow the facts, and are you willing to put forth the effort? Hopefully, one day, mike (and everyone in Sojourn) will put forth the effort.

You know what, you should read the new book, â€œthe federal visionâ€. In one of the chapters Richard Lusk discusses how Baptist theology took over in America due to a loss of the historic â€œobjectivityâ€ of the Covenant. He discusses the revivalism of the 17-1800â€™s and how it created a pietistic and over â€œspiritualizedâ€ view of the Church. I took a class called â€œhistory of American Presbyterianismâ€ where we discussed these issues. It is amazing to see how the Church devolved in a matter of 150-200 years to the point where it is at today. Evangelicalism is not even close to what it once was during the reformation. Today itâ€™s been reduced to individualism and voluntarism. Of course this revivalism and individualism has given rise to Pentecostalism and a baptistic view of an invisible covenant. Another symptom of this devolution is a misunderstanding of the sacraments; if the covenant is â€œspiritualâ€ and â€œinvisibleâ€, why do we perform â€œphsycialâ€ â€œvisibleâ€ sacraments? So, the sacraments go out the window; or, they are explained away and reduced to near meaninglessness. Of course the assumption is that a physical ceremony is inherently un-spiritual â€“ but his is ridiculous. A visible ceremony cannot be related to anything in the invisible world, right?

Iâ€™m just rambling.

I will tell you this. We miss you guys, and I really wish that we were still there and able to serve you in any way possible. I wish we could baptize your child together, I wish we had planted a Church and were able to help bring some folks out of mainstream evangelicalism in to something much deeper. Our hearts are torn between Moscow and Louisville. We love it up here. At the same time Iâ€™m all about serving the church where it needs it most. And the Louisville area needs it! Weâ€™ll see I guess.

Take care, Adam

Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 4:32 am

There are 3 schools out here. U of Idaho, Washington State, and NSA (NSA is a liberal arts school). I know a couple of guys who paint up here. You can paint, while you finish up at school if you want. Then you can go out with some of us who want to go out to plant a Church. I should be able to finish my degree in a couple years at the most. I'm going to finish up at whitefield college (which is a theological college online). New St. Andrews is too expensive for us. After I finish my degree I can either do Greyfriars, or get my Masters degree through Bahnsen Theological Seminary while I (or we) work on planting a Church. Bahnsens theological seminary is also an online college. As far as education goes there are a few options out here. UofI is in Moscow and WSU is in Pullman (7 minutes away). This area is a pretty big college town.

I really like Moscow, and I don't want to leave until were ready to go out and plant a church. I want to learn all that there is to learn here. Awyway, I have to go right now. If you have any questions let me know.