Well, brothers and sisters, it's great to be back with you all after a great first ever church retreat for our church. I was glad to see most of you out there, and I think we decided after this retreat that we will need to do this again. So if you weren't able to come, Lord willing, there will be many opportunities in the future. Yeah, Peter's pointing at his son, good times. One more. And it was great last week to reflect on the unity that we have around the gospel and the central importance that the gospel is for the Christian life. As we turn this morning back to 1 Corinthians, you'll recall the week before last, we walked through the whole book of Corinthians and looked at the myriad of issues that Corinth had. But in spite of all the issues that they had, it is interesting to note that without the problems that the church Corinth had, there would be a lot of instruction about how to do the church and how to do worship that would be missing. So that the Lord even brought good out of just the tremendous grief that the church in Corinth brought to the Apostle Paul and brought upon themselves and how they were conducting themselves. But what's interesting, as you look at the church in Corinth, is that their problems didn't leave after 1 Corinthians. In fact, their problems didn't leave after 2 Corinthians, which we will, Lord willing, look at next week. But it continued into the post-apostolic era. I enjoy reading the church fathers, and last night I was perusing through 1 Clement, which is one of the earliest documents that we have after the Apostolic Age. In fact, he lived during the Apostolic Age, and he was born in the mid-30s and died, I think it was around 88, I didn't write that note down, but he died within, in the first century. And he was a bishop in Rome. But what's remarkable is that first letter that we have in this kind of collection of documents that we call the Apostolic Fathers, he's writing to what church? He's writing to Corinth. And they're back at their old problems. And the number one problem that they had is that they were rebelling against the elders. Just one excerpt from chapter 57 of his letter, he said, You therefore, talking to the church's court, who laid the foundation of rebellion, submit to the presbyters and accept chastisement for repentance, bending the knees of your heart. Learn to be submissive, laying aside the boastful and proud self-confidence of your tongue. So the boasting that we see in 1 Corinthians, we'll see next week in 2 Corinthians, and into the early post-apostolic era, Corinth still has a problem with rebellion and boasting. They thought they knew everything. And as Clement points out, they have a problem with boastful and proud self-confidence and it's expressing itself and how they're speaking and talking about those in leadership. I just find it interesting that in the history following the biblical record we still see the same problem going on and it's the same problem every generation faces. It's the same problem every generation faces, and we face it today as well. If I may, for a moment, speak candidly about the mission in Norway. The Lord allowed us in these early years to have three churches planted, which is remarkable. And early on we saw a lot of quick growth and success. But it's also interesting that an issue of arrogance, Self-confident boasting was the downfall of the unity of the mission early on. One church went down for it, another church split away because of it, and even rumors and accusations about us persist to this day because of it. And what's very interesting to me, it would not have been the issue that I would have thought it would have been as a missionary coming to Norway. The dominant issue has centered around who can come to the Lord's table and what kind of heart do you need to have to come to the Lord's table. And the accusation has been that we are holding as Reformed people a view that was invented during the time of the Reformation. and that needs to be discarded today. That is the accusation is that the requirement that you need to examine yourselves and understand what you're doing when you come to the Lord's table. The accusation is that this is a Reformation era invention that needs to be discarded. And so the question today is, how are we to approach the Lord's table? And this is a mission-critical issue. It's interesting to me that people are getting bent out of shape about the age when a child can come to the Lord's Supper. And in debating that issue, they're throwing out The whole idea that we need to examine ourselves and our sin and have an understanding, and the excuse for throwing that out is that it's a Reformation-era invention. So even this week, I had to defend our case against the accusation of someone that was grossly maligning the process in self-confident knowledge speaking about the early church, speaking about what the Reformers did and didn't believe in a way that was uninformed, in a way that was inaccurate, in a way that is doing great damage to the Reformed-leaning churches in this country. And so we are going to address this issue head-on this morning, and I will commend to you the right practice that, regardless of your age, you have to have the ability to examine yourself, have a knowledge of your sin and the importance of repentance, and to remember what it is that the Lord's Supper commemorates. So it's a timely message in light of current events in the mission. It's a timely message in terms of the letter that we just finished going through two weeks ago, and it's a timely message as we prepare to approach the Lord's table in the evening service. So let's dive in and see what the word of the Lord reveals. The way we're going to approach this this morning to answer the question of how do we approach the Lord's table is first I'm going to exposit the text as we ought and as I think is the right way to exposit the text in line with our Reformation tradition as well as more broad evangelical understanding of this text. And then we are going to look at the question, is this a Reformation-era invention? By looking at the sources. By going back to the early church fathers and seeing what they actually said about it. A lot of you are too young to remember the children's show, Reading Rainbow, but there is always this part at the end where he's like, well, don't take my word for it, read it. So we are going to read the sources so you're not just, yes, I'm ordained, yes, I've been well-examined and vetted to do what I do, but don't take my word for it. So we're going to go back and look at the sources and see what the early church fathers, and I'm going to show you this morning that what I teach you and what we confess is not a Reformation-era invention. It's been something affirmed from the beginning. So let's open our Bibles then. and look at 1 Corinthians 11 and may the Lord bring light on this issue so that the divisive people who are seeking to do harm will be shut up by the light of scripture and the testimony of church history. So in 1 Corinthians, as you know, Paul was dealing with a proud and arrogant church. They were saying, well, I follow Apollos. No, I follow Paul. No, I follow Christ, right? You see the same kind of things today, like no creed but Christ, right? No other doctrine, you know? Or which just means my interpretation of what Christ means and my interpretation of what scripture means, nothing but that, right? Or others say, you know, I'm a Baptist. I'm a Presbyterian. I'm an Anglican, whatever. Paul's point is that when we come together for the Lord's Supper, there should be unity, even if we have differences of opinion on various areas. And more so, that all of these ministers are servants of the same Lord. They are ministers of the same Lord. And this boasting not only had to do with how they viewed who their leaders were, but it also had to do with how they viewed one another. Their practice when they are gathering together, some are getting drunk, some are going hungry, you know, so you probably had wealthy people bringing their great feast of food, a poor person's coming, nobody's sharing food with anybody, so another's going hungry, some are getting drunk, We see in verse 21, for in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. I mean, can you imagine if our Lord's Supper was like that? Now, part of this is that in the early church, the Lord's Supper was usually part of a larger meal and gathering. But there's nothing but selfishness going on in this process. It's so bad that Paul actually says it would be better that you didn't meet together at all. He says in verse 17, but in the following instructions, I do not commend you because when you come together, it is not for the better but for the worse. That the church can devolve to such a level of immaturity that it's actually better not to meet at all. When you come together, it's not for the better but for the worse. worse. For in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized." This is interesting as well, that Paul says that factions have to exist in the church so that the genuine will be recognized. That it's even in the the process of dealing with factions that truth will out. When you come together, he says in verse 20, What? Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. Now Paul then uses the opportunity of the Corinthians errors on the Lord's Supper to now teach a proper view. And again, we should be thankful for this because without Corinth's error, we wouldn't have any instruction from the apostles on what that Lord's Supper thing or that Passover thing that Jesus did with his disciples meant for the church. Right? Was that a one-time thing? That Jesus did with his disciples? So it's interesting, and by God's providence, that he used conflict to bring clarity to an issue. He used conflict to bring clarity to an issue. There's two things that we need to see in terms of how we approach the Lord's table in these following verses. And the first one is this. Number one, We do it in remembrance of Jesus. We come to the table in remembrance of Jesus, of what he did. Verse 23, For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night when he was betrayed, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, this is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." So here Paul says, I'm simply passing on to you what I received from the Lord, that on the night that he was betrayed, he lifted up the bread and broke it. And after giving thanks, he gave it and said, take, eat. This is my body, which is for you, do this in remembrance of me." Likewise, Paul goes on to the cup, and in the same way, he says, in the same way, verse 25, also he took the cup after supper, saying, this cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of me. So when we come to the table, there is bread that is broken. And there is wine that is red. And those things are to remind us of what Jesus did. A body that was given for you. A new covenant that was instituted in his blood that he shed for us. And we do these things in remembrance of him. So when we come to the table, we look back to Jesus, back in history, to a historical event that is the turning point of all history. The hope of the Israelites. and what became the hope for people of every tribe and tongue and people and nation that put their hope in him. But not only is the Lord's Supper a looking back, a remembering of what he did, it's also a remembrance of what he will do. So we also come with a faith proclamation that we proclaim what he will do. Look at verse 26. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. So that the Lord's supper is also a memorial of his promise to return at the end of days. Even as he told the disciples, I will not drink this cup again until I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. So the Lord's Supper requires a rudimentary, a basic knowledge of what he did. Because it's a remembrance. It's a memorial of what Jesus did for us. A body broken for us. Blood poured out as the new covenant for us. And something we do in joyful and thankful anticipation of his return. So we drink it in hope and in faith that he will come again. So the Lord's Supper is at its most basic level a memorial. It's a remembrance of what Jesus did for his disciples. But is that it? The second thing we see, a second point here, on how we approach the Lord's table is we are called to examine ourselves. We see, especially in verse 28, let a person examine himself then. And so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. Now this is where the debate surrounds. This is where the debate surrounds. What does it mean to examine yourself, because in verse 29, it also says, for anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. So what body is Paul talking about? Now the accusation today is that Paul is talking about the body of Christ, meaning the church in Corinth. and that these division issues that are going on in the body of Christ have to do with Corinth. So the way we examine ourselves is to consider how we are behaving to one another, how we are behaving with one another. And I will say, and I can speak for almost every common commentary I've ever read on this issue, nobody denies that. Nobody denies that. Certainly, when we come to the Lord's table, if we have sinned against a brother or sister in the body, or we are active in creating division in the church, we ought to examine ourselves concerning that matter before we come to the Lord's table. And I've never read a commentary that denies that. However, the problem with the current accusation is that it reduces Paul's command to examine yourself to that issue. It reduces it to the horizontal division problem And it's that reduction that cuts off other applications of this text that Paul meant to point to. Where is the first place that the body is mentioned in this section? Verse 24. This is my body which is for you. Look at verse 27. And then immediately then Paul says, And so eat of the bread, drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself." The problem with the current accusation is not that it's wrong in the sense that it's pointing to division issues in the church, but it's wrong in that it reduces the application and the point only to that. And it cuts off the whole idea of this being a memorial of the body of Christ and the blood of Christ that was given for us. Moreover, any sin against the church, the body of Christ, is also a sin against God. Moreover, any sin we commit at all, in or outside of the church, ultimately is a sin against the body of Christ. Right? If one member suffers, all suffer. So even if we think of our sins as personal or hidden sins, those ultimately affect the whole. So that it is simplistic to reduce sin, or to reduce the problem to just mere division issues. It's an oversimplification that doesn't consider the whole. And that's the problem. When we come to the Lord's table and when we examine ourself, it is both a horizontal and a vertical activity. It is not either or, it's both and. And virtually every commentator I've ever read from multiple traditions views it the same way, as a both-and. There are some exceptions which I will mention in a moment. But that when we examine ourselves, we are both considering, have I sinned towards God? Have I sinned towards my brothers and sisters? Because both vertical or horizontal sins are the reason Christ died. And if we go on stubbornly and obstinately in those things, we desecrate the table of our Lord and in fact eat and drink judgment on ourselves. That is why when we come to the table, we must remember why we're doing it. And we must examine ourselves. So here we don't see a requisite for being of a certain age to do this, but we do see the basic things required to worthily participate in the Lord's Supper. And the thing far more significant than the age of the one coming to the table is that we approach it worthily as Scripture defines worthy participation. And you're going to be hard-pressed in the history of the Church to find unity on the age or the time or the way when someone should come to the table. But there is, in fact, great unity on this important call to remember and to examine yourself. Now, before I get to the early Church Fathers and what they had to say, The place where people are exclusively the, I don't even want to call it a tradition, but the movement that is pressing for this exclusive horizontal level issue kind of approach to interpreting 1 Corinthians 11 has, at least in our day, come out of a movement called the New Perspective on Paul. And the few commentators that I've read that focus and say that 1 Corinthians 11 is exclusively about horizontal issues, and it doesn't call for self-examination, come out of that movement of the new perspective on Paul. And I don't expect you to understand what that is. I will simply say for the uninitiated that this movement that is in modern times, birthed out of the 1970s and then was very influential in the 80s and 90s in academic theological circles, has been shown and is notorious for taking a true or valid issue that was going on in New Testament Judaism or the early church, but then bringing it to the foreground and making it only that. So if you really want to get into this subject, you can read the two-volume work called Justification and Variegated Gnomism. But if you've read guys like N.T. Wright or Richard Hayes or Ben Witherington III, these guys are coming out of that tradition of the new perspective on Paul. And they've been well rebuked by people going back to the sources. So if you really want to get into it, you can read Justification and Variegated Gnomism. The trouble with these kinds of teachers is not that they teach something that is wrong, but that they ignore a whole lot of other things that are right to defend their position. And so they reduce things. I also, my contention is that a lot of these guys, I don't, the Lord knows their hearts. But it's interesting that it's out of liberal circles where it becomes convenient to say, to deny self-examination. That's just interesting to me. And this movement, of course, greatly influenced a movement called the Federal Vision Controversy, which is a controversy that boiled up in reform circles and has been highly influenced in the Doug Wilson camp. and the Moscow movement and that whole tradition. So it's good to know where your presuppositions come from. It's good to know where your presuppositions come from. So you need to be careful as you're listening to people because they can sound really convincing because oftentimes they point to something that is true. But in the way they talk about it and cut everything out, it becomes untrue. It becomes like a Procrustean bed, you know, where the guy that, the Greek mythology, the guy lays on the bed and any part of his body that couldn't fit on the bed was cut off. Right? So that's the danger of these kinds of movements. But now the question then, is this interpretation that I just gave to you a Reformation era invention? that should be discarded. The allegation that was lobbed at us in recent days was that there's a growing consensus that this is just about a horizontal issue. There's a growing consensus that the Reformation-era interpretation is incorrect. And that we need to go back to what the early church said, and this Reformation-era invention needs to be discarded today. First of all, I will say that the only people in this growing consensus are people in this tradition I just talked about, this new perspective, liberalizing tradition. And then a few in this federal vision kind of camp. But did the early church fathers teach the same thing as the reformers? Or was the interpretation I gave you this morning truly a Reformation-era invention? Well, let's see what we find. First of all, before we get there, just to give a nod to the Reformation, I find it interesting that John Calvin, commenting on 1 Corinthians 11, 27, and 28, he says, some restrict this issue to the Corinthians. So this is interesting to me, not a new issue we're battling. Calvin says, some restricted to the Corinthians and the abuse that crept in among them. But I am of the opinion that Paul here, according to his usual manner, passed on from the particular case to a general statement. So Paul's usual manner, as you read his epistles, is that he will address a particular issue that's arisen in the church, but then give a general statement that's not meant for just that particular situation, because Paul understood his role as apostle to the Gentiles. That he would give a general theological application of the issue that will benefit the church moving forward. So Calvin says, So what then did the early church fathers teach? What did they teach? I think Joseph Fitzmyer, who was a Roman Catholic commentator, represents the tradition that I'm going to show you in just a second. But even Fitzmyer says, let each one scrutinize whether he rightly understands what remembrance of the Lord, his supper, and his death actually mean, and whether one is disposed to proclaim them by such Eucharistic reception. Self-examination and acknowledgement of one's status are to precede participation in the supper. So already in the modern times, it's not merely a Reformation era issue, but let's look at the early church fathers and let's see if the Reformers invented something new. So what I did this week is I have all the church fathers, all the patristics on my computer. So I'm very thankful to live in the modern digital age, because I have all these guys on my computer. It's great. And the computer doesn't get any heavier when you add books to it. It's all right there. And I just simply ran a search of 1 Corinthians 11-28. to just see, okay, what did they say on this issue? Okay, so that was my pathway or procedure for finding these sources. And guess what? They teach the same thing as the reformers. But don't take my word for it. Let me read for you. If you want, I mean, if you really want the full quotes, I can print this out for you at the end if you want it or email you a copy. But here, second century. Second century, Clement of Alexandria. He writes, it is essential that both preacher and hearer examine themselves. The one must see if he is fit to speak and to leave behind written records. The other, if he has the right to listen or read. It is just as in the distribution of the Eucharist. That's the Lord's Supper. The Eucharist is the word for Thanksgiving. in Greek, so the early church called the Lord's Supper the Eucharist. So Clement says, it is just as in the distribution of the Eucharist. In the normal practice, they leave it to each member of the congregation to decide whether to take a portion. Conscience is the best guide for determining accurately whether to say yes or no. The firm foundation of conscience is an upright life joined to appropriate learning. The best means toward the understanding of truth and the performance of the commandments that be God's moral law is to follow those others who have already been through the test with flying colors. And then here he quotes Paul, So whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the Lord's body and blood. Let a person examine himself or herself only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. So Clement of Alexandria, so he's there in North Africa, less than a hundred years after the close of the Apostolic Age, and what does he say? Basically what I just told you from the text today. Let your conscience be your guide if you're living rightly or if there's things to confess. So we're off to a pretty good start. How about origin? Of course, origins. interesting character in church history, but what does he say? He says, but let each one judge himself concerning such matters and quoting Paul, let a man prove himself and so not only let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup, but also let him lift up his eyes and let him lift them up during prayer and when he subjects himself to God and humbles himself to him, let him speak. So origin here is pointing to the Lord's Supper that when we come to the Lord's Supper and when we come to the Lord in prayer, we are subjecting, we are intentionally subjecting ourselves to God and humbling ourselves before him. Again, a right attitude, an attitude that's commensurate with faith and repentance. Basil of Caesarea. It says, "'But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.'" And then he goes on, "'The manner in which we should eat the body and drink the blood of the Lord for a commemoration of obedience of the Lord even unto death, that they who live may no longer live for themselves, but unto him who died for them and rose again." So Basil of Caesarea reminds us that when we go to the Lord's table, it's a commemoration of the Lord's obedience that was even unto death, and it is a faith commitment. It's a commitment of ours to live for him, that they who live may no longer live for themselves, but unto him who died for them and rose again. Tychonius in 380 says, He's quoting John 6. Does everyone who communicates have eternal life? No. Because it is written, One who eats and drinks the body and blood of the Lord unworthily eats and drinks damnation. to himself. So this is interesting. In 380, Tychonius is saying, just because you receive the sacrament doesn't mean you receive the benefits of it. We could get in a whole other debate on Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theology of the sacraments here, but we don't have time. But he says, does everyone who communicates, that is, comes to the Lord's table, have eternal life? No, because it is written, one who eats and drinks the body and blood of the Lord unworthily eats and drinks judgment on himself. He goes on, for the part that examines itself and knows how it should eat, it alone eats from the tree of life. But the part that has been blinded does not give heed to Christ, to the light of life. So when we come, we must come giving heed to Christ. John Chrysostom, 386 to 387, he's entreating people to repent rightly in his book On Repentance and Almsgiving. And he says, I implore you, I entreat you, I have the privilege for you to leave me every eagerness, every sin, and afterward to approach this awesome table. Strive for peace, he says, with all men and for the sanctification without no one will see the Lord. Here you see him both saying strive for horizontal peace, but also for the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord. He's quoting Paul to the Corinthians there. The individual who is unworthy to see the Lord is also not worthy of the communion in the body of the master. For this reason, Paul says, let everyone examine himself, and afterward let him eat of the bread and drink from the cup. I'm skipping over some, but just giving you a few examples. Gregory of Nyssa, in his ascetical works, and he lived in the fourth century as well, He says, the participation in this food and drink is not careless and indiscriminate. Again, the participation in this food and drink is not careless or indiscriminate for the apostle limits it thus, let a man prove himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself. The evangelist also seems to point this out definitely at the time of the mystical passion when the good counselor took down the body of the Lord and wrapped him in spotless and pure linen and placed him in a new and pure sepulcher. Thus, the command of the apostle and the observation of the evangelist become a law to all who receive the Holy Body with a pure conscience. If there is somewhere some stain from sin, we must wash it out with the water of our tears." So again, Gregory is saying, if our conscience senses some stain of sin, we need to repent of that first before coming to the table. Let a man prove himself," he quotes Paul. And so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. Jerome, who translated the Bible into the Latin Vulgate in the fourth century, reminds, points to Aaron, and how Aaron could only enter the Holy of Holies once a year. And how Aaron could only approach the Holy of Holies because of all the rituals God prescribed that he might be clean. And then Jerome goes on to use that as an analogy of what we do when we come to the table. And he says, So he's saying whether you're ignorant, whether guilty of iniquity or wickedness, you are going to be bound by the vow of what you do when you come to the table, whether eating and drinking to the nourishing of your faith or to the destruction of your soul. Whence also, he goes on, the apostle teaches us that we are to eat the Eucharist of the Lord with caution, with caution, lest we eat to ourselves condemnation and judgment. If ignorance is condemned under the law, how much more will full knowledge be condemned according to the gospel?" Now, hear what he's saying rightly here. He's talking about under the Old Testament law, even if you were ignorant of what you were doing and you sinned, you were guilty under the law. And he says, how much more will full knowledge be condemned according to the gospel? That if we know what we ought to do, and we do because it's been laid out for us and we don't do it, how much more guilty will we be than those under the law? So ignorance is not an excuse. And so we cannot come to the Lord's table ignorantly. Augustine talks about the process of catechumens who would take People would be examined for two to three years before they would come into the church. And he talks about how that process of time was so that they would learn what it means to live worthily of the Lord, what it means, what faith and repentance means, what the Christian life should be. And he says that first they may prove themselves and then eat of the bread. of the Lord and drink of the chalice, since he eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself." One last citation, and I think we've had enough on the matter. Caesareus of Arles, now we're in the 6th century. He writes, and he says basically the same thing that Caesarea, that, excuse me, that Clement, Clement of Alexander said at the beginning He said, he writes, Because of all of this, most beloved brethren, I warn and admonish you that everyone should revert to the only qualified witness, his own conscience. If there he discovers any wounds of sins, let him have recourse to the healing power of tears. Let him be sorry for what he did. Let him begin to attend most vigilantly to his past actions, to avoid present sins, to anticipate future ones, and to banish every evil with the assistance of God. Because as long as a man is ignorant of how long he can live in this world, he cannot escape if repentance does not precede him. Before all else, most beloved brethren, reflect with dutiful faith and with all the devotion of your own soul on what pertains particularly to the faithful, that you are about to approach the altar of your Lord and God. Observe all the hidden places of your heart, lest by chance there be some sins there which have not yet been cared for by almsgiving and fasting. Moreover, fear the words of the apostle, whoever eats the body and drinks the blood of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord. A man should examine himself first, and only then should he eat of the bread and drink of the cup. So what have we seen in this walk through the Church Fathers? They're essentially saying and interpreting 1 Corinthians 11 the same way the Reformers did. And the same way we as Reformed and Evangelicals do today. Now, Church history is not an authority in and of itself. But church history is very helpful for us when we're studying scripture to know, okay, is the way I'm interpreting this passage unique to me? Is it unique to a certain tradition in church history? Or has it been generally believed by all in church history? And when you come to an interpretation that essentially has been the same from the beginning, we have pretty good confidence that our interpretation is correct. Of course, there's development and doctrines. Not all doctrines in church history are uniformly agreed on. I'm sure that if we looked more in depth to the view of the sacraments on these different guys that I quoted from, there would be differences that we may have. But it's interesting that they all interpret 1 Corinthians 11 in the same sort of fashion. You notice that not one, not one of these church fathers say, because you are baptized, you automatically have a right to the table. And that is the contention that is causing division in our churches today. That is the contention that has destroyed one of the churches in this movement, torn another one away, and is going on continuing to harm our church body here. Not one of these church fathers says baptism is the automatic ticket to the table. So don't listen to ignorant. They may be well-intentioned. Don't listen to ignorant, unordained men who are unqualified to teach the Word of God to convince you otherwise. But don't take my word for it. Consider the sources that I just quoted to you this morning. Let's be done with foolish and ignorant and youthful controversies. And let's grow towards maturity in Christ. as a church, and as a movement. Let's, with fear and trepidation, enter into any controversy. Remember what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 3, he who destroys the body, God will destroy. My encouragement, maybe this will be a sermon sometime, but encouragement to church members, and I will close, is with this. There's not a perfect church on earth, brothers and sisters. And there's a lot of things in the church where decisions have to be made on how to do things. And how we go about the process, for example, of becoming a member. Every church and tradition has the right to apply the biblical data in the best way that it sees fit. But if you want to reform the church, whatever tradition that you are in, give it a long season before you consider yourself wise in your own eyes to see otherwise and enter into reform. And my argument, my contention, I said it this week, is that if you want to reform the church, wait a long time, submit under a tradition, whatever tradition it is, Submit to it, the one you think does the best job with the big old data, and shut up for a long time. The greater issue in the church is not having too much knowledge. It's about being an ignorant, boastful person about it. Being puffed up with so-called knowledge. That's not the way of wisdom. That's the way of condemnation. And if you do see an area of reform, if it's God's will, become an officer in that tradition. Whether you're Episcopalian, whether you're Presbyterian, whether you're Congregationalist, because that's how Christ rules the church. And then if the Lord appoints you as an officer, seek for reform if there's an area that there needs to be reformed. But brothers and sisters, let's not be like the Corinthians that couldn't ever learn the lesson. They couldn't learn it after 1 Corinthians. They couldn't learn it after 2 Corinthians. They still couldn't learn it when Clement's writing to them. Still in the first century. Let's not be like that. The danger of youth is that we always think we know everything. The danger of youth is that we think we know better than our elders, our parents, that we know better. But my counsel to us is with fear and trepidation, let us ever change or cause division in the body of Christ. The boast has been that we have been teaching a Reformation-era invention that needs to be discarded. The truth of the matter is that the church has been professing the same thing from the beginning. So beware of misinformation. Beware of tweets. Beware of social media quips and the loudmouth boaster. Because they can sound really convincing. They can sound really convincing and persuasive. Whatever tradition you find yourself in, I don't care if you're a Baptist, be a Baptist. If you're a Presbyterian, be a Presbyterian. If you're Lutheran, be a Lutheran. Go with your conscience on the tradition you think best fits the biblical data, but when you do that, submit to it. And don't think you're no better and start causing controversies and confusion. Not all are teachers. Not all should aspire to be teachers. They'll be judged with a greater judgment. And ordination is there for a reason, and it's not to be done quickly or rashly. Brothers and sisters, as we come to the Lord's table this evening, as we do life as the body of Christ in the church, Let's do so with humility and reverence for what the Lord did for us and for how we treat one another in the mission. And may God have mercy on us, and may he bear fruit to us, and may he bring to an end this controversy that has done significant harm to the work that we are doing. by the grace of God attempting to do in this country. Let's pray. Lord, there's so many wonderful benefits of youth. Bodies that work, energy, life, light in our eyes, the prospects for the future, but there's also a lot of immaturity that goes with it. I pray that we as a movement would not be like the Israelites when the prophet said, stand by the roads and look and ask for the ancient paths where the good way is and walk in it and find rest for your souls. But they said, we will not walk in it. I pray that we would not be like those Israelites, but that we would, as we strive to interpret and apply scripture the best that we can, that we would consider the witness of church history and not think that in this generation we finally figured it out and everyone else was wrong. How arrogant and how presumptuous. I pray that we would never be that. I pray that as a church filled with members old and young that we together would grow towards maturity in Christ. That we would grow towards unity of purpose and oneness of mind for there is one Lord one faith, one baptism, one God and father of us all. And for those who are called to teach and preach, we are all servants of one master. It's in his name that we pray with fear this morning. Amen.