From Instapundit:

YOUNG VOTERS WANT SPIRITUALITY, BUT NOT NECESSARILY RELIGION. Well, that’s because religion often tells you to do things you don’t want to do, or to refrain from doing things you want to do, while spirituality is usually more . . . flexible.

Indeed. "Spirituality" just means one wants to have religion without the rules, to feel saved without having to obey God. That the fairly libertine Glenn Reynolds correctly perceives that speaks volumes.

A handful of men from the church here had a recent Bible study on multiple offerings of the Lord's Supper. The following are my notes from the study; I hope they're presented in a coherent and cogent way.

• The assembly was when the church met together on the first day to take the Lord’s Supper. Instead of taking the Lord’s Supper when they met together, they met together to take the Lord’s Supper; that is to say, their purpose for meeting on the Lord’s Day was to eat it. The Lord’s Supper is thus inherently congregational in nature, though it has an individual component (I Corinthians 11:18-20; Acts 20:7). This seems to me to be the core point of disagreement.
• There is only one Biblical record of some members of a church taking the Lord’s Supper at one time and others at another. In that instance, they were condemned and told to wait for each other (I Corinthians 11:18-22, 33). While it isn't exactly the same situation since there was more error than just that going on, it's difficult to argue not waiting on each other is allowed given this passage.
• There is no Biblical statement, command, approved example, or necessary implication supporting multiple offerings of the Lord’s Supper. Perhaps this is the point that should give us the most pause.
• Multiple offerings of the Lord’s Supper are a relatively recent innovation. While this does not necessarily mean they're wrong, it does mean they should be examined closely. They are alleged to have begun in mill towns where one shift would be unable to take it in the morning and another would be unable to take it in the evening. This may be an urban legend, however; I’ve never been able to substantiate this beyond a second-hand statement attributed to Leslie Diestelkamp. Tradition absent authorization does not justify.
• The Lord’s Supper is not a buffet. We no more “deny” someone the opportunity to take the Lord’s Supper by taking it once congregationally on Sunday than we do by not offering it during Bible classes (or even when the church is not assembled). The principle of only offering it at two services is no different than offering it at one; if one is condemned on the basis of denying someone, so is the other.
• The Lord’s Supper is not the Passover. While they share similarities, they are not equivalent. Scripture says that Jesus, not the Lord’s Supper, is our Passover (I Corinthians 5:7). Also, while God specified a “make-up” time for the Passover (Numbers 9:6-14), He made no such allowance in the New Testament. If any conclusion be drawn from the parallel, it is that the lack of such revelation indicates prohibition, not approval. Personally, I don't feel there's anything either way from this example, though, since the Supper is not the New Testament version of the Passover.
• The Lord’s Supper is not a sacrament. It’s not a ritual in which we receive grace from God. It’s not a “right” or a “privilege.” It’s a memorial. One does not sin if one is unable to take it with the church. One does not miss out on some special grace if one is unable to take it with the church. These are concepts that originate in denominations, not the Lord’s church.
• The sole way of taking the Lord’s Supper that we can be certain fulfills the Biblical example, does not cause difficulty between reasonable brethren, and does not cause anyone to violate their conscience is for the church to meet together once on Sunday at a time when everyone can regularly make it to take the Lord’s Supper. Anything else depends on supposition, assumption, and presumption and can unnecessarily invite division.

Thoughts?

Most of us have probably heard teaching on the sin of "covetousness." But have we ever stopped to think about what covetousness really is?

There are seven different Greek words used in the New Testament that are translated to forms of "covet" in the King James Version. Jesus addressed one of them in Luke 12.

Did you catch that? When I think of covetousness, I think of passages like Exodus 20:17 and Acts 20:33. I think of covetousness as wanting what belongs to someone else. Covetousness is wanting what we don't already have, right?

Read those verses again. Jesus is responding to a man who just wants his share of the inheritance. He just wants what's his. Isn't that understandable? And the parable talks the rich man maximizing his crops, as well as his plans to store it. To us, that sounds like good stewardship. Why was what they did wrong?

It's that last statement of the rich man that gets him: "... take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry." Apparently that was the attitude of the disciple to whom Jesus responded. Their first priority was worldly things. The Messiah was there, but all the disciple could think of was getting Him to divide a little money or property. The rich man was blessed beyond measure, but his wealth came to be his undoing; he believed that he was prepared for whatever came his way.

Covetousness can be trust in what's already ours. Covetousness can be wanting what we're rightfully due. That's why Paul equated covetousness with idolatry in Colossians 3:5. When we start living for goods instead of God, we're idolaters. Do you think we should learn to get by with a little less?

Romans 14 has come to be one of the most misunderstood and misused chapters in Scripture. Some today take it to authorize smoothing over any doctrinal difference, from instrumental music to baptism to even homosexuality. They call this wrenching of the passage "grace." When paired with its sister passage I Corinthians 8, however, its true meaning becomes clear - and that meaning is not what my friends on the theological left infer.

First, note that these passages speak only to matters where God is indifferent. They do not apply in matters where there is a clear command from God. Note what Paul writes in v. 14: "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean."  In context, what he's saying is, unlike the Old Law, no meats are unclean under the Law of Christ; thus, whether one eats or not is a matter of indifference to God.

Practically, if there's no agreement between the two disputants that God is indifferent to the matter at the heart of their disagreement, there's no point in running to Romans 14. If I believe X is sin and you believe it isn't, trying to browbeat me with this passage only distracts from the central question: Is X sin or not? Resolve the question of what God's will is and you resolve the problem.

Second, note that these passages refer to individual action, not collective. The eating of meats was a personal action, not one done by the church collective (v. 2-4).

This is important - crucial, even - because many of the issues incorrectly shoehorned into Romans 14 are matters of collective action. Trying to impose Romans 14 on collective action results in the supposed weaker brother facing a choice between violation of his conscience or leaving the congregation. Is unity so important to some that they'd force their brother to sin in order to have it? It certainly seems that way to me.

What is Paul's main point in these passages? It's about priorities. Your brother is more important than your preference. Paul said that he would gladly give up his preference to retain his brother (I Corinthians 8:13), and this is what he enjoins Christians to do as well (Romans 14:13, 15,  20-21; I Corinthians 8:9-13). When we use Romans 14 as a club to force what we see as a preference on others contrary to their conscience, we cause either sin or division. "Go along with me or leave" is the practical result of such doctrine, and the exact opposite of Paul's intent in these passages.

I have a weakness for obscure and uncommon words. I recently came across one of these in Isaiah 40:28, where the prophet says of God, "His understanding is inscrutable."

"Inscrutable" isn't a word we commonly use today, but it's one that fits God and His understanding well. It can be defined as "cryptic," "impossible to fathom," or "incomprehensible." Isn't this the perfect description of our awesome and infinite God? Our fallible and finite minds can't grasp His wonder and power. God is alien to us, totally foreign, unlike anything else we can relate Him to. This is exactly what Isaiah says a few chapters later. I always think of the book of Job, where Job and his friends spend chapter upon chapter upon chapter arguing the nature of God - only to have God appear at the end to tell them that none of them understand Him!

Thankfully, God has chosen to reveal something of Himself in the Bible. If you want to know about Him, read what He has written via inspired men. Don't guess at what He wants; that way lies folly. Don't think that because you like or don't like something, He will feel the same way; God isn't like you. Learn more about Him through His revelation in Scripture, and then do what He commands.

Q: In Hebrews 10:1-4, the writer says that, in contrast to the blood of Christ, the blood of animal sacrifices could not take away sin. However, passages such as Leviticus 4:27-31 and Numbers 15:25-28 seem to indicate that the sins of Israelites under the Law of Moses would be forgiven in conjunction with animal sacrifices. Does this mean that the sins of Israelites were actually "rolled forward" each year by the annual sacrifices until they could be forgiven at the cross?

A: This is a belief I've encountered among Christians ever since I can remember. However, it's one I've never been able to find in Scripture.

For example, in Numbers 14:19-20, we see God had already forgiven - past tense - the sins of the people. The sins of these people were not "rolled forward"; they were simply forgiven at that time.

To properly understand this issue, one must carefully read what Hebrews actually says. It does not say the Israelites were not forgiven. It does not say, as some argue, that sins were not forgiven under the Old Covenant. What it indicates is that the blood of bulls and goats alone cannot forgive sins.

Hebrews 9 and 10 contrast the perfect sacrifice of Christ with the imperfect ones under the Old Law. Recall that Hebrews was written to Jewish Christians to convince them that the Law of Christ was superior to the Law of Moses. They were not to waver in their faith to God through Jesus; they were not to turn back to the Law as the basis for their salvation. Ultimately, it was the blood of Christ that allowed even those under the Old Law to be forgiven. To turn one's back on the sacrifice of Christ would mean one was depending on the imperfect sacrifices of bulls and goats alone to remit his sins. He would reject Jesus' blood and hope only in the sacrifices offered by priests to forgive his sins - which it could not.

The life and death of Christ was the fulfillment of the Law (Matthew 5:17-18, Luke 24:44); with the Law fulfilled,it is obsolete and taken away. The Christian should not look to it for justification and forgiveness. This is the writer's point throughout Hebrews, including the passage above in Hebrews 10.