Means of Grace or Means of Memorial; Sacraments or Ordinances.
The way in which you refer to the elements of the Lord's Supper, and Baptism may be rooted in a philosophy derived from your theology. The methods your church employs in the practice of these implements will reflect the theology that backs their practice in the first place. Both sides of the issue believe that God has ordained certain practices for our observance, but the question is, are these practices considered sacred.
The Ordinances as Memorial
Largely, I believe, the fruit of non-reformed theology (neither Calvinistic nor Covenantal) the memorialist view of the Lord's Supper at least, is an over-reaction on Ulrich Zwingli's part against the Roman Catholic doctrine of trans-substantiation. Granted, the Roman view of the Eucharistic meal was then and is now heretical however, the adoption of a memorialist view diminishes in the minds of the parishioners the sanctifying power of the Lord's Supper. If we see the Supper only as a way to remember what Christ has done in the atonement, then we will not receive the God ordained and gracious sanctification that He intends to deliver through this mean, and the frequency with which we partake of it together will be lessened.
Likewise with baptism. The debate over paedo or believer's baptism aside, if we view this only as an individual's identification with Christ, an outward sign of his belief and commitment to the Lordship of Christ only, then we may miss the larger picture of Christ redeeming an entire people for Himself, and our identification with the community of God in Christ can become overshadowed by our individualistic identity as a new creation in Christ.
The Sacred Desk
Another sacred element of our corporate worship is the desk. And by desk I mean the pulpit upon which the very Word of God is elevated above our heads to indicate His condescension. Different from the sacraments of the Supper and baptism, the right proclamation of the Word of God (therein contains the Law and Gospel) is the means of both, justifying and sanctifying grace, proceeding from the mouth of the shepherds of God and carried with force into the hearts of unsuspecting men by the Holy Spirit, it should be elevated in our hearts and considered all together sacred. thus it's physical place during the corporate worship of God's people is likely a symptom of the place it inhabits in our stated theologies.
The Sacraments as a Means of Grace
When we view the Lord's Supper and baptism as means of grace, we are not suggesting that these are a means to justifying grace; they do not confer the righteousness of Christ to us. What we mean is that God has ordained the practices of preaching, baptism and the Supper as means to the sanctification of His people and that the practice of them are so important that their absence in the life of a child of God will result in his eventual spiritual starvation. The grace that is conferred in the sacred meal and by the observance of baptism is the grace that renews our faith as often as they are practiced, thus the practice of baptism as often as one is (depending on one's view) either saved, or given the covenant sign, and the practice of eating the covenant meal with other believers perhaps as often as you gather, is as useful in the display and reception of God's sanctifying grace as His Word is useful in the proclamation of the grace that justifies.
The way in which you refer to the elements of the Lord's Supper, and Baptism may be rooted in a philosophy derived from your theology. The methods your church employs in the practice of these implements will reflect the theology that backs their practice in the first place. Both sides of the issue believe that God has ordained certain practices for our observance, but the question is, are these practices considered sacred.
The Ordinances as Memorial
Largely, I believe, the fruit of non-reformed theology (neither Calvinistic nor Covenantal) the memorialist view of the Lord's Supper at least, is an over-reaction on Ulrich Zwingli's part against the Roman Catholic doctrine of trans-substantiation. Granted, the Roman view of the Eucharistic meal was then and is now heretical however, the adoption of a memorialist view diminishes in the minds of the parishioners the sanctifying power of the Lord's Supper. If we see the Supper only as a way to remember what Christ has done in the atonement, then we will not receive the God ordained and gracious sanctification that He intends to deliver through this mean, and the frequency with which we partake of it together will be lessened.
Likewise with baptism. The debate over paedo or believer's baptism aside, if we view this only as an individual's identification with Christ, an outward sign of his belief and commitment to the Lordship of Christ only, then we may miss the larger picture of Christ redeeming an entire people for Himself, and our identification with the community of God in Christ can become overshadowed by our individualistic identity as a new creation in Christ.
The Sacred Desk
Another sacred element of our corporate worship is the desk. And by desk I mean the pulpit upon which the very Word of God is elevated above our heads to indicate His condescension. Different from the sacraments of the Supper and baptism, the right proclamation of the Word of God (therein contains the Law and Gospel) is the means of both, justifying and sanctifying grace, proceeding from the mouth of the shepherds of God and carried with force into the hearts of unsuspecting men by the Holy Spirit, it should be elevated in our hearts and considered all together sacred. thus it's physical place during the corporate worship of God's people is likely a symptom of the place it inhabits in our stated theologies.
The Sacraments as a Means of Grace
When we view the Lord's Supper and baptism as means of grace, we are not suggesting that these are a means to justifying grace; they do not confer the righteousness of Christ to us. What we mean is that God has ordained the practices of preaching, baptism and the Supper as means to the sanctification of His people and that the practice of them are so important that their absence in the life of a child of God will result in his eventual spiritual starvation. The grace that is conferred in the sacred meal and by the observance of baptism is the grace that renews our faith as often as they are practiced, thus the practice of baptism as often as one is (depending on one's view) either saved, or given the covenant sign, and the practice of eating the covenant meal with other believers perhaps as often as you gather, is as useful in the display and reception of God's sanctifying grace as His Word is useful in the proclamation of the grace that justifies.
7 comments:
Things are quiet here, so I have a couple of thoughts.
Some argument has been made for a change in the posture that ministers take when preaching. In the early church, the priest/bishop would preach while seated on his throne. This is rarely seen nowadays, except in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox communions, and not always there either. It is argued that standing to preach is a result of the influx of Greek rhetoric into Christian liturgy as a part of the Hellenization of the Church. Here's an article on it, though I can't say I agree with everything in the article:
http://www.kuyper.org/main/publish/books_essays/article_35.shtml
James Jordan also argues in favour of returning to the throne in his book "The Sociology of the Church".
Also, Zwingli has been credited with holding a memorialist view of Communion, a "spiritual eating" view of Communion, and a Calvinistic view of Communion. Most theologians credit him with the first view, a few less with the second, and very few with the third. But in a letter to King Francis, Zwingli said, "If I have called this a commemoration, I have done so in order to controvert those who would make of it a sacrifice. . . . We believe that Christ is truly present in the Lord’s Supper; yea, that there is no communion without such presence. . . . We believe that the true Body of Christ is eaten in Communion, not in a gross and carnal manner, but in a spiritual and sacramental manner, by the religious, believing, and pious heart." This suggests that the view he actually held was the same as Calvin's.
Missed you at Bible study the other week. Family on vacation?
Kerry,
Thanks so much for the comment. I will check out the Kuyper article...coming from a baptistic/dispensation background, I have experienced the the over "Hellenization" of theological thought, and the loss of what I think the eastern part of the church would refer to as mystery. I might be wrong in the name of the categories there.
I think maybe I have misunderstood other's assessment of Zwingli's view on communion, or do you think we can separate one's view over the type of substantiation with the pastoral effect of communion, whether it be exclusively for remembrance or as a means of grace?
I don’t think you have misunderstood other's assessment of Zwingli's view on communion. I think Zwingli’s views on communion have been misunderstood by those attempting to represent them, and you rightly believed what you heard others say about him. You’re simply repeating what you’ve been taught, and you’d have no way of knowing whether or not what you were taught was correct. I thought the same about Zwingli for a long time. It seems that Zwingli himself is at least partly to blame for our misunderstanding him, as is indicated by the quote, which also indicates that the misunderstanding was something Zwingli was dealing with during his own life.
On the last part of you’re statement… many people live in a blissful inconsistency with their professed beliefs. So there are people who will have errant views of Holy Communion until the day they die, and while it will have effects on them individually as well as on those in community with them, it won’t cause them to stumble spiritually. Nonetheless, ideas do have consequences, and the consequences are inevitable to some degree. The memorialist view of the Supper creates an individualistic mindset, first in the individual, then in the family, then in the local church, then in the larger community, and so on, as it spreads in concentric circles outward. The memorialist view of the Supper also encourages an introspective faith, as opposed to an extrospective faith (if I can coin a new word). The Gospel is outside of us, and a memorialist view of the Supper causes one to look inward for salvation rather than outward to Christ. Salvation becomes more about personal transformation than the work of Christ. One becomes more focused on his own sinfulness than God’s mercy manifest in Christ’s righteousness. I grew up in a church that not only held to a memorialist view, but also celebrated Communion every Sunday. I am also naturally a more introspective person, so the whole thing was a recipe for disaster for me. I wasn’t one of the ones to live in blissful inconsistency. I tried everything I was told, and it didn’t work. For the same reasons, I’m opposed to corporate worship that includes a time of personal quiet meditation, or confession of sin in worship being done silently as a regular practice. I believe these encourage an unhealthy introspectiveness if done on a regular basis. Christians should be encouraged to a more outward-looking faith, and the main place to encourage that is corporate worship. I don’t believe then that private worship (“quiet time”, as Evangelicals would call it) is wrong, but it isn’t primary to the Christian life in the same way that corporate worship is, though the two do exist in tandum with one another. And even in my own private worship, I go about it in a structured, liturgical fashion. I do use part of the time for “extemporaneous” prayer, but that is a minor part. Most of my private worship time involves structured liturgies, which I usually read out loud, written prayers read out loud, and Scripture read out loud.
There’s more to my answer here than you asked, but all tied to the matter we were talking about, I guess.
Kerry,
I missed last thursday due to getting back from a business trip very late Wednesday night (actually Thursday morning) so I slept in a bit.
Thanks so much for taking the time to read and comment here. I believe discussion like this is most helpful, especially as I am just now (in the past 3-4 years) seriously working through what I believe and why I believe it regarding these issues.
I believe that it is not until our written words and thoughts are really challenged our examined objectively that we begin to think more clearly and write more clearly about what we believe, perhaps this happen in the historical misunderstanding of Zwingli.
Instead of my saying this, "What we mean is that God has ordained the practices of preaching, baptism and the Supper as means to the sanctification of His people and that the practice of them are so important that their absence in the life of a child of God will result in his eventual spiritual starvation." would you suggest something like, "What we mean is that God has ordained the practices of preaching, baptism and the Supper as means to the sanctification of His people and that the practice of them are so important that their absence in the life of a child of God may result in his spiritual hunger rather than his spiritual satisfaction." Having in mind of course, the memorialist view of the Supper and the introspectiveness that promotes as opposed to the extrospectiveness (to use a word coined by a friend :)) of the gospel?
On another, related note, my family and I witnessed our first infant baptism, and we were quite blessed.
Lastly, you mentioned the danger of practicing silent confession in corporate worship. At Redeemer we do have a time of "confession" and sometimes it is used for confession of a particular sin (one noted in a theme in the service) and other times it is used as a confession of belief, in imputation, resurrection, etc.
Between your first and second statements, I would say the second one is better. Salvation isn’t inseparably tied to the sacraments or to preaching such that God can’t save without them. But these are God’s normal ways of saving people, and where they are, one may be assured Christians are. Where they aren’t, one can’t be assured of the presence of Christians. And it isn’t the absence of these things that damns, per se, but the knowing neglect of them.
I would mention a couple of things, though. Baptism isn’t really considered a means of sanctification in Reformed theology. Sure, if I’m witnessing someone else being baptized, that could be a means of sanctification for me. And if someone is an adult convert being baptized, then you could say that their baptism is something of a means of sanctification for them. But baptism is, as some liturgical scholars call it, the sacrament of initiation. If you look at the way WCF ch. 28 describes baptism, particularly section 1, the accent is on things that begin the Christian life. For instance, baptism is, to the one baptized, a sign and seal of his ingrafting into Christ. And I would say that this is the way Scripture treats baptism. Baptism is death and resurrection (Romans 6). Baptism is the washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5). Baptism is new birth (John 3:5). These passages flow out of pre-existing Biblical typology, which I would say presents baptism as the first step in one’s relationship with God, though I won’t get into that any further now. Just because one is baptized doesn’t necessarily mean he’s regenerate or elect. But the language of Scripture is such that the one who is baptized is to be regarded as regenerate and elect without any doubt until such a time as he decides to apostatize from the faith. And so if a person is baptized, we say he’s saved. A person who isn’t elect but is a member of the church is still somehow joined to Christ (John 15, Hebrews 6, Romans 11). But different scholars have different ways of explaining this. For that matter, they have different ways of explaining everything I’ve just said. The position I’ve explained just happens to be one view (i. e. my view) of these things.
There’s more going on with baptism than I’ve mentioned. But the short of it is this: if someone is baptized, I regard them to be a Christian, unless they verbally deny some central tenet of the Christian faith. And even if they do, they are still covenantally bound to repent of their heresy.
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are union (baptism) and communion (Lord’s Supper) with Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Supper would, then, be a means of sanctification. But it’s not something we reflect on, though it‘s not wrong to reflect on it; it’s something we “do”, corporately, as a memorial to Christ. Remembering, Biblically, is acting something out, not just reflecting on it in a Rationalistic way. This should be emphasized in our teaching on it, and demonstrated in the way we do Holy Communion.
On confession at Redeemer, are you saying that they just have a time that they call “confession”, and that sometimes it is a confession of sin, whereas sometimes it’s a confession of faith? That would seem like a strange approach to me, as historically in worship these have been two different things, being that they serve two completely different purposes. The confession of sin usually comes either at the beginning of the service, right after the introductory (or “processional”) hymn, or else it comes right at the beginning of the communion portion of the service (which it does in my church, though the first option makes more sense to me). The confession of sin is a sort of cleansing and a clearing of one’s relationship with God as one enters into the time of corporate fellowship with Him. The confession of faith historically has been placed within the context of the service of the word (the first part of the liturgy) either after the reading of the day’s Scripture lessons as a response, or after the sermon as a response. The confession of faith used is one of the Ecumenical Creeds, usually either the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed, as the Athanasian Creed is generally considered too long (and, I think, too controversial) to read in the liturgy on a regular basis.
But the Reformed church has historically been too free, in my opinion, in the way they’ve dealt with these things. Reformed churches will, rather than having a set liturgy, play around with it, changing things from week to week. Some Reformed churches will have a confession of sin, many will not. Some weeks there will be a confession of sin, other weeks there won’t be. Sometimes that confession of sin will be a prayer read in unison, sometimes it will be the singing of a penitential Psalm, and sometimes it will be a prayer of penitence prayed by the Pastor on behalf of the congregation. Some Reformed churches will have a confession of faith, many will not; and those that do have one on occasion often won’t have one. Rather than using one of the Ecumenical Creeds, the pastor might take something from the Westminster Standards, or Heidelberg, or Belgic, or Dordt, and stick that in the order of worship and call it a confession of faith. But the point of the confession, in part, is the unity of the church throughout the world and throughout all time. If we use something not affirmed by the rest of Christendom, then we isolate ourselves from them.
These are some of the reasons I’m in an Anglican church and not a Reformed church, though I’m more Reformed in my beliefs. I’m a firm believer in holding to the traditional liturgy, and I’m opposed to the typical Reformed approach of playing around with the order of worship and changing it constantly.
My real opposition to silent meditation and silent confession of sin in the service centers on the “silent” part. I’m all in favor of the confession of sin in corporate worship. I just believe it should be said, out loud, in unison, and not done in a silent, individualistic fashion.
I’m still fairly new to the Reformed world, you might say. It’s been ten or eleven years since I started really opening up to Reformed theology, and my encounters with it stretched back a couple of years before that. Getting the ins and outs of it takes a lot of study, and nobody can know everything. But it is good to talk about these things, like you said, and to learn all we can, so long as it doesn’t turn into an idolatrous pursuit of knowledge. That’s something we always need to be on our guard about.
Thanks for indulging my on this long response. Let me know if any of this is unclear or if you’d like more explanation on any of this.
Kerry,
I too am fairly new to the Reformed camp, though I would consider myself reformed now, I may not be able to accurately articulate all the implications of that yet, and I pray be God's grace that I am always willing to allow my pursuit of biblical truth to adjust my understanding of reality, and not be sold out, so to speak, to a brand.
Sometime in 2002 I was convinced of the doctrines of grace, and ever since then I have been moving away from a dispy/premil hermeneutic (with intention in the last 18 months)
I agree with your recent statements,
"Salvation isn’t inseparably tied to the sacraments or to preaching such that God can’t save without them. But these are God’s normal ways of saving people, and where they are, one may be assured Christians are. Where they aren’t, one can’t be assured of the presence of Christians. And it isn’t the absence of these things that damns, per se, but the knowing neglect of them."
You said, "Baptism isn’t really considered a means of sanctification in Reformed theology."
I thought I had heard the WHI guys speak of baptism as a means of grace (sanctifying) and that's why I had considered it as such, but maybe I had misunderstood them.
You said, "Sure, if I’m witnessing someone else being baptized, that could be a means of sanctification for me. And if someone is an adult convert being baptized, then you could say that their baptism is something of a means of sanctification for them."
I think this is the way in which the WHI guys consider baptism as a means of grace, and I agree. I don't want it to seem like I think they are infallible in their interpretation of scripture, but I have allowed them to inform me on this and other related topics.
As far as the confession in gathered worship, Redeemer would be the type of Reformed church which changes the liturgy some week to week, but not a great deal. The time of confession for instance, when it is a confession of our sin, it usually is a puritan prayer or sometimes something written by one of the elders confessing a sin that the week's text exposes, and this would be done in responsive reading format, or just read allowed by all, often in a knelt posture. When it is a confusion of faith or truth, we use similar formats (not knelt) responsive reading of the Apostles' creed, from a confession, or again, something written by an elder pertaining to the truths exposed in the text for the week. But the only "silent" part would be personal prayer regarding what we have just confessed as a community.
Your right though, our liturgical standards wouldn't be as consistent week to week as in the Anglican tradition, at least from what I've understood you to say.
Thanks for the interaction, it is most helpful!
Aside from Dr. Sproul, the other way that I mainly cut my teeth on Reformed theology was through the White Horse Inn and Modern Reformation. It’s been a number of years since I listened to their new shows regularly, but I think it’s safe to assume that their positions haven’t changed. I have a bunch of old audio cassettes of the show that I still listen to occasionally.
When it comes to the White Horse Inn guys, it depends on which one of them you’re talking about as to what their view of baptism is. Ken Jones, since he’s a Baptist, would at best consider baptism a means of sanctification, if he considers it a means of grace at all. Rod Rosenbladt, on the other end of things, would very openly speak of baptism as a means of regeneration, even using the phrase “baptismal regeneration”. He’s a Lutheran, and that is the Lutheran position. Horton and Riddlebarger tend to agree on most things, and from what I’ve heard from them, they agree on this as well. They would see baptism as a means by which God conveys regeneration, among other things. Here are some quotes from Horton.
From Horton’s book, A Better Way, pg. 101, speaking of John 3: “While we recognize a distinction, there is no separation of water baptism (the sign) and the baptism of the Spirit (the thing signified), for they are regarded already as united.”
The same book, pg. 103-104: “Scripture refers to water baptism as the laver of regeneration and forgiveness because the sign does truly participate in the thing signified.” See again WCF 28 for what is signified in baptism.
In his book In the Face of God, pg. 139-140, Horton approvingly quotes The Scots Confession of 1560: “And so we utterly condemn the vanity of those who affirm the sacraments to be nothing else than naked and bare signs. No, we assuredly believe that by baptism we are engrafted into Christ Jesus, to be made partakers of his righteousness, by which our sins are covered and remitted….”
In his book Covenant and Eschatology, on pg. 270, Horton says, “Through baptism, believers and their children are incorporated into the divine drama, rescripted from ‘strangers and aliens’ into ‘the people of God,’ grafted onto Jesus Christ as their life-giving vine.”
In an article called Union with Christ, located here - http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/questions/horton/union.html
- Horton says: “As baptism is a sign and seal of our attachment to the vine (the beginning of our union), the Lord's Supper is a sign and seal of our perpetual nourishment from the vine.” Also, “As a husband and wife are united through marriage and a parent and a child are united through birth, so we are united to Christ through the Spirit's baptism.”
And lastly, from an old episode of the White Horse Inn, in one of Horton’s commentaries: “Through the word of the Gospel, the Spirit connects this washing with water, somehow, to a real inward cleansing and regeneration. So in baptism, normal water becomes sacred water, as the waters of the Red Sea, though normal waters, became a means through which God redeemed His people from slavery in Egypt.”
This may be overkill, but I wanted to give a few references to demonstrate his position. And it was through the White Horse Inn that I first moved towards the position I hold now. That isn’t to say that Horton and I would agree with everything the other says about the sacraments. And there is a lot more to baptism than what these quotes address. Nonetheless, I thought you’d find these helpful.
Post a Comment