As we move into the new year, our debate will finally get to
the subject originally promised. The main lesson I’ve learned is that I’m going
to stop quoting Presbyterians, as I keep picking the ones who have been
defrocked. Rather than any major regrouping, I’d rather start by pointing out
the obvious. There are a couple of questions that remain unanswered from the
earlier posts.
The phrase that muddies the water is, again, that there
should be a distinction between the sign and the thing signified. While this is
clearly evident as a Roman failing when we think of transubstantiation at
Communion in Roman theology, what is not at all clear is how the Holy Spirit is
involved in the Presbyterian Lord’s Supper. The pneumatic presence that is part and
parcel of this theology is not explained. Let’s go to the standard, a place
where MDA (Monroe Doctrine Author) will have to stand fast.
Chapter XXVII of the Westminster Confession of Faith,
interestingly enough the last chapter, states the following. Sacraments are the holy signs and seals of
the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and
His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him: as also, to put a visible
difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world;
and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His
Word. Clearly, signs and seals of the covenant of grace means something
important here, but I would have MDA sort this out.
Westminster goes on with this, that there is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental
union between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that
the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other. Now, this is
exactly the issue. My several reads through this seem more similar to Anglican
theology and less similar to Presbyterian theology as I am coming to understand
it. Some explanation will be required in this section as well.
The grace which is
exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power
in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or
intention of him that does administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and
the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing
the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers. As far as the
location of the power being in the Spirit and the word of institution, we have
no argument. This is classic Reformed thinking and is mirroring the 39 Articles
very closely. What is still unclear is
that there are benefits of sacraments mentioned, but what exactly are those
benefits in the Presbyterian system?
The last two points are not worth a discussion as they are
Reformed givens.
Any Anglican can see why this emphasis on separation of sign
and thing signified seems contrary to the very essence of a sacrament, that
there is something sacred at work. What is more, the Westminster standard seems
to agree with the Anglican position. Surely, I have misunderstood this emphasis
and I am therefore making much of little. I leave these issues to MDA for
explanation.
Second Hypothetical
Let us consider an adult male member of each church. Let us
for a moment assume that this man is baptized and a member in good standing in
the church. The obvious theological point is that this man is a covenant
member. He is outwardly and visibly a member of the covenant community. However,
there is no clear knowledge of his inward or invisible faith. In other words,
despite his participation in church, he may not actually be among the elect.
Now, let us add a visible sin to the picture. This man owns a local hardware
store. His store is open Saturday and Sunday (for clarity and to sure there is
a fourth commandment issue), and he not only works in the store himself on
these days, but forces his employees to do the same. He is unwilling to hear of
anyone telling him otherwise. Let us begin.
I chose this example for several reasons, but there are two
compelling issues here. First, many would say that this isn’t really a sin. I
fail to see the wiggle room myself, but if MDA chooses, he can change the sin
to one more suited to his arguments. Secondly, once we accept this is a true
violation of the fourth commandment in the intention of the man, we can easily
move past the issue of its habitual nature.
Now, it is to MDA to explain how he views the situation of
this man in terms of his ultimate salvation, membership in the church, state of
repentance and finally whether and how he is fenced and disciplined. My own
thoughts I will save for second place as I have far too much ground to cover
without first understanding the process about which we will spar.
To all who chance upon this blog, I wish you a blessed 2014.
– Troll –
No comments:
Post a Comment