Doctrines of Grace, Judgment, Discernment, Discipline and Forgiveness

   It has been discussed in public forum of late the particular sin of a particular young man. As he is a public figure, his image and reputation have taken a beating. To begin this discussion, I would start by first differentiating The Law from civil ordinance. The Law of God as expressed in the Decalogue and interpreted by Jesus is incontrovertible, absolute, fundamental and at the same time impossible. Civil ordinance is by man for man, judged by man, enforced by man and punished by man. It has a purpose that in many respects parallels the Law, but takes far more specifics into account. Case law is another animal altogether and beyond the scope of this post. To discuss the doctrines of grace, one is entering into discourse concerning The Law of God.

   The doctrines of grace are a set of principles that were a response to a challenge by the followers of Jacob Arminius to the followers of John Calvin by those same followers of Calvin. We use the English acronym TULIP to abbreviate those doctrines, but this often seems to wash the discussion of any serious consideration. The mere mentioning of the word “Calvinist” shuts down the brains of many who would rather lose their eyes than read about anything as heretical as God’s grace. Nonetheless, that is where I will soldier onward with the post.

   In order to understand grace, you have to understand the problem. The problem is the fall, the fall of Adam, and the resultant inherited condemnation of all men under the Law. Many have said that this is not fair, that we should inherit the guilt of our fathers. Yet, examples of this are as plain in human history as our noses, and we still deny this basic tenet. Are monarchies fair? Ask the Romanovs, the children. The punishment for Adam's sin was death. God said that we have inherited this guilt forever (Genesis 3:17-19) for surely there are no true human immortals on this earth. Our faith is based upon a lifting of this curse by some mechanism. So, the first doctrine of grace is that all humans are born into sin without exception.

   Now, it comes to this, some people are saved by God for God. It should come to no one’s surprise that there are people in this world who are damned for all time. Without a doubt, Judas Iscariot falls into this category. In Matthew 27, Judas changes his mind and attempts to return the thirty pieces of silver. In the Greek, the word for changing your mind is different than that for repent. Thus, Judas is said to not have repented and is therefore condemned. If you accept that God, as the potter, has the right to make one vessel for one purpose and another vessel for another purpose, and that there are no conditions made by that vessel that can effect God’s purpose, then you are understanding the concept of God’s sovereignty.

   This next point is tricky, but it follows directly from the above. God has decided to save some of humanity for Himself. Which ones? Only He knows, but there is nothing any of us can do about becoming one of His vessels chosen for salvation. Again, this is a sovereignty issue. The manner of this salvation is of course not disputed: Christ came into the world to save sinners.

  If God has selected you for salvation, it is going to happen. There is nothing that you can do about it. It’s like catching chicken pox. One day, you will find yourself in the right place at the right time, and it just happens. Just like chicken pox, once you have been selected, you cannot be unselected. Why would God undo His own will? So, His grace is sufficient for His people, completely sufficient.

   Some of you are astute readers, and would have recognized these doctrines of grace for what they are without the benefit of their English acronym labels. But this is just pure logic from the pen of the Reformers. The doctrines of grace mean that God ultimately chooses His own people, and we do not hold the answers to who is on the roster. There are many side issues that happen along this discussion that I will not wander upon today, but when a Reformed person talks about grace, that person has a very high view of God’s sovereignty and a very humble view of his own merits.

   Which brings me back to this young public figure and the definitions of judgment and discernment. There is only one Judge, and I am not He. Judgment is coming, and God already knows the verdict. We are all guilty, yes, guilty. See total depravity above concerning the problem of sin. But some of us have an Advocate with the Father, one who has ransomed our salvation with His own blood. We have been reclaimed from the refuse heap, saved from damnation, selected for eternal life. Judgment is not a human thing in this context.

   Discernment is another matter. We are charged to discern between right preaching, right theology and that other gospel that is not really the gospel at all. Not all people are equally equipped in this matter, and many should avoid that playing field entirely. Because the penalty for wrong shepherds are steep indeed according to Paul’s letters to Timothy. With leadership comes great responsibility. Discernment is the realm of wisdom, the application of reason and knowledge to the arena of faith. Discernment is about interpretation and hermeneutics, a fertile ground for disagreement even amongst biblical scholars. Yet, it doesn’t take a PhD to recognize some obvious failings of doctrine.

   In the realm of men, we have civil laws. We have social responsibilities. We have actions and consequences. In civil law, we in the West begin from a very different starting point. Go back to the third paragraph: God starts from the position that all of humanity is damned. Humans in our civil undertakings start from the opposite premise that all of humanity is innocent. If you do not recognize that this is a vastly different playing field, then you will be doomed to misunderstand judgment in the two contexts. Humans judge humans according to civil ordinances and social standards. Actions have consequences in this realm. An infringement of the civil law should have a commensurate judgment and punishment. In this way, men judge men.

   No one is suggesting that our young public figure should escape civil justice, far from it. God instructs us to respect the laws of men for a reason, namely, he fully expects us all to mess it up from time to time. We are all inheritors of the fall, after all. In addition, the world is made up of vessels chosen for salvation and those who were not. Both the Law and civil law applies to all of us, but the civil law is something that we ourselves can police and enforce.

  Let me introduce another word here: discipline. Discipline is not just punishment. Punishment is the result of an adverse judgment. Discipline involves correction. Our responsibility as Christians is to discipline our own. This means that we should come alongside each other and help them to correct their errs and assist in creating patterns of behavior that best resemble those set forth by The Law as explained by Christ. Let me emphasize not the correction, but the coming alongside portion of that definition. Do you think that publically ridiculing this young man has any place in the sort of discipline that I am describing?

  I need to introduce one last term: forgiveness. Recite the Lord’s Prayer right now. Go on, I’ll wait. “…forgive us our sins (trespasses) as we forgive those who sin (trespass) against us." (My apologies to those who use “debtors” in this place.) So, according to the Lord’s Prayer, and many other places besides, we have an obligation to forgive. We have an OBLIGATION to FORGIVE. This is not an option for Christians. Why? Because judgment under the Law of God is not our province. We must forgive, that is our province.

   Finally, coming back again to our young public figure. Let us walk through a full and appropriate response to his actions. First, under civil law, he is innocent until proven guilty. Once adjudged guilty, he will be punished. Second, under social convention, our standards are not as high. He has already been adjudged unworthy of his position as a public figure and accordingly punished. As Christians, our obligation is to forgive him his sin. As Christians in his local Christian community, those involved must also exercise discipline, to come alongside the young man and redirect his actions, showing him the way and assisting him in developing habits worthy of his calling as one of Christ’s own.

   There are certainly nuances and what if games to play, but this should be sufficient discussion of this topic to allow for a more successful discernment of the issues at play in this discussion. 

-Troll-

Marks of the Church: Resumption of discussion.

I was somewhat taken aback with the change in tone by the Monroe Doctrine Author (MDA) in his last post that was written in response to me. So, I needed time to walk away and then come back to our discussion. Let me start by responding and clarifying a small amount before we get into the second hypothetical. 

While MDA claims that I made a “pedantic” statement concerning the nature of the sacraments, it clearly is not a point of minutia to me, and thereby we can see a fairly large point of departure. What I have tried to do is to pin down exactly what it is that is the nature of a sacrament in the Presbyterian world, and it still seems elusive to me. Where I am accused in finding “virtue in confusion” is in actual fact my attempts at clearing my own confusion on the issue, a point that I am no further along than I was three months ago.  

What I have attempted to do in my own posts is to point to a decided difference in ecclesiology that is reflected in the practices of the two churches. Since the sacraments are marks of the church in both systems, it stood to reason that these issues needed to be sorted prior to tackling the Presbyterian third mark. I have failed utterly in making my own points clear as instead I have been characterized as a champion of confusion. Therefore, let me make my own points clear once more.

Baptism in the Anglican world is not the same as in the Lutheran world. “The reformed understanding is that there should neither be confusion (as with Rome) nor separation (as in Zwingli) between the sign and the thing signified.” We agree on this point. MDA asserts that I believe in an ex opere relationship of baptism to regeneration, while I have asserted quite differently. His assertion is consistent with the Lutheran tradition, and I have stated that this is not the Anglican tradition, at least as I understand it. I have tried to make a distinction between the sign and seal of covenant in Baptism with regeneration despite simultaneous occurrence of these events in the elect. This is a distinction that MDA does not seem to recognize in my writing, so I will attempt it again. The example that is useful is the covenant member who is not elect. Baptism brings this person into the covenant community, but no regeneration occurs. This is why this person might be seen to fall away from the church. This example makes plain that the Anglican understanding of baptism is different from the Lutheran understanding. The ontological separation of these events, baptism and regeneration, does not require temporal separation, however. This is an important point, and not at all of minutia.

Similarly, my long dwelling on baptism, ecclesiology and liturgy was in fact to demonstrate a lack of need to fence the table in the Anglican world. I view fencing the table a form of discipline, and in this I may be in error from the mindset of the Presbyterian. But I have not been explicitly told so as of this writing, and it may be that this is accurate in certain circumstances, but not in others.

The question that I have left on the table was basically this: what is the nature of the Presbyterian meaning of “pneumatic presence” in the Lord’s Supper as it is clearly different from that meant by the Anglicans, though I have not been able to articulate either side with sufficient clarity to further the discussion. Perhaps MDA will finally take up this point.

Now, moving on the MDA response to the second hypothetical, I would start with this statement. I chose a particular sin knowing it was difficult. MDA answered the particular question very well, but not the spirit of the question. In directing an appropriate next step in our discussion, I would ask MDA to change the habitual sin to any other one he chooses, so long as it requires the formal discipline process within the church. This will best give MDA an opportunity to forward his view of the discipline process as he understands it.

Remembering that we are both brothers in Christ Jesus, I put the ball back into your court, sir.

A Debate on the Marks of the Church: Part 2 of Opening Salvo

In beginning of our discussion of the Presbyterian third mark of the Church, it helps from the outset to know that this is not a subject that is viewed lightly or without a very substantial history of vigorous debate. The Westminster Confession of Faith has a section on this topic, and the debate at the Westminster convention or court is interesting reading. There are books on this topic. But first, let me set out a general pattern.

As a pastor described to me, the idea is that most instances are resolved at the first or second level and never get to the last level. What are these levels? First, there is the concerned fellow covenant communicant or church member, but there should be two. They would confront a communicant over an issue of sin, hopefully to guild that person towards counseling with a goal of repentance. The next level of intervention would be the elders, who would similarly seek to correct the communicant, with the goal being restoration of that person by repentance. Finally, things get to the pastoral level and subsequently and organized process of courts within the church that resembles the legal system. This is the last resort and is usually reached only by the communicant either refusing to admit their sin or to be willing to turn from it.

While I will leave it to my friend to polish this process as much as he feels is necessary, I want to focus on the model of Church membership that drives this system. The covenant community has a door in that is baptism and a door out that is excommunication. What follows in the typical Presbyterian discourse on the subject is a lot of discussion about 1 Corinthians 5 and Matthew 16:19. “Binding and loosing” are translated as “forbid and allow,” and there is an implication of oversight based upon a standard.  The Westminster Confession emphasizes that the Church is a Kingdom, the representation of the Lord’s Kingdom in the already, but not yet; the inter-advental time in which we live. Kingdoms have laws, judges and authorities to implement determinations. This is the justification for their system, and all of it has some Biblical footing.

The Anglican Marks of the Church

Before I can point out my differences, I should first describe my system. We will require an understanding by all parties as to the position from which I debate. The Anglican view of the Church and its authority has been described as a three-legged stool, the legs of which are scripture, history and reason. The ultimate authority in the Anglican Church is scripture. The notable distinctives of the Anglican Church are the Book of Common Prayer, the Liturgy (including the lectionary) and the episcopate (that claims apostolic succession.)

The Book of Common Prayer is a misunderstood document. One common criticism is that we use a secondary source for our services rather than the Bible. Actually, the Book of Common Prayer is about 90% Biblical quotation, and about 10% creeds and catholic tradition. Therefore, the criticism is unfounded. The beauty of the Book is that there is little difference between Anglican churches. There is a tradition and a familiarity to any Anglican service to its members, regardless of where they might attend on a given Sunday while traveling. Later, I will address the theology behind this tradition and the similarities and differences with Rome.

The lectionary is a three year cycle of scripture that is read each week. Necessarily, this means that not all areas of the Bible are covered completely. However, the criticism often leveled against the Anglican is that they are Biblically illiterate. Actually, though, they know far more of the Bible than they realize. They just don’t necessarily know where it came from in the Bible or how to find it. The lectionary also means that the same scripture is being read in every Anglican church on any given Sunday.

The episcopate is the most germane point to our topic. All authority in the church is held by the bishops or episcopate, who in turn serve all of their parishes. We will explore in later posts how that authority is used as we now have seen a takeover in the Episcopal Church by utilizing the avenues of power within that body.

Anglican Preaching

While it can certainly vary, the idea is that the sermon is based upon one of the readings for that day. Each day there is a first reading, which can be from any place in the Bible, an Epistle, most often from Paul as you would expect, but the other New Testament letters are not neglected, and a Gospel reading. Most sermons that I have heard have been based on the Gospel. The readings are laid out so that there is a vein of cohesion between them each week. The best sermons find that vein and lay it bare for the congregation. The theology of the preaching of the Word is the same in theory, but in practical application, there is far more importance placed in the sacraments. If I were to ask a random Anglican which is most important, most would point to the sacraments. I wonder and fear if this is a commentary on the quality of the sermons. Still, at root, this is a Calvinist group, born of the Reformation, and shaped largely by Thomas Cranmer. Cranmer was responsible for the creation of the BCP. A perusal of the various versions of this document will reveal a drift in theology from time to time, but a solid foundation particularly in the 1928 version, known as a return to the roots version.

Anglican Sacraments

This section will be a bit confusing for a Presbyterian. The traditional number of sacraments is seven. However, it is recognized that Baptism and the Eucharist are the only two that were instituted by Jesus. The others have been downgraded in some Anglican provinces to sacramental rites. For completeness, those other five sacraments are Confession and Absolution, Holy Matrimony, Confirmation, Holy Orders (ordination) and Holy Unction (anointing of the sick.) Although I was actually taught differently with Evening Prayer substituting for Confirmation, the five I’ve listed here are straight from the 39 Articles and the definitive answer to the question.

There is a decided difference to how Anglicans view the sacraments. Starting with Baptism, let us cover the common ground. Paedobaptism is the rule and the reasoning is the same. It is offered to the children of saints. While the historical background for this practice is both Catholic and Reformed, the theology is not taught in the same manner as the heritage from which it came. It is simply said that Baptism is necessary for salvation. Because of the near miss of a concordat between the Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, it might be justly argued that the Episcopal position on Baptism more closely resembles Lutheran theology than covenant theology. In practice, this might be the case, but I wonder whether this is consistent through all of the provinces. Again, the issue of the Lutheran theology on Baptism that is troublesome is the apparent falling away from the Church that is seen from time to time and its implications to the sacrament.

The real difference, though, is seen in the Eucharist. The first, most obvious distinctive is the location of the altar. It is always the centerpiece of the church, whether raised at the East end of the church or raised in a more central position. This architecture speaks volumes as to the importance of the Eucharist in the life of the Anglican Church. You will not attend many Anglican services that do not involve the Eucharist, the notable exception being evening prayer. The Anglicans view both of the sacraments instituted by Jesus as necessary for salvation, and therefore the Eucharist holds an important position. Looking back on our scale of Roman Catholic to Baptist, the Anglicans are much closer to Rome than perhaps any other church of the Reformation. You will hear the phrase “real presence” here, but not with the same meaning as with the Roman Catholics. Transubstantiation is specifically condemned in the 39 articles, but there is a reliance upon “mystery” as an explanation for the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It is certainly much more than the pneumatic presence of which the Presbyterians speak. This is not just a memorial, this is a sacrament every bit as mystical and important as Baptism.

The next point is that the Eucharist is open to all baptized Christians. This has huge implications to the Presbyterian, as I have outlined previously, but this is just not the issue to the Anglican. The Eucharist is necessary and vital to their sanctification. The full theology of the service order will be explored later, including the role of the Eucharist and its climactic position in the service order. What is important here is that the Eucharist is open; therefore, there is a clear difference in theology at work.

In my discussions about these differences with a Presbyterian pastor, his remarks were that Anglicans sounded as if they were guilty of sacerdotalism. Sacerdotalism is the view that priests are given special spiritual authority to mediate between God and man. Firstly, one read of the 39 Articles will put this view to rest. There is explicit language that the authority of the bishop is in the office of bishop, not the man. Incidentally, we saw this recently in the retiring of Pope Benedict and his view of his current position. It was a refreshingly Biblical return for Rome. Secondly, there is no mediation in play here; there is the administration of a sacrament. The distinction is important. The priest is in the role of servant to his congregation, while each participant in the Eucharist communes directly with the elements and His real presence. Any Anglican clergy would dismiss this charge resolutely.

Anglican Service Order

I must spend a few moments on this subject because it sheds much light on the issue of sin and repentance from the Anglican perspective. The service is modeled on the ancient ritual handed down through our Roman Catholic antecedents. It must be stated from the outset that the economy of grace supported by Rome is not in any way followed by the Anglican Communion. Therefore, some of this will seem odd at first as there is a symmetry of action with Roman Catholicism. In fact, a Roman Catholic would find an Anglican service familiar to a degree. The whole service is modeled as a prayer, as worship is an extension of prayer. If you follow one of the acronyms of prayer such as ACTS, then you will recognize some of the pattern. The full measure of the service order, though, has much more depth and breadth.

The service begins by proclamation and invitation. We are announcing to God that we have come to His house to worship Him, and we invite Him to be present with us. There is an exhortation to the congregation to focus on the worship before them. This is followed by the either the Decalogue or the summary of the law. It must be said that the Reformed Anglicans do the full list far more frequently, usually monthly. Next, the service moves to the readings for the day. This is followed by the Sermon, as you would expect.

What follows is vitally important to our discussion. After the sermon, the Nicene Creed is recited. This is followed by the prayers for the whole church and any specific supplications of the congregation. Next, there is a corporate confession of sin. Anglicans have a preserved sacramental rite of personal confession as do the Roman Catholics, but Anglicans generally stick with the corporate prayer of confession. The instruction is to hold your personal sins in mind as this prayer is recited. The next step is crucial to the discussion. The priest or bishop delivers an absolution to the congregation. In Rome, there is penance attached to this step in accordance to their economy of grace. The Anglican view is that penance of that type is in error and a represents the main point of departure of the Reformation. The absolution is corporate and it is taken very seriously in a theological perspective.

After the peace and offertory, the Eucharist Prayer begins. This is led by priest and there is all of the ritual that you would expect from the Roman Catholics. There is usually the ringing of what are called Sanctus Bells at particular moments of the prayer to draw the attention of the congregation and emphasize that what is happening is solemn, mystical and special. The prayer has a solid overlay of good Calvinist doctrine that can be discussed at some point in the future. Finally, after the Great Thanksgiving, there is a post-communion prayer, benediction and exhortation.

As you can see, the placing of the confession and absolution directly before the Eucharist has a purpose that is akin to the reasoning behind the closed sacrament of the Presbyterians. We will certainly have to evaluate the validity of this absolution at some point in the discussion, and we will also need to understand why the Eucharist holds so much prominence in the theology.

What is clearly missing here is the issue of church discipline. While there are standards to which clergy are held (think of clergy as equivalent Biblically to Elder,) censure coming from the bishop if necessary, there is generally speaking counseling available, but no formal move to excommunicate. Again, this sounds a bit Lutheran, as while there is a door in, there is really no formal door out.  We fully recognize that people drift away from the Church, but I think that there is a lack of clarity as to whether these people fall from faith or if they rather did not have genuine faith from the start. I’ll be working through this critical point as we go.

This concludes my opening salvo. I will leave it to my friend to clarify where he feels it is necessary and to ask questions as needed. Then, when he is ready, we will progress to particular Biblical references and try to work through them in both systems.

--Troll--

A Debate on the Marks of the Church: Opening salvo

This is hopefully the beginning post of a series. I will be linking you to another blog where the responses will take place. This is a dialogue. If I fail to answer your comments or questions immediately, it is because the quality of the other debater requires my concentration. Eventually, I will get back to you.

This started with the following comments that I will reproduce here as context for my opening remarks. 

“Definition of legalism: any attempt to use the moral law as a set of requirements by which a person can attain favor with God; or, for a Christian, any attempt to use the moral law as posing a threat to the believer or creating a system of punishment and rewards.

Definition of antinomianism ("no law") -- failure to recognize the moral law as a universally valid measure for human conduct before a holy God, by which measure we all fall short; or, for the Christian who has been delivered from condemnation, the failure to recognize the moral law as a guide for how we can show gratitude to God.

These two definitions attempt to make clear the proper and improper use of the law, which I consider an important subject badly mangled by many of the devout.”

Before embarking upon this trek, I will supply some background. My foil in this discussion is a good friend who is a Presbyterian (PCA) Elder. I am a former Episcopalian who is now returning to the Reformed Episcopal Church, a member organization in the Anglican Church of North America. We are both Calvinists. This is an important point from the outset as we will be having an in-house discussion between believing brothers in Christ. We hold the vast majority of theology and doctrine as common ground. Therefore, we will likely be making assumptions that not all of our readers will understand or support. You are forewarned and forearmed.

As a point of information, the Presbyterian position on the marks of the Church is that there are three: Word, Sacrament and Discipline. This series will be exploring this third point. Both sides have centuries of theologians lining up behind them, but we want to flesh out the argument as much to understand our own position better as to convince anyone. In fact, it would be highly unlikely that either of us will change our positions. We do not expect or even necessarily desire that outcome. Both of us will want to remain true to the positions of our respective traditions. I will be working from the ESV and I suspect that will be consistent with my foil, but we will know in the rebuttal if I am in error on this point.

Concerning our working definition of Legalism

It appears to me that the conclusion above sets the framework for the definitions. These definitions are designed in terms of their use within the church, both good and bad. I think I would start by expanding the definition and bringing light on various aspects that warrant consideration. The Law can be defined by the Ten Commandments with the addition of general revelation. There is a side issue of Levitical or rabbinical law that needs to be discussed, so that it can be set aside. Here is how this was defined from the first discussion that I am quoting.

“[T]he law is the moral duty that God requires of people, as revealed generally in conscience and summarized in the 10 commandments. Jesus summarized the moral law as requiring us to love God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength and our neighbor as ourselves.”

This definition works well for me, so that we understand that rabbinical law is excluded from the discussion. This follows from basic covenant theology and both sides will agree on this point. I will begin with a general definition of legalism and build to the more specific. Legalism is strict and literal adherence to a legal system. There is an implication of extreme compliance to the point that goes to beyond the purpose of the law. In Biblical context, the Pharisees were legalists in terms of both moral law and rabbinical law. Since Jesus was obviously at odds with that group as his primary foil throughout the Gospels, what did he say about legalism?

Any discussion about Jesus and the law must begin with the Sermon on the Mount particularly Matthew 5:17. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” One can easily take the verses that follow out of context and arrive at the conclusion that Jesus is proposing an extreme form of legalism. Actually, He is pointing out the futility of keeping the law for man at that point in history. He is trying to get men to understand that they are in a hopeless situation under the law without some sort of help or rescue. Both of us will agree on this point.

Turning a moment to the Rich Young Ruler, an excellent example of a legalist, in Matthew 19:16-26, we see Jesus suggest that the key to salvation is to obey the moral law. The young man completely misses the point of the instruction, so Jesus throws yet more law at him until he capitulates. So much attention, particularly in suburban America, is given to verse 23, that it is often missed that verse 26 is closely related to it. The point of this story is that obedience to the law for salvation is impossible for man alone. Again, there will be agreement on this point.

Martin Luther described the three uses of the law, which bears repeating in this space, though I have written on the topic in the past. There is the civil use of the law, which is as a force to restrain sin. This is in the context of general revelation or natural law. There is the pedagogical use of the law, which shows people their sin and points to mercy and grace outside of themselves. This is the use for confrontation and refutation of sin for the purpose of pointing the way to Christ. Finally, there is the normative use of the law, which is the use of the law for saints as a norm of conduct, freely accepted by those in whom the grace of God works the good. The problem arises when the pedagogical use of the law is attempted on saints. This is how legalism begins. When the doctrines of grace are not understood, there is an innate tendency to return to the law. This expectation that the law provides any role in salvation is misguided. Once again, I do not anticipate any issues here.

Concerning our working definition of antinomianism

This definition is very good as it makes specific mention of our gratitude. The problem with the antinomian is that he does not appreciate the overwhelming nature of the gift of mercy and grace through Christ’s earthly ministry, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension. Often, people want to skip to the good stuff and miss the foundation of why Christ was necessary. This is true of the antinomian. Anyone who fully understands the depth of despair associated with sin, particularly the condition of sin and its implications for salvation, and then is taught the doctrines of grace, this person will not fail to be grateful to Jesus for His condescension to become human, his sacrifice and triumph over death, and finally his ascension and role as mediator and advocate. There are no antinomians who understand this formula. This begs the question as to whether an antinomian is a true believer. I would argue against their faith being genuine. This seems to be consistent with the text and doctrinal teaching from both sides of this debate.

Marks of the Church

By now, you are asking, where is the debate? Here is the debate finally: what are the marks of the church? As I’ve said above, the Presbyterian answer is that there are three.

• 1.       The preaching of the Word, correctly and continuously.
• 2.       The keeping of the sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
• 3.       Church discipline.

What is meant by each of these? The preaching of the Word means something very different than the typical “message” many of us hear on Sundays. We are given a steady diet of topical preaching. This phrase refers to preaching through a book of the Bible from beginning to end, and keeping a proper perspective on the relationship between law and gospel. The Reformed notion of the role of preaching is a very high order of importance. It is through the preaching of the Word that the gospel is first heard. The Holy Spirit acts to reveal the truth of the gospel and transform the hearts of the believers. This is a sacred and important task, not just the teaching of some moral checklist each week. The preaching of the Word is active and is the means through which the Holy Spirit moves in regeneration. You will have no argument here from me.

The keeping of the sacraments is a topic that will certainly cause some discussion. First, it is important to define the two sacraments from a Presbyterian perspective, and then discuss the implications of each. Baptism is viewed from a covenant context, paedobaptism is the norm. This is not an exclusion of adult believer’s baptism, but an inclusion of the children of saints into the covenant community. This is Biblically consistent with the Jewish example. However, while the Lutheran believes that baptism delivers what it promises, the Presbyterian still expects the individual to come to a full knowledge of the love and mercy of Jesus, and to believe in the salvation promised in the Gospel. This means that there is a possibility that some Baptized people may not be among the saints. But this is not problematic or inconsistent. There are Jews who are members of the covenant community, but who did not receive salvation, notably Judas Iscariot. What is interesting here is that there is an acceptance of this fact, and yet a reticence to administer the next sacrament to all covenant members. 

The Lord’s Supper can be viewed in several ways, and rather than listing them all, let us look at the spectrum and see where the Presbyterians fall. On one end, there is Roman Catholic notion of transubstantiation. This means that the elements actually mystically transform their substance from mere bread and wine to the actual body and blood of Christ. There is a “real presence” of Christ in the elements. This is a key point of divergence in the Reformation, and one that both sides in our debate will not condone. The other end of the spectrum is a mere memorial. This is the Baptist view on this sacrament, and it is probably a stretch to call the Lord’s Supper a sacrament at all in that context. It is reduced to nothing more than a prayer over food. The Presbyterian view is that first of all, it is a remembrance, but of the death and sacrifice of our Lord. It is akin to a funeral in some respects. But the real telling point here is that the Lord’s Table is placed below the pulpit. This architectural anomaly sheds light on the relative importance of the sacraments to the correct preaching of the Word. Rather than the Roman Catholic understanding of a real presence, the Presbyterian view is of a pneumatic presence, one that stresses the work of the Holy Spirit. I will leave this to others to define this distinction better. What is most interesting to this discussion, however, is that the Presbyterian sacrament is a closed sacrament. This means that it is only open to saints in good standing with the church. The issue here is unrepented sin. The worry is that a person with unrepented sin who takes the elements eats and drinks condemnation upon himself. The closed sacrament is explained as a protection of the person from blaspheming against the Holy Spirit and thus eternal damnation. Notice the vast difference between the covenant theology applications to each sacrament. Baptism is offered to children with no knowledge of their eventual lives, and yet the Lord’s Supper can be withheld from church members who have a particular issue with sin. 

This brings us finally to the third mark of the church, church discipline.

“I would say that church discipline is not an attempt to bring a believer under the condemnation of the law. Rather, it is a warning to someone who refuses to acknowledge and repent of sin that they need to repent, and that a refusal to agree with God about their sin may indicate that they are not in the faith. It is not the fact of sin, but the refusal of repentance, that brings about discipline.”

This definition is completely in line with the discussion above. Notice that there seems to be an implied ability of a person to fall from grace. This is a point of consistency that will have to be addressed later in the discussion. In addition, a full description of the Presbyterian system of church discipline will be required. In the next installment, I will lay out that system and then begin my presentation of the Anglican perspective. 
 

– Troll –

Disclaimer

I noticed today that I had been attributing the following verse to Isaiah rather than to Elijah in 1 Kings.  I know that this has been done more than once.  If you find examples of this as you read, please email me with the date or title of the post in question so that I can edit my mess.  Thank you.

--Troll--

Horner's Bible Reading System

This is a gift from a friend.  I've started using this system, and I can immediately see the benefits of doing the reading in this fashion.  Give a try.

Professor Grant Horner's Bible Reading System.

--Troll--

The Rock

…whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

This phrase appears in Matthew twice, in 16:19 and 18:18.  The context of each passage is very different, but it is Jesus speaking both times.  Let us look at the first passage concerning Peter.  We’ll look at other Biblical references, at theories of the rock, and at the perspective of redemptive history.  We will likewise examine the second passage concerning the resolution of disputes.  We’ll look at the same three categories with this verse.  Finally, after taking a step back, with the backdrop of redemptive history in mind, we will examine this phrase in the larger context of Jesus’ work on the cross.  The idea of the Two Kingdoms will be used as a tool for understanding redemptive history.

In the first Matthew passage, Jesus is revealing part of his role in redemptive history.  The Son of Man is an OT name for the messiah.  While the phrase has a different meaning in Ezekiel, Daniel begins to change the meaning of the phrase in chapters 7 and 8.  It has eschatological meaning as the messiah from those passages.  Jesus always refers to himself as the Son of Man, using this messianic declaration.  Because it can also be viewed as a general reference to humanity, there can be confusion over the meaning.  In Matthew 16:16, Peter makes this direct link between the Son of Man and Jesus, and that He is the Christ, the messiah. 

It is interesting that there is actually discussion of the word rock after Jesus renames Simon as Peter or rock.  Many view this passage as stating that the church is built upon Peter specifically.  If Peter is the rock, specifically, why does Jesus undress him so severely in the same discussion in Matthew 16:23.  Others will say that the rock is the pronouncement by Peter that Jesus is the messiah.  Still others will refer to passages about the chief cornerstone, which are referenced in all of the Synoptics, and say that Jesus is referring to himself in this passage.  Let us stay with Peter for a moment, or perhaps Peter’s proclamation of Jesus, and continue onward.

The next verse starts with the reference to keys of the gates of heaven.  Who is receiving these keys?  It seems clear that this is initially granted to Peter.  The Roman Catholics use this verse as the grounds for Peter being the first Pope.  Peter is the first Apostle to preach to the Jews after Pentecost in Acts 2.  Peter is the first to preach to the Samaritans in Acts 8.  Peter is the first to preach to the Gentiles in Acts 10.  But Peter continues to report back to the Jerusalem council.  In fact, it seems in Acts 15 that James has the last word at that council.  Furthermore, in Ephesians 2:20, Paul is fleshing out this foundation idea with Jesus as the cornerstone and all of the Apostles and prophets forming the foundation.  Therefore, this office of preaching or proclaiming of the Gospel has been delegated to all of the Apostles early on in Acts, and eventually is delegated to others because the Apostles will certainly and eventually die.

Now there is a second aspect of the keys of heaven.  The Pharisees were in the habit of locking everyone out of the Holy of Holies, but Peter is charged with binding only some.  Those who he binds on earth will be bound in heaven.  Clearly, this is an office that must be passed onward as well as preaching.  Whether Jesus intended this to mean that Peter is in charge of church discipline or rather in the role of excommunication is difficult to ascertain from this passage alone.  In Galatians, Paul pronounced preachers of false gospel as accursed.  We will return to that passage later.  But let’s now go on to the other place that this first phrase appears, Matthew 18.

In Matthew 18, we are in a section concerning the resolution of disputes between Christians.  In this section, there is a discussion of witnesses and so forth.  Notice carefully the use of the word church in verse 17. 

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Therefore, when we arrive at verse 18, the antecedent of the pronoun you has become the church.  We all become responsible for the discipline of our brothers in Christ.  This is part of the Ministry of Reconciliation of which Paul speaks in 2 Corinthians 5.  Not only are we to preach the Gospel, to teach about Christ’s reconciling us to Him by His work on the cross, but in doing so, we will also minister to each other in the church as part of the fruits of the Spirit.  We will help each other walk the walk.  These works are not works towards our justification.  These works are the necessary result of a people who recognize their sinful nature in Adam, but also know that through faith we are reconciled to Christ.

Notice John 20:23.  This occurs after Jesus reappears to the Apostles.  Whether or not Peter is the first to preach, it is clear that the office is given to all of the Apostles, and by extension, to all who are called to preach the Word and to give Absolution.  Two of the most important portions of the Sunday service are the Confession of sins and the  Absolution pronounced by the priest or pastor, parts of the service that are nonexistent in many Evangelical and Pentecostal churches.  Whether we look at these events as the actual loosening of these people in absolution for their sins, or as a mini drama of repentance and absolution through the justification provided by Jesus’ work on the cross, which occurs next in the service, it is important that God’s people are reminded each week that through faith in Jesus, we are justified, reconciled, offered atonement and propitiation, sanctified and saved.  Jesus was pretty busy on Easter.

How does a reformed person, of Covenant theology and Amillennial eschatology apply the concepts of the Two Kingdoms to these passages?  In Matthew 16, this is an eschatological passage, as Jesus is referring to himself as the Son of Man, a messianic title.  Therefore, this passage should be interpreted in terms of the Age to Come, or the Kingdom of Heaven.  The question here is whether verse 19 implies that Peter will pass judgment on individual men in terms of salvation.  Rome clearly reads this passage in that the Church and, more specifically, the Papacy, as the direct theological descendent of Peter, have this office.  The Reformation view does not agree.  The argument here is that Peter first, and then all of the Apostles, as per Ephesians 2:20 and John 20:23, are given the office of preacher, by which they spread the Word to the world, making salvation possible by the hearing of the Word and the movement of the Holy Spirit in elect hearers of this preaching.  The binding is not so much in terms of the denial of salvation, but rather in the correction of members of the church.  But this office of correction is not only given to the Apostles, and their preacher descendants, but to the church as a whole, as per Matthew 18:17.

And now, tying this into Matthew 18:18, a passage that is clearly about this Age and this world, Jesus here is discussing the settling of disputes on this earth.  He gives this authority to the church.  In this case, binding again becomes a question considering the action of making the offender be as a Gentile or tax collector.  Jesus used these same examples in Chapter 5 in a similar context.  It must be remembered that at this point in redemptive history, Jesus and the Apostles are preaching to Jews.  Therefore, these two groups represent outcasts, those considered unsaved under the Old Covenant.  One has to be careful in over reading Jesus’ intension in this section considering the company he keeps, the role of the tax collector in Luke 18, the ministry that comes first from Peter to the Gentiles, and the previous occupation of the Apostle Matthew (tax collector.) Still, the implication of discipline remains.

Therefore, in summary, we can say that this phrase

…whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

is a complex phrase in the Gospel of Matthew.  The interpretation can seem to mean several things.  What it is important to keep in mind are basic principles, particularly the Sovereignty of God.  Salvation is not an issue for man to determine.  Salvation is of God, by God, through God and at the whim of God.  This binding may be a delegation of some level of authority concerning the disciplining of the church membership, but it cannot mean a delegation of the determination of Salvation.  Even with Paul’s remarks in Galatians, let him be accursed is more of an expectation of an adverse judgment rather than actually rendering that judgment upon the false teachers.  The difference is huge.  And so, in the Age to Come, that began on Pentecost and will be fully realized on the Last Day, the Apostles and those that serve in the office of preacher are empowered to deliver the Word of God to the ends of the earth.  And in the Present Age, on this world, the church is charged with the discipline of its own membership.  Remember also that the church is charged with the teaching of Christ’s Ministry of Reconciliation, so that with discipline, we offer repentance and then receive reconciliation.

--Troll--