Sacramental issues

After two weeks slogging through one of the toughest subjects in all of Christendom (Baptism), I thought I might try a written response to clear up some of the ambiguity remaining. Let me start by saying that I knew that this was going to be difficult, but my policy is to deal with the subjects that arise in scripture when we come to them rather than find easy topics and find the scripture to go with them. That policy is one I believe strongly in maintaining. We need to think about, pray about, and discuss tough topics.

One general note before I proceed. We are having a Bible Study, not an Anglican Study. Our source material is scripture, not the Book of Common Prayer (origins of this fine prayer book notwithstanding). While there will be Anglican particulars mentioned, the point of this exercise is to explore and learn about the Bible. If you feel that we are losing track of that point, please interject and we will adjust our trajectory.

There are two sacraments instituted by Jesus during his earthly ministry: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. In this we are in agreement. We are also in agreement that the Holy Spirit is the active agent in both sacraments. What follows then is my description of these two sacraments and answers to all of the questions that arose over these two meetings.

A sacrament, according to the Anglican lexicon, is an outward, visible sign of an inward, invisible truth. Some of you may not have heard this definition before, but those of you who have an Anglican background certainly have, and probably also those of you who have a Methodist background. This means that we are doing a ritual, but that there is something unseen going on there as well. As we stated before, the Holy Spirit is the active agent. Therefore, what we need to discover is what the Holy Spirit is doing in both of these instances.

Baptism is instituted as a necessary initiation into the covenant community by Jesus in Matthew 3. We know that this is a necessary part of the salvation equation because in the Great Commission [Matthew 28:19], Jesus specifically states that we should go forth baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. We know that washing with water is necessary from John 13, the baptism of the apostles. We have discussed that the Holy Spirit is present, but the implications of that presence need to be emphasized.

The notion of covenant inclusion is ground that we have covered in our meetings. In the Old Testament (OT), covenant inclusion was set out in the Abrahamic Covenant [Genesis 15-18] with a sacrament of circumcision [Genesis 17]. Circumcision was the outward, visible sign of an inward, invisible truth: inclusion in the covenant family of Abraham. Baptism is instituted as a new sacrament of repentance that is the outward, visible sign of the inward, invisible truth of inclusion in the New Covenant family of Jesus. Following the Jewish precedent, circumcision was not done until at least the eighth day of life [Genesis 17:12], but it was not exclusively an infant event. Many people were brought into the Jewish covenant family by adult circumcision [Genesis 17:12-13]. The difference between circumcision and baptism, then, is a matter of into which covenant are we inviting the new member. The New Covenant in Christ Jesus is the Better Covenant because He fulfilled all the prior OT covenants and established His New Covenant through His blood.

So, while the outward visible sign is clear, water baptism, let us explore the nature of the inward, invisible truth. While only men were circumcised, we baptize all people including women. It is important to understand that the English word “man” comes from German and it means people in a general sense without respect to gender. Likewise, the Greek words used in the institution of this sacrament are not gender specific. Therefore, we can in good conscious baptize women as well as men. This is an important step. Nowhere does Jesus specifically baptize a woman. Importantly, neither is this specified concerning John the Baptist. We can, therefore, surmise that Jesus is MORE inclusive than the OT model.

We can also say that the Holy Spirit was clearly present when John baptized Jesus. In fact, as one of us so adroitly pointed out, this was the first public expression of the Trinity [Matthew 3:16-17]. This presence of the Holy Spirit is a key point that cannot be overstated. The Holy Spirit is present in the sacraments. This is what makes them sacraments.

Digression for a moment is necessary at this point to discuss the condition of sin. We all agree that sin entered into the world through one man, Adam, and his sin is imputed on all of his offspring forever. The wage of sin is death and all men inherit this wage from Adam: we all die. Just as clearly, we are all born into sin. This means that no man is capable of doing good on his own. Indeed, given the choice, no man can or would choose God on his own [Romans 3:1-12]. This means very specifically that every man born is sinful by nature from the moment of conception. It requires the intervention of the Holy Spirit to change this truth. This is an important point and one of which we must not lose sight: we cannot and would not choose Christ on our own. An adult is baptized after an encounter with the Holy Spirit. But who is to say that an adult is not coerced into being baptized or is lying about his faith, and has his first encounter with the Holy Spirit in Baptism. That encounter is genuine nonetheless.

God is faithful all the time; and all the time, God is faithful. The Holy Spirit is God. The Holy Spirit is faithful all the time; and all the time, the Holy Spirit is faithful. If you are predestined before time to be a vessel that the potter has made for salvation [Ephesians 1:3-14], then the efficacy of baptism is 100%. If not, then efficacy of baptism is nil, because the Holy Spirit knows true faith and knows which vessel is to be good. This is a key point between some Protestants, particularly Lutherans, who believe that baptism delivers what it promises: redemption and transformation. Others believe in regard to apparent failure of regeneration in a person one of two possibilities, either that a person may “fall away” from Christ, or that the baptism was not authentic in some way, meaning that the Holy Spirit did not enter into the person being baptized at that moment. Both of these possibilities are troubling. If the Holy Spirit is always present and enters into the recipient of the sacrament, then if a person appears to fall away from Christ, then the Holy Spirit is not always faithful. I cannot, of course, accept that as a possibility. This leaves me with the other possibility: some vessels are meant for salvation and others are not. The Holy Spirit knows the difference. But let us never forget the example of Luke 23:39-43, the second prisoner on the cross next to Jesus. Even in the last moments of life, the Holy Spirit is faithful. We as mere human witnesses are not able ultimately to discern the difference. While true faith and salvation demonstrates good fruit, it is important to bear in mind that we are not God. We do not ultimately decide which vessel is meant for salvation and which is not.

We do as a covenant people hold the keys to the covenant community. In as much as that is true, we hold the keys to the sacrament of Baptism (there is an obvious quandary and corollary concerning the thief on the cross and his baptism). As those who hold the keys to the sacrament of baptism, how do we best control entry into the covenant community?

There are obviously two models: paedobaptism and credobaptism. Paedo is a Greek root meaning child. So, paedobaptism is the baptism of children. Credo is a Latin root that means belief. So credobaptism is the baptism of believers. It is interesting that the root words are from Greek (paedo & baptism) and Latin (credo). Greek is the language of the New Testament (NT), while Latin is the language of Rome. Do with that what you will! I only point it out for academic interest, not a proof point.

When engaging the issue of paedobaptism, I think it is important to go back to scripture. The most obvious point is neither side is given definitive inclusion or exclusion by scripture. Read John 13, particularly verse 7 along with verses 12-20. The apostles did not understand what was happening to them even as Jesus Himself was instituting the sacrament of baptism. The argument can go either way from here. Either, as Jesus states, they will come to understand soon, or the Holy Spirit does the action on them that day, only to bring full understanding to them later.

This leads us down the two roads we discussed above. If we argue that Pentecost completes the baptism of the apostles, but could not occur prior to Easter and is therefore a separate event for them only, then we can say that there is one baptism as in the Nicene Creed and that believers baptism was present for the apostles as well. This is sort of the same way that Abraham’s covenant spills out over 4 chapters rather than being in one neat, concise package. If we argue that Pentecost is either a second baptism or, better, a second encounter with the Holy Spirit that brings understanding, then we have baptism of the apostles without true belief at that point, but with the faithfulness of the Holy Spirit as the agent of regeneration. Still, this is troubling as it leads us to dangerous ground of a second baptism if that language is taken into Acts 2.

For the record, the word ‘baptism’ does not appear in Acts 2. It just doesn’t. What it says there instead is that the Holy Spirit comes and enters them. It does not even say that it is their first encounter with the Holy Spirit, although some may argue that it is implied by Jesus when he says that the Paraclete cannot come until he is gone. So, does this mean that the Holy Spirit was not present at the baptism of the apostles? Remember Matthew 3. The Holy Spirit was already present with Jesus. The difference in Acts 2 is that now the Holy Spirit has come to take residence in all of us. This is a change in locus not a change in function. This is an Easter generated event, a one-time shift from external to internal dwelling of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, we can argue that the apostles’ baptism is unique. While the Holy Spirit was present at their baptism due to the presence and participation of Jesus, the consummation of the new residence of the Holy Spirit in the covenant people is instituted at Pentecost. This is not a second baptism. Subsequent to Pentecost, the Holy Spirit immediately assumes His dwelling inwardly in the recipient of the sacrament of baptism. Therefore, regeneration occurs simultaneously with covenant community entry in those who are known by the Holy Spirit from before time.

This discussion is not meant to say that adults are not or should not be baptized. That is a ridiculous notion. All the apostles were adults. Even in the Anglican Communion today, far more adults are baptized than infants. What is meant here is not either-or, but both-and. Remember what we said much earlier: Jesus is MORE inclusive than Abraham, not less.

Still, we hold the keys as covenant leaders to the sacrament of baptism. Who shall we baptize? Here, we must look again at biblical precedent. If baptism is to circumcision as Jesus is to Abraham, then the eighth day seems to be appropriate if the new infant is born into a covenant family. This is a key point. The family must be a covenant family. If a communicant elder knows the family, then this part is easy. He may baptize the infant. If the elder does not know the family, or only knows one parent, this becomes more difficult. The responsibility of raising the child in covenant community lies not only with the parents, but with the whole covenant community. Let us suppose that a parent desires the an elder who baptized them to also baptize their child, but that parent no longer attends the congregation of that elder. Instead, they attend a congregation in another town. It would not be appropriate for that elder who does not know both parents to do the baptism. Indeed, it would not be appropriate for that elder’s congregation to take on the responsibility for raising that child in covenant community when the parents are a part of another covenant community. I hope that this clears up one of the statements that I made concerning whether I would or would not baptize a particular child. The responsibility is not just on the elder, but on his congregation, in addition to the parents.

Concerning adults, who shall we baptize? Is the Holy Spirit just as faithful for adults as He is for infants and children? Of course. Nonetheless, we have the opportunity with adults to lead them to greater understanding prior to the institution of the sacrament of Baptism. The notion of a believer’s baptism makes greater sense in the context of an adult. But Baptism is not just about belief, it is about repentance. An adult is able to understand that they are sons of Adam and therefore born into sin needing salvation from an external source. An adult can be taught the full equation of salvation: why it was necessary for Jesus to enter the world, why Easter was necessary, why faith is sufficient. An adult is already the head of his own nuclear family, be it only a family of one. His responsibility is greater in that regard. He must repent and accept the futility of his own works. This implies that the adult has already encountered the Holy Spirit prior to baptism (unless there is coercion or falsehood involved). Why would we be surprised about that, that the Holy Spirit has already been at work? What are the means of grace? The means of grace are the preaching of the Word and the sacraments. The Holy Spirit encounters man when we preach the Word (correctly). Again, adult baptism is not the exception, it is the majority.

Finally, concerning baptism, there is the problem of multiple baptisms. Some people feel that when they have fallen away from God for a while or that their relationship with God has gotten stale, that they need to do something to renew their zeal. They will seek a second (or third) baptism. This is not the same as someone who either does not know if they were baptized or whether their baptism was valid due to the apostasy of the celebrant. For those people, reassurance is necessary that the first baptism is valid. The power lies in the Holy Spirit, not in either the elder or the new covenant member. If a second baptism occurs, it is OK. It is not necessary, but it is OK.

Returning to the issue of the person who has "fallen away" and seeks re-baptism for this reason, there is a major flaw with this thinking. There is the assumption that how a person feels about God matters to how God feels towards His people. This very assumption flies in the face of the sovereignty of God. God is faithful all the time; all the time, God is faithful. God does not need us to do anything. It is already done. It is finished. Baptism was designed as a onetime event to bring us into the covenant community, to bring about our regeneration, and to begin the process of sanctification. There was another sacrament designed by Christ and instituted by Christ that is designed for repeat usage, in fact, it is designed for whenever we are gathered together. This is the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, or Holy Communion.

The institution of the Lord’s Supper [Matthew 26:26-29] begins a sacrament of memorial for events yet to come at that point in history (prior to Easter). And yet, we can say truly that the Holy Spirit is present, because the Holy Spirit was present with Jesus at that moment. When Paul is chastising the church in Corinth [1 Corinthians 11], he frames the scene as this: “When you come together as a church….” He proceeds to discuss the Lord’s Supper. The implication here is that when we come together as a church, we share the Lord’s Supper. While many churches do not do communion regularly, some do. My intent here is not to argue an issue of frequency (you already know my views of this point); my intent instead is to argue the issue of the presence of the Holy Spirit in this sacrament.

If we need renewal, and all of us do need renewal from time to time, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is there for us. If as Paul says that this sacrament is available whenever we gather as a church, then surely we should take him at his word. Some saints may argue that repeating this sacrament regularly takes away from the specialness of the sacrament. They might say that they do not feel particularly in tune with that sacrament on a particular day. This is the same error that those same saints make concerning baptism. The power is not in the person administering the sacrament or in the person receiving the sacrament. The power is in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God; the Holy Spirit is faithful all the time; all the time, the Holy Spirit is faithful.

We are so wound up in what we do, that we can lose sight of who is actually doing anything that matters. It isn’t us. Jesus spoke that it was done. The Holy Spirit is sanctifying us as we live and breathe, even when we do not recognize his hand. The means of grace are God’s Word and the sacraments that Jesus has given us. Through those means of grace, the Holy Spirit is working on us despite ourselves. Our reverent mood or zeal is not required. The Holy Spirit is faithful all the time; all the time, the Holy Spirit is faithful. What can we possibly offer that God doesn’t already have? What can we do that hasn’t already been done? I don’t really like the slogan “Let go and let God,” but there is certain applicability to this discussion. We must let go of our desire to control God. We must let go of our desire to believe that we bring anything of value to the table. Salvation is not about us and what we do. Salvation is about God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. It is for us, for all of us whom He has chosen. We have an advocate with the Father; He always wins His cases. Jesus is the Good Shepherd who never loses one of His own.

Let us continue to use all of these tools that we have been given, to the glory of God the Father, and God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Amen.

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.

Marks of the Church: The Second Hypothetical

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 –

A Debate on the Marks of the Church: First Hypothetical

The response to my last post from the Monroe Doctrine author (MDA) can be found here. Please take a moment to read it, because I would affirm the assumptions made by MDA in his opening paragraphs. I think that this is a fair series of statements that do well in framing the discussion. Prior to getting to the first hypothetical, I would take a moment to respond to the five points listed.

1.       Concerning sacramental rites, while these are not true sacraments in the sense of Baptism and the Eucharist, they warranted preservation in the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) as useful rites. Indeed, a church without marriage would just not do at all. But even marriage is not a true sacrament, a view shared by both sides in this debate. While the language to which MDA referred may be confusing, the terminology is no more than a nod to our Romish roots. There are only two sacraments.

2.       Concerning Chapter 27.3 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, I would refer you to Article 26 of the 39 Articles, remembering that it predates Westminster, and you will see similar language. The issue of Christ in the sacrament is a slippery slope and I would question MDA here on the meaning a “pneumatic presence” that I understand to be the Presbyterian position. Anglicans use of “real presense,” while clearly not meaning transubstantiation, has come to mean something very akin to Lutheran consubstantiation. Nonetheless, my personal view, although admittedly in the minority of all Anglicans, but likely the majority of my Reformed Episcopal Church (REC,) would be more in line with the “pneumatic presence” as I understand it and described before. Here, I must admit to Anglican heterogeneity while defining my position within the most Reformed branch of the stream.

3.       Concerning point 3 and regeneration, this is clearly going to be a lynchpin of our discussion and one in which I will have to be careful to observe stringent definitions during our debate. Much of what will follow later will hinge upon these differences. I do think that MDA has correctly understood what I have suggested as a position consistent with most Anglican theologians on this point.

4.       Concerning point 4, there is not much here to discuss, I am charged with underestimating Presbyterian valuation of the Lord’s Supper, and that may be true. But relative to the Anglican position in terms of theology, service order, architecture, frequency and emphasis, any non-catholic (small “c” intended) view of the Eucharist will seem to be a devaluation. So, I will concede the point.

5.       Concerning the episcopate, it might be helpful here to draw parallels on the issue of parity. Bishops have been the seat of authority in the church since at least the third century. The Holy Sees of the early Church are mentioned in kind if not specifically by that name in Revelation. It was common to use the term bishop to refer to the seat of authority within that principality. Of course, parity among bishops was an Eastern assumption, one that Rome countermanded leading to the Great Schism in 1054. Anglican history, in addition to issues over theology, is far better known for this issue of parity. While the Archbishop of Canterbury has a place of honor among bishops, it is still a place among equals. There exists within Anglican hierarchy absolute independence of authority between diocese. An Archbishop is an administrative position over a province, but has no greater authority than the other bishops. This is probably similar to a Metropolitan in the Eastern Church. Clergy are ordained to be the local agents of the bishop. As such, they perform the sacraments by authority of their bishop. This is why there is a hierarchical distinction between bishops and priests. Nonetheless, this parity of elders that is so highly valued by the Presbyterians is not unlike the Anglican parity of bishops. Indeed, the idea of parity has been preserved from the early church and is consistent with the Eastern side of the Great Schism.

First Hypothetical

In order to flesh out this discussion, it would seem best to follow through a number of hypothetical situations and then comment on the theology at work at each step. It will be necessary in this regard to make assumptions, but this is acceptable within the world of hypotheticals. Nonetheless, the viewpoint of man will need to be considered necessarily as a part of this debate, and I will be harping on this issue to some degree. Let us begin with the easiest situation.

Describe the theological sign posts of a covenant child, baptized at infancy (obviously on or after the eighth day,) brought up in the church, who becomes a member in good standing in his church where he lives throughout his life until his death. I’ll go first as both example and a starting point for debate.

This child has communicant parents in the church. What can be said about the parents is that they are certainly covenant members and have the appearance of being among the elect. Covenant membership through baptism is reasonably extended to children of covenant members without much reservation. The Baptismal Covenant set forth in the BCP, assigns responsibility for the proper Christian education of the child, not only to the parents and godparents, but also to the whole congregation present. Whether this plays out in practice is another issue, but the words set forth in the sacrament are clear on this point. Theologically, that child is a covenant member. Through the doctrine of election, there are two possibilities. If the child is elect, the view of baptism becomes similar temporally to Lutheran theology. This is still not the same as the Lutherans, as the moving of the Holy Spirit cannot be known to act in one way or the other for the Anglican, while the Lutheran assumes that the Holy Spirit gives through the sacrament what is promised by the sacrament. Regeneration is in this case simultaneous with the sacrament. This is an important point if the child were to die. We stand in agreement with Lutherans on this issue.

If, instead, the child were not of the elect, by baptism, he is still deserving of all the rights and privileges of covenant membership. He might still be raised in the church and indeed spend his whole life in the church. The difference is regarding the lack of regeneration. Instead, by baptism, he has essentially blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, sealing his fate from the start. In every appearance, he may seem to be elect from the perspective of man, and yet there is a hidden and unknown to man lack of repentance and true faith. He has taken Communion thousands of times and his fate cannot be clearer to God.

Both children go through confirmation classes, essentially a catechism though not called that. Confirmation is the laying on of hands by the bishop conferring upon the individual full standing within the church. This is the transfer of responsibility for one’s own Baptismal vows back to the individual in the case of both children and adults. Adults who are baptized in the church will also go through Confirmation as their Baptismal vows are also jointly held by the congregation at the time of Baptism. This transference by the laying on of hands also confers apostolic succession from the Bishop to his charges, making the person in communion with the one catholic and apostolic church on this earth. However, this is, importantly, not a true sacrament in the Protestant world as it is in the Roman world. As a part of fencing the table, first Communion is usually at this time for Roman Catholics.

In contradistinction, Anglicans hold to the controversial practice of paedocommunion, the giving of communion to children before confirmation. I am calling this controversial, as it was introduced to the Episcopal Church (USA) about 40 years ago, about a decade after the ordination of women. To be fair, I’ll have to ask my current priest or bishop whether this is even done in the REC. Nonetheless, to follow through this process logically, I will start with the adult who is baptized. We invite all baptized Christians to our table. This includes adults before they have received confirmation. The theological position of a child aged 9 who has not been confirmed is similar to the adult who has not been confirmed. Separate classes or instruction are given through Sunday School to children, usually at around first or second grade, for the receiving of communion. This is not akin to confirmation in any way. The elect child receives the benefits of the sacrament, while the non-elect child receives all of the dire consequences of 1 Corinthians 11. But to all appearances, these children would be of the same situation. The adult who is baptized but not yet confirmed is in the same boat. The emphasis here is on the sacrament of Baptism. By inclusion into the visible church, the assumption is made that the person is worthy to receive Communion. We cannot know otherwise from the viewpoint of man.

Rather than introduce a specific sin at this point, I’ll yield the floor to MDA for his response. This will certainly have generated a number of issues to which he will likely want to respond.

- Troll -

A Debate on the Marks of the Church: First Clarification

By now, if you are reading this at all, you are aware that this is a series of posts on two blogs that are interacting with each other. At the beginning of each future post in this series, there will be a link to The Monroe Doctrine so that the prior post to which I am responding will be available to my readers. Please take a moment to read the post entitled “Church Discipline: an opening response.”

After carefully reading my foil’s opening remarks, it is evident that I did not adequately present the historical Anglican position. In my desire to reflect the mood of what is actually taught to the laity, I missed proper emphasis on what is taught to clergy. Since this will be a series about ideal ideas as opposed to the relative strengths of particular parishes, I will do well to stick to doctrine over practice. In my own future, I will certainly endeavor to make these two congruent. The issue at hand prior to embarking upon the great issue of discipline is the sacraments.

In a discussion of the marks of the Church, it comes as no surprise that each will impact the others in some manner. Therefore, a clear understanding of the theology behind each will shed light on future remarks. We have little disagreement on the correct preaching of the Word. The only differences arise from the different methods of selecting passages from which the sermons are based. Theologically, it is a wash; by emphasis, however, there is a difference that needs to be underscored.

The Monroe Doctrine author (MDA) asks for clarification on the issue of the sacraments. Let us begin with the issues raised regarding the number of sacraments. While it is true that Anglicanism inherited seven from Rome, it is also true that the Anglican Communion holds that only two were instituted by Christ and are worthy of the full status of sacrament. The other five, which I listed before, are worthy only of the title of “sacramental rites.” This is important because the implication here is that there is an involvement of the Holy Spirit in sacraments.

This brings me to my first key point on Anglican sacraments. The 39 Articles join with the Lutheran Augsburg Confession in rejecting the Zwinglian view of sacraments as anthropocentric ritual. By their very institution by Christ, Anglicans affirm that sacraments do not do any work, but rather God the Holy Spirit works on us through the sacraments. The sacraments are a gift from Christ whereby God does something, as opposed to them being a God-given way for us to declare something to Him or man. This is an important distinction, consistent with the views of Augustine, but one that may not be afoul of Presbyterian thinking.

In terms of Baptism, the laity often view Baptism as an open sacrament because of our (mutual) paedobaptism. In actual fact, far more adult baptisms are performed annually than infant baptisms in the Anglican Church. For the Anglican, this idea of an open sacrament is simply not the case, nor do I image that it is for the Presbyterian. As Baptism is a sacrament, a person who is baptized but does not repent and receive regeneration is as much bringing damnation upon himself as is a person who does not rightly receive the Lord’s Supper. The language of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 is echoed in terms of both sacraments. Interestingly, Calvin states a similar position in his sermon on Ephesians 2:11-13, including Baptism on equal footing with the Lord’s Supper as sacraments that condemn the reprobate. Articles 25 and 26 predate and actually predict the position of the Westminster Confession on this issue and the next.

The specific issue raised by MDA concerns regeneration. Following John Donne in the seventeenth century is Bishop Arthur Lake who developed the covenant model of Baptism within the Anglican Church. A full understanding of covenant theology in terms of Exodus 19 was outlined. What was also emphasized, however, is that election and covenant inclusion are not synonymous. This speaks directly to the issue of regeneration. While regeneration and Baptism are simultaneous in the elect, this does not deliver the same view of the sacrament as the Lutheran view. Covenant inclusion does not guarantee election, as that is involved in predestination. Many Anglicans will be surprised to find this Calvinist idea in their heritage, but one only has to study the divines to see that this is consistent. Lake is clear to strike at the Armininian idea of free will, preferring the liberation of will through grace that Calvinists will recognize. It is fair to say that this is not espoused by all Anglican clergy, but it is important in our discussion to look at the roots of the denomination for the answers to doctrinal issues. It is clear that Anglicanism has developed a doctrinal mud on this issue, but the roots are more crystalline. The 39 Articles clearly promote a view consistent with the later Westminster Confession.

I think that this puts MDA and me on similar footing concerning the issue of falling from grace. This is simply not possible within the context of a truly regenerated saint. The thought process that led me to that earlier quote was one of appearances concerning the practice of discipline. In good time, we will pound out our differences concerning the reprobate within the covenant community.

Returning to the issue of fencing the table, as MDA has reminded me of that expression, we now have another issue to consider. If Baptism is not only a covenant initiation ritual, but also a true sacrament through which God the Holy Spirit operates, then the reprobate is already condemned from the moment of Baptism. This follows logically from the definition of sacrament. Often, the Anglican laity will produce this terse definition: a sacrament is an outward visible sign of an inward spiritual and invisible grace. This definition is an Anglican truth, but it leaves much on the table for discussion. While not often spoken, the implication of the Holy Spirit being at work in the sacrament is all that Paul states in 1 Corinthians 11. But since the reprobate has already been condemned in Baptism, what further purpose is served by fencing the table?

Again, here is where the view of the Lord’s Supper demonstrates both differences in theology as well as differences in purpose. Because of the activity of the Holy Spirit in sacraments, the role of the Holy Spirit in the Lord’s Supper is sanctification. While this is similar to the view of Rome, the economy of grace is vastly different. This is not a finite particle of grace for the repudiation of a particular sin as in the Roman Catholic system, but rather more like a recharging of the battery. The Anglican needs this sacrament and feels unhealthy when going too long between. But I would refer you back to the service order for references concerning the confession and absolution that occur just prior to the prayer of consecration. While this may just be a lot of words to some of the laity, the clergy and certainly Anglican theologians take that portion of the service seriously. The absolution is as efficacious in fencing the table as need be, since the reprobate have already condemned themselves in Baptism.

One final point of clarification is the episcopate. While excommunication is among the possibilities of censure from a bishop, I have not heard of it being used with near the same frequency (as in never) relative to the Presbyterian system, again, my point of reference being my conversations with pastors. The bishop is far more likely to deal with the clergy under his charge in a censure than any laity. The issue of parity among ordained elders is a non-issue under the 39 Articles. The authority resides in the position, not the man. A retired bishop has no more authority than any Joe in the pew. We all Western Protestants fell from the same Romish tree. Anglicans feel less compelled to throw out the baby with the bath water as it were. Rejecting apostolic succession has more to do with political expediency than any theological determinative that I can see at this point.

In closing, I have a humorous observation. While I have chosen to use Luther as my source for the uses of the Law, MDA has selected the same from Calvin. There is little difference other than the ordering of the three. But here is also Luther’s quote on the abuses of the Law.

There are three ways in which the Law may be abused. First, by the self- righteous hypocrites who fancy that they can be justified by the Law. Secondly, by those who claim that Christian liberty exempts a Christian from the observance of the Law. "These," says Peter, "use their liberty for a cloak of maliciousness," and bring the name and the Gospel of Christ into ill repute. Thirdly, the Law is abused by those who do not understand that the Law is meant to drive us to Christ. When the Law is properly used its value cannot be too highly appraised. It will take me to Christ every time.

– Troll –

(I have not footnoted this blog post as it is not my custom in this blog.)

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 –

Heidelberg Catechism: The Second Part--Baptism

I realize that it has been quite a while since we discussed the Heidelberg Catechism, but we must finish what we started.  Here is the last section that contains the introduction to the section on the sacraments.  Today, the topic is Baptism.

 Of Holy Baptism

26. Lord's Day

Question 69. How are you admonished and assured by holy baptism, that the one sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is of real advantage to you?

Answer: Thus: That Christ appointed this external washing with water, (Matthew 28:19) adding thereto this promise, (Matthew 28:19; Acts 2:38; Matthew3:11; Mark 16:16; John 1:33; Romans 6:3-4) that I am as certainly washed by his blood and Spirit from all the pollution of my soul, that is, from all my sins, (1 Peter 3:21; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3) as I am washed externally with water, by which the filthiness of the body is commonly washed away.

This is the notion of not only atonement, but expiation of sin.  Sin is completely wiped clean, through the Blood of Jesus and His meritorious work on the Cross.

Question 70. What is it to be washed with the blood and Spirit of Christ?

Answer: It is to receive of God the remission of sins, freely, for the sake of Christ's blood, which he shed for us by his sacrifice upon the cross; (Hebrews 12:24; 1 Peter 1:2; Revelation 1:5, 7:14; Zechariah 13:1; Ezekiel 36:25) and also to be renewed by the Holy Ghost, and sanctified to be members of Christ, that so we may more and more die unto sin, and lead holy and unblamable lives. (John 1:33, 3:5; 1 Corinthians 6:11, 12:13; Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12)

This section is thick with talking points.  Starting with the Hebrews, 1 Peter and Ezekiel quotes, we have wonderful scripture for those who insist that sprinkling is not Biblical.  Hmmm.   Maybe, just maybe, sprinkling is, in fact, Biblical.  Next we have the wonderful Revelation 1:5 quote that uses the words firstborn of the dead.  We see that Jesus is the firstborn of those who will receive resurrection bodies.  He is the first to be whole and complete.  He will usher in the Age to Come, but through Him, the Age to Come is already bleeding through into this current evil Age.  That's some two kingdom stuff for you.  The second set of quotes includes language about us dying with Christ through Baptism and being raised with Him through faith.  This gets to the heart of the sacrament.

Question 71. Where has Christ promised us, that he will as certainly wash us by his blood and Spirit, as we are washed with the water of baptism?

Answer: In the institution of baptism, which is thus expressed: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matthew 28:19) And "he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned." (Mark 16:16) This promise is also repeated, where the scripture calls baptism "the washing of regenerations" and the washing away of sins. (Titus 3:5, Acts 22:16)

The little verse from Mark is not trivial.  This verse is a problem for the Lutheran view of Baptism, and this is why I prefer the Covenantal  view on Baptism.  Here Mark says something very similar to what Paul says to the Galatians concerning circumcision.  In essence, the argument is that if you take the covenant seal of Baptism, believers are saved.  But by the same mechanism, unbelievers seal their doom.  All will, of course, be sorted out on Judgment Day, but accepting the Seal of the New Covenant without true faith in the meritorious work of Christ on our behalf is as much as seal of doom as it is a seal of faith for the believer.  This is tough teaching.  It means that there are souls who are Baptized and in our pews who are doomed.

27. Lord's Day

Question 72. Is then the external baptism with water the washing away of sin itself?

Answer: Not at all: (Matthew 3:11; 1 Peter 3:21; Ephesians 5:26-27) for the blood of Jesus Christ only, and the Holy Ghost cleanse us from all sin. (1 John 1:7; 1 Corinthians 6:11)

More interesting stuff from 1 Corinthians.  This verse states that justification and sanctification are both instantaneous and conferred at Baptism to the believer.  While many passages discuss the process of Sanctification, the reformation argument is that Sanctification is both instantaneous and a process.  This is a difficult concept at first, but the point is that sanctification will never be complete during this lifetime.  We make only small steps towards it.  But our faith freely given to us by the Holy Spirit confers both justification and sanctification instantly.  It is because our bodies remain IN Adam, that we require a process while we are still IN Adam. 

Question 73. Why then does the Holy Ghost call baptism "the washing of regeneration," and "the washing away of sins"?

Answer: God speaks thus not without great cause, to-wit, not only thereby to teach us, that as the filth of the body is purged away by water, so our sins are removed by the blood and Spirit of Jesus Christ; (Revelation 1:5,7:14; 1 Corinthians 6:11) but especially that by this divine pledge and sign he may assure us, that we are spiritually cleansed from our sins as really, as we are externally washed with water. (Mark 16:16; Galatians 3:27)

No new stuff here.  We do get the image of "putting on Christ" from the Galatians passage, which meshes well with the idea of being clothed in His righteousness.

Question 74. Are infants also to be baptized?

Answer: Yes: for since they, as well as the adult, are included in the covenant and church of God; (Genesis 17:7) and since redemption from sin (Matthew19:14) by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult; (Luke 1:15; Psalms 22:10; Isaiah 44:1-3;Acts 2:39) they must therefore by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, be also admitted into the christian church; and be distinguished from the children of unbelievers (Acts 10:47) as was done in the old covenant or testament by circumcision, (Genesis 17:14) instead of which baptism is instituted (Colossians2:11-13) in the new covenant.

Just when you thought that it was safe to go into the water, someone let the kids come to the party.  The best argument for infant Baptism, of course, is the covenant argument.  The Colossians passage hammers home the point concerning covenant, while the other passages bring the children into the discussion.  Of particular interest in the discussion of circumcision taking place on or after the eighth day after birth.  This truly opens the door for Baptism as the New Covenant Seal.

Baptism has the potential to spark tremendous debate.  This section of the Heidelberg Catechism does an excellent job of outlining the Covenant argument for this sacrament.  In the next post, we will examine the other sacrament: Holy Communion.

--Troll--

Heidelberg Catechism: The Second Part--Sacraments

I guess it is time to continue on with Heidelberg.  This is the beginning of a very important section concerning the Sacraments.  The questions before us are what is a sacrament and what does this mean?

Of The Sacraments

25. Lord's Day

Question 65. Since then we are made partakers of Christ and all his benefits by faith only, whence does this faith proceed? 

Answer: From the Holy Ghost, (Ephesians 2:8-9; Ephesians 6:23; John 3:5; Philippians 1:29) who works faith in our hearts by the preaching of the gospel, and confirms it by the use of the sacraments. (Matthew 28:19-20; 1 Peter 1:22-23)

And therefore, the first important answer of the day is that it is by faith alone that we are made partakers of Christ.  We are made partakers, we do not make ourselves partakers.  This faith comes from the Holy Ghost.  This is the job of the Holy Spirit, to give us faith in Jesus Christ and His redeeming work on the Cross. 

Question 66. What are the sacraments? 

Answer: The sacraments are holy visible signs and seals, appointed of God for this end, that by the use thereof, he may the more fully declare and seal to us the promise of the gospel, viz., that he grants us freely the remission of sin, and life eternal, for the sake of that one sacrifice of Christ, accomplished on the cross. (Genesis 17:11; Romans 4:11; Deuteronomy 30:6; Leviticus 6:25; Hebrews 9:7-9, 24; Ezekiel 20:12; Isaiah 6:6-7, 54:9)

This section is full of covenant language.  Signs and seals imply the New Covenant in Christ.  So, therefore, if the sacraments are the signs and seals of the New Covenant, they must be for the Covenant members.  This issue will be addressed later.

Question 67. Are both word and sacraments, then, ordained and appointed for this end, that they may direct our faith to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, as the only ground of our salvation? (Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27)

Answer: Yes, indeed: for the Holy Ghost teaches us in the gospel, and assures us by the sacraments, that the whole of our salvation depends upon that one sacrifice of Christ which he offered for us on the cross.

This is pretty straight forward.  The word and sacraments point to the cross.  Our faith and our salvation is based upon Christ's work on the cross.

Question 68. How many sacraments has Christ instituted in the new covenant, or testament?

Answer: Two: namely, holy baptism, and the holy supper.

And so, you will expect the next two sections to be about these two sacraments.  At this point, it is worth mentioning that there is a difference here between the Lutheran view and the Confessional Reformed view of sacraments.  The Lutherans believe that the Sacraments actually deliver what they promise.  In other words, the seal of the covenant delivers the promise of the covenant.  It is a very straight forward position, but it runs into practical problems with antinomian behavior, Romans 6 notwithstanding.  The Confessional Reformed view is that there is both a visible church of those within the Covenant community and an invisible church of those who are of true faith.  The external benefits of the covenant are for all visible church members, but the eternal and invisible benefits are for the true believers, the elect, the invisible church.  This is the position that I hold because it makes practical sense of the empyrical observation that not all baptized people are true believers.

--Troll--