Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
Here the Confession asserts the Reformed view of the Lord's Supper. Christ is fed upon by faith. When the Christian takes the Supper by faith, he feeds really and truly in a spiritual (not carnal or corporeal) manner upon Christ, receiving him "crucified, and all benefits of his death" as previously discussed. Hence, this is not a bare memorial observance, nor does it insist upon unbiblical concepts of Christ's presence.
Transubstantiation was firmly denied in the preceding paragraph as we reviewed yesterday. In this paragraph the Lutheran view also comes under criticism. In the view of the Westminster divines, the Lutheran error is not as egregious as the doctrine of transubstantiation, so the Confession is gently firm in its rejection. There is an injury done to the doctrine of the dual nature of Christ in the Lutheran teaching (hotly denied by Lutherans, but there you have it) that destroy's Christ's true humanity. How can a human body be present in more than one place at the same time and yet remain a true human body? This doctrine of ubiquity conflicts with the Definition of Chalcedon. Historically, the denial of Christ's dual nature is termed monophysitism.
Christians participate in the Supper exactly as did the Twelve except that Christ was then physically present in the flesh but never in the elements themselves. When he broke the bread and said of it, "This is my body," the bread did not then and does not now become his living flesh. By the Spirit, in the real spiritual presence of our Lord, Christ is as really present to us who believe as are the elements.
Tomorrow: Receiving the Supper unworthily.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Of the Lord's Supper, XXIX:6
That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ's body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense, and reason; overthrows the nature of the sacrament, and has been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yea, of gross idolatries.
The Confession denies in rather strong terms the doctrine of transubstantiation. This is consistent with the position of generations of English and Scottish Reformers. Several statements deserve comment:
1. Repugnant to Scripture and common sense and reason. The former, because there is no Scriptural support for the doctrine and it is inconsistent with the way miracles are portrayed therein (see John 2:1-11 for an example of real transubstantiation); the latter, because it is a “miracle” that is not miraculous—there is no evidence of any real change. The Roman Catholic treatment of pertinent passages is eisegetical.
2. Overthrows the nature of the sacrament. Again, the sign is not the thing signified.
3. “A lying sign and wonder”—the cause of manifold superstitions, even gross idolatries. See 2 Thessalonians 2:9. The belief that the elements of bread and wine are actually changed into the body and blood of Christ (when they are not) leads naturally to adoration and worship, which is idolatry.
Tomorrow: The Reformed view of the Supper.
The Confession denies in rather strong terms the doctrine of transubstantiation. This is consistent with the position of generations of English and Scottish Reformers. Several statements deserve comment:
1. Repugnant to Scripture and common sense and reason. The former, because there is no Scriptural support for the doctrine and it is inconsistent with the way miracles are portrayed therein (see John 2:1-11 for an example of real transubstantiation); the latter, because it is a “miracle” that is not miraculous—there is no evidence of any real change. The Roman Catholic treatment of pertinent passages is eisegetical.
2. Overthrows the nature of the sacrament. Again, the sign is not the thing signified.
3. “A lying sign and wonder”—the cause of manifold superstitions, even gross idolatries. See 2 Thessalonians 2:9. The belief that the elements of bread and wine are actually changed into the body and blood of Christ (when they are not) leads naturally to adoration and worship, which is idolatry.
Tomorrow: The Reformed view of the Supper.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Main Views of the Lord's Supper III
Today we take up the third view of the relationship of Christ to the sacrament of the Supper that has appeared in church history, that of the so-called memorial view. Traditionally associated with Ulrich Zwingli (although there is evidence he was moving away from this view toward the end of his life) and held by many Christians who trace their spiritual ancestry to Anabaptism, this view of the Supper maintains that the sacrament is purely memorial. Nothing more transpires than that the recipient focuses his mind upon Christ and his sacrifice. Christ is nomore or less present at the celebration of the Supper than he is when a Christian prays or reads his Bible. There is no special channel of grace to the Christian by his participation in this sacrament. This view is probably the majority position among those who would call themselves evangelical or fundamentalist. Wags have referred tot his view as the doctrine of "the real absence," because it emphasizes that Jesus is neither physically present nor especially spiritually present in the Supper, as opposed to the other views that compete for the designation, "the real presence."
The fourth view, that held by Reformed Christians, will be discussed in more detail when we consider the seventh paragraph of this chapter.
Tomorrow: Transubstantiation denied.
The fourth view, that held by Reformed Christians, will be discussed in more detail when we consider the seventh paragraph of this chapter.
Tomorrow: Transubstantiation denied.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Main Views of the Lord's Supper II
Today we'll briefly examine the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper, popularly known as "consubstantiation," although not by Lutherans. Martin Luther denied transubstantiation, the medieval Roman Catholic teaching we reviewed yesterday. In his theology, the bread and wine remain as they are. But he insisted on a strictly literal interpretation of Jesus' words "This is my body." Lutherans teach that the physical, material substance of Christ's flesh and blood are present in, with, and under the elements, such that the physical Jesus is really received with the taking of the sacrament. Some have made an analogy to the way a sponge holds water--the water is really in the sponge, but the substance of the sponge itself is not changed. Lutherans use the concept of ubiquity to explain how Christ can be physically present in many places at once when the Supper is celebrated.
Tomorrow: The memorial view.
Tomorrow: The memorial view.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Main Views of the Lord's Supper I
Over the next few days we will take a brief excursus in order to examine the principal views of the Lord's Supper held by the various western Christian traditions (I'm not sufficiently versed in the Eastern Orthodox view to make any comments here). The first view is transubstantiation according to Roman Catholicism. For this we will again look at what the 1994 Catechism has to say:
1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend." In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."
1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."
1378 Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. "The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession."
Official teaching on this sacrament is careful to distinguish between the substance of the elements and what are called the accidens of the elements--that the bread and wine retain all the outward appearances of bread and wine does not negate the substantial change that has taken place. According to the Roman Catholic Church, in the Mass the bread truly becomes the real, physical flesh of the body of Christ even though it looks, smells, feels, and tastes like bread. And similarly the wine undergoes a substantial but not accidental change.
Tomorrow: The Lutheran view of the Supper.
1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend." In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."
1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."
1378 Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. "The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession."
Official teaching on this sacrament is careful to distinguish between the substance of the elements and what are called the accidens of the elements--that the bread and wine retain all the outward appearances of bread and wine does not negate the substantial change that has taken place. According to the Roman Catholic Church, in the Mass the bread truly becomes the real, physical flesh of the body of Christ even though it looks, smells, feels, and tastes like bread. And similarly the wine undergoes a substantial but not accidental change.
Tomorrow: The Lutheran view of the Supper.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Of the Lord's Supper, XXIX:5
The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to Him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.
The sign is not the thing signified. Signs point to or designate other things but are themselves not the thing they designate. There is instead in the sacraments a spiritual relationship between the sign and that to which it points.
The bread points to the body of Christ broken for us; the wine points to the blood of Christ shed for us (1 Corinthians 11:23-25). It is legitimate, because of the sacramental metaphorical identity, to call the bread the body of Christ and to call the wine the blood of Christ. But the elements remain bread and wine. There is no change in their substance. We will delve into this in greater detail as we discuss the next paragraph of the Confession.
An analogy can be made between this concept and the two natures of Christ. The Lord is both God and man. Being God, he does not cease to be fully human; being human, he does not cease to be fully divine. There is no mixture or confusion of the natures. The human nature does not become divine, and the divine nature does not become human. Thus also the sacramental union between bread and body, wine and blood.
Tomorrow: Introduction to the main doctrinal views on the Supper.
The sign is not the thing signified. Signs point to or designate other things but are themselves not the thing they designate. There is instead in the sacraments a spiritual relationship between the sign and that to which it points.
The bread points to the body of Christ broken for us; the wine points to the blood of Christ shed for us (1 Corinthians 11:23-25). It is legitimate, because of the sacramental metaphorical identity, to call the bread the body of Christ and to call the wine the blood of Christ. But the elements remain bread and wine. There is no change in their substance. We will delve into this in greater detail as we discuss the next paragraph of the Confession.
An analogy can be made between this concept and the two natures of Christ. The Lord is both God and man. Being God, he does not cease to be fully human; being human, he does not cease to be fully divine. There is no mixture or confusion of the natures. The human nature does not become divine, and the divine nature does not become human. Thus also the sacramental union between bread and body, wine and blood.
Tomorrow: Introduction to the main doctrinal views on the Supper.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Of the Lord's Supper, XXIX:4
Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other alone; as likewise, the denial of the cup to the people, worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about, for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use; are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.
Many of the practices common to Roman Catholicism decried in this paragraph flow out of the doctrine of transubstantiation. This will be discussed in greater detail when we arrive at our discussions around paragraph six.
In brief summary, the divines considered as inappropriate (or just plain wrong) private masses, denial of the cup to the people (also known as communion in one kind), worshipping or adoring the elements (the bread and the wine), lifting up the elements for purposes of adoration, and reserving the elements for any pretended religious uses such as relics or for alleged healing.
Tomorrow: The sign and the thing signified.
Many of the practices common to Roman Catholicism decried in this paragraph flow out of the doctrine of transubstantiation. This will be discussed in greater detail when we arrive at our discussions around paragraph six.
In brief summary, the divines considered as inappropriate (or just plain wrong) private masses, denial of the cup to the people (also known as communion in one kind), worshipping or adoring the elements (the bread and the wine), lifting up the elements for purposes of adoration, and reserving the elements for any pretended religious uses such as relics or for alleged healing.
Tomorrow: The sign and the thing signified.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Of the Lord's Supper, XXIX:3
The Lord Jesus has, in this ordinance, appointed His ministers to declare His word of institution to the people; to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to a holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation.
This paragraph concerns the proper administration of the Supper. The Confession is clear that ordained ministers of the gospel officiate. Some are under the impression that any Christian may administer the Supper. The Confession denies this, placing the authority to administer the Supper only in the hands of duly-ordained ministers of the church. This helps to prevent abuses; for one thing, there is ostensibly more accountability for the ordained minister, who answers to the local session as well as to the presbytery and general assembly. According to the Confession, the minister declares the words of institution (never sacrament without word), prays, blesses and sets apart the elements from their common to sacred use (but the elements remain bread and wine), takes and breaks the bread, takes the cup, and communicates himself in both kinds along with the congregation. In the Middle Ages it was the typical practice for the priest to offer only the bread to the congregation, reserving the wine for the official celebrants. The Reformers admantly (and biblically) opposed this.
The Supper, when celebrated, is not subsequently offered to those not present, with certain exceptions. The emphasis here is on the proclamation of the word and the communion of believers as key to a proper observance of the Supper. It is appropriate to celebrate the Supper in private homes (for shut-ins) or hospitals and nursing homes when the sacrament is celebrated with a group of like-minded believers and the word is also proclaimed.
Tomorrow: Forbidden practices touching on the Supper.
This paragraph concerns the proper administration of the Supper. The Confession is clear that ordained ministers of the gospel officiate. Some are under the impression that any Christian may administer the Supper. The Confession denies this, placing the authority to administer the Supper only in the hands of duly-ordained ministers of the church. This helps to prevent abuses; for one thing, there is ostensibly more accountability for the ordained minister, who answers to the local session as well as to the presbytery and general assembly. According to the Confession, the minister declares the words of institution (never sacrament without word), prays, blesses and sets apart the elements from their common to sacred use (but the elements remain bread and wine), takes and breaks the bread, takes the cup, and communicates himself in both kinds along with the congregation. In the Middle Ages it was the typical practice for the priest to offer only the bread to the congregation, reserving the wine for the official celebrants. The Reformers admantly (and biblically) opposed this.
The Supper, when celebrated, is not subsequently offered to those not present, with certain exceptions. The emphasis here is on the proclamation of the word and the communion of believers as key to a proper observance of the Supper. It is appropriate to celebrate the Supper in private homes (for shut-ins) or hospitals and nursing homes when the sacrament is celebrated with a group of like-minded believers and the word is also proclaimed.
Tomorrow: Forbidden practices touching on the Supper.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Of the Lord's Supper, XXIX:2c
In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same: so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the only propitiation for all the sins of His elect.
According to the Scriptures:
1. The Supper is not an offering or real sacrifice for atonement or propitiation of sins (Hebrews 7:23ff.).
2. The Supper commemorates Christ's once-for-all sacrifice that cannot be repeated (Hebrews 9:24-28).
3. The Supper is properly conceived as a spiritual oblation of praise unto God (Hebrews 13:15-16).
The proper emphasis in any celebration of the Lord's Supper is what Christ has done and is doing in his divine session and the spiritual graces made evident, not upon what any celebrant is doing with the bread and wine.
Tomorrow: The biblical conduct of the Supper.
According to the Scriptures:
1. The Supper is not an offering or real sacrifice for atonement or propitiation of sins (Hebrews 7:23ff.).
2. The Supper commemorates Christ's once-for-all sacrifice that cannot be repeated (Hebrews 9:24-28).
3. The Supper is properly conceived as a spiritual oblation of praise unto God (Hebrews 13:15-16).
The proper emphasis in any celebration of the Lord's Supper is what Christ has done and is doing in his divine session and the spiritual graces made evident, not upon what any celebrant is doing with the bread and wine.
Tomorrow: The biblical conduct of the Supper.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Of the Lord's Supper, XXIX:2b
In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same: so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the only propitiation for all the sins of His elect.
With yesterday's several citations from the 1994 Roman Catholic catechism fresh in mind, we consider today the words of Ludwig Ott from his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
“The sacrifice of the Mass effects the remission of the temporal punishments for sin which still remain after the forgivement of the guilt of sins and of the eternal punishment, not merely mediately by the conferring of the grace of penance, but also immediately, because the atonement of Jesus Christ is offered as a substitute for our works of atonement and for the sufferings of the poor souls. The measurement of the punishments of sins remitted is proportional, in the case of the living, to the degree of perfection of their disposition. In the case of the suffering souls, the satisfactory operation of the Sacrifice of the Mass is applied by way of intercession…As they are in the state of grace and those oppose no obstacle, theologians generally teach that at least part of their punishments for sins is infallibly remitted.”
As James White observes, “In Roman Catholic theology, a person can attend a thousand masses and still leave this life ‘not yet fully purified.’ The ramifications of this should not be missed, especially in light of the claim that the Mass is the same sacrifice as that of Calvary.”
Tomorrow: The biblical doctrine of the Supper examined.
With yesterday's several citations from the 1994 Roman Catholic catechism fresh in mind, we consider today the words of Ludwig Ott from his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
“The sacrifice of the Mass effects the remission of the temporal punishments for sin which still remain after the forgivement of the guilt of sins and of the eternal punishment, not merely mediately by the conferring of the grace of penance, but also immediately, because the atonement of Jesus Christ is offered as a substitute for our works of atonement and for the sufferings of the poor souls. The measurement of the punishments of sins remitted is proportional, in the case of the living, to the degree of perfection of their disposition. In the case of the suffering souls, the satisfactory operation of the Sacrifice of the Mass is applied by way of intercession…As they are in the state of grace and those oppose no obstacle, theologians generally teach that at least part of their punishments for sins is infallibly remitted.”
As James White observes, “In Roman Catholic theology, a person can attend a thousand masses and still leave this life ‘not yet fully purified.’ The ramifications of this should not be missed, especially in light of the claim that the Mass is the same sacrifice as that of Calvary.”
Tomorrow: The biblical doctrine of the Supper examined.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Of the Lord's Supper, XXIX:2a
In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same: so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the only propitiation for all the sins of His elect.
This paragraph was written in direct opposition to contemporaneous Roman Catholic teaching. It follows in the great tradition of the Protestant Reformation.
To understand what the divines at Westminster opposed, it is helpful to examine pertinent sections of Roman Catholic dogma, here obtained from their 1994 Catechism. Read each section carefully and bear these concepts in mind as we procede with the discussion:
1323 "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet 'in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.'"
1324 The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life." "The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch."
1325 "The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God's action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit."
1330 The memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection. The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church's offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, "sacrifice of praise," spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used, since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.
1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present. "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."
1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner."
Tomorrow: Contrasting the biblical doctrine of the Supper with the Roman Catholic Eucharistic Mass, continued.
This paragraph was written in direct opposition to contemporaneous Roman Catholic teaching. It follows in the great tradition of the Protestant Reformation.
To understand what the divines at Westminster opposed, it is helpful to examine pertinent sections of Roman Catholic dogma, here obtained from their 1994 Catechism. Read each section carefully and bear these concepts in mind as we procede with the discussion:
1323 "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet 'in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.'"
1324 The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life." "The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch."
1325 "The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God's action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit."
1330 The memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection. The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church's offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, "sacrifice of praise," spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used, since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.
1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present. "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."
1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner."
Tomorrow: Contrasting the biblical doctrine of the Supper with the Roman Catholic Eucharistic Mass, continued.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Of the Lord's Supper, XXIX:1
Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein He was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of His body and blood, called the Lord's Supper, to be observed in His Church, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of Himself in His death; the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in Him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto Him; and, to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him, and with each other, as members of His mystical body.
Recall that we define a sacrament as a special observance commanded by Christ himself for specific spiritual purposes. Refer to Luke 22:14-20 and 1 Corinthians 11:23-30 for documentation of this idea.
The Supper is to be a "perpetual remembrance" of Christ's sacrificial death. Christ commanded that we observe the Supper "in remembrance of me" and Paul added that we continue to do this until Christ returns, at which time he will eat and drink with us again in the marriage supper of the Lamb (Revelation 19).
The Supper also seals all spiritual benefits to true believers. It provides authentication and assurance, which are the functions of a seal, of everything that Christ has accomplished in redemption on behalf of his people. It provides spiritual nourishment and growth to worthy partakers. We are recalled to our responsibilities to love one another as he has loved us and given his life for us and reminded and empowered us to our works of mutual edification. Finally (in terms of the Confession) the Supper provides a "bond and pledge of communion" both with Christ and with fellow believers, as had been discussed in chapter XXVI as we reviewed yesterday.
Tomorrow: The biblical doctrine of the Supper contrasted with the Roman Catholic Eucharistic Mass.
Recall that we define a sacrament as a special observance commanded by Christ himself for specific spiritual purposes. Refer to Luke 22:14-20 and 1 Corinthians 11:23-30 for documentation of this idea.
The Supper is to be a "perpetual remembrance" of Christ's sacrificial death. Christ commanded that we observe the Supper "in remembrance of me" and Paul added that we continue to do this until Christ returns, at which time he will eat and drink with us again in the marriage supper of the Lamb (Revelation 19).
The Supper also seals all spiritual benefits to true believers. It provides authentication and assurance, which are the functions of a seal, of everything that Christ has accomplished in redemption on behalf of his people. It provides spiritual nourishment and growth to worthy partakers. We are recalled to our responsibilities to love one another as he has loved us and given his life for us and reminded and empowered us to our works of mutual edification. Finally (in terms of the Confession) the Supper provides a "bond and pledge of communion" both with Christ and with fellow believers, as had been discussed in chapter XXVI as we reviewed yesterday.
Tomorrow: The biblical doctrine of the Supper contrasted with the Roman Catholic Eucharistic Mass.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
A Review of Communion and the Sacraments
Again, preparatory to our discussion of the Confession's teaching on the Lord's Supper, it will be helpful to remind ourselves of what has already been stated concerning communion with Christ and with one another in the Body of Christ as well as some central concepts about the sacraments.
The first paragraph of chapter XXVI: All saints, that are united to Jesus Christ their Head, by His Spirit, and by faith, have fellowship with Him in His grace, sufferings, death, resurrection, and glory: and, being united to one another in love, they have communion in each other's gifts and graces, and are obliged to the performance of such duties, public and private, as do conduce to their mutual good, both in the inward and outward man.
The Supper is one way by which the union of Christians with Christ and with each other is taught and manifested.
From chapter XXVII on the sacraments: Sacraments are 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. 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. 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 administers 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.
Briefly, we see here the concepts that the sacraments are signs and seals--they point toward and attest to the promises of God in Christ--but that the sign is not the thing signified. The sacraments and the promises of God and his saving power through Christ and by the Holy Spirit may be distinguished but not separated. The sacraments are indeed means of grace, ordinances by which God instructs and blesses his people.
Tomorrow: The start of the Confession on the Lord's Supper.
The first paragraph of chapter XXVI: All saints, that are united to Jesus Christ their Head, by His Spirit, and by faith, have fellowship with Him in His grace, sufferings, death, resurrection, and glory: and, being united to one another in love, they have communion in each other's gifts and graces, and are obliged to the performance of such duties, public and private, as do conduce to their mutual good, both in the inward and outward man.
The Supper is one way by which the union of Christians with Christ and with each other is taught and manifested.
From chapter XXVII on the sacraments: Sacraments are 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. 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. 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 administers 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.
Briefly, we see here the concepts that the sacraments are signs and seals--they point toward and attest to the promises of God in Christ--but that the sign is not the thing signified. The sacraments and the promises of God and his saving power through Christ and by the Holy Spirit may be distinguished but not separated. The sacraments are indeed means of grace, ordinances by which God instructs and blesses his people.
Tomorrow: The start of the Confession on the Lord's Supper.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Treatment of the Lord's Supper in the Reformation
Controversies over the Supper were often at the heart of Reformation-era disputes, both between Protestants and Roman Catholics and amongst Protestants themselves. Two aspects of this conflict are worth mentioning.
1. The Colloquy of Marburg. In 1529, several leaders of the Protestant Reformation--Luther, Zwingli, Bucer among them--met to establish a common doctrine of the various Reformed Churches. They were able to agree on every point save one: the relationship of Christ to the Supper. This is where Luther insisted on the woodenly literal meaning of the phrase, "This is my body." Failure here meant that the fledgling Protestant Church was fractured at a time when union would have been highly beneficial. Marburg was one of the great missed opportunities of history.
2. Protestant martyrs of the English Reformation. Following the accession of Mary Tudor to the English throne and the re-establishment of Roman Catholicism (following the Henrician split from papal authority and the more thorough-going Protestantism realized during Edward VI's brief reign), several Protestant leaders were called upon to recant their denial of transubstantiation (which we will examine in greater detail subsequently) and put to death when they refused. Accounts of their trials and executions are found in Foxe's Book of Martyrs.
Tomorrow: A brief review of the nature of sacraments.
1. The Colloquy of Marburg. In 1529, several leaders of the Protestant Reformation--Luther, Zwingli, Bucer among them--met to establish a common doctrine of the various Reformed Churches. They were able to agree on every point save one: the relationship of Christ to the Supper. This is where Luther insisted on the woodenly literal meaning of the phrase, "This is my body." Failure here meant that the fledgling Protestant Church was fractured at a time when union would have been highly beneficial. Marburg was one of the great missed opportunities of history.
2. Protestant martyrs of the English Reformation. Following the accession of Mary Tudor to the English throne and the re-establishment of Roman Catholicism (following the Henrician split from papal authority and the more thorough-going Protestantism realized during Edward VI's brief reign), several Protestant leaders were called upon to recant their denial of transubstantiation (which we will examine in greater detail subsequently) and put to death when they refused. Accounts of their trials and executions are found in Foxe's Book of Martyrs.
Tomorrow: A brief review of the nature of sacraments.
Monday, March 17, 2008
The Importance of the Doctrine of the Lord's Supper
I'm back from my short hiatus in Florida. Before we engage the Confession in its discussion of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper we should expend some effort in understanding what role it has played in church history.
Early church observance of this sacrament can be found in passages such as Acts 2:42-47. Clearly these Christians valued the gathering of the local body of Christ for prayer, preaching, and the fellowship of the table ("breaking of bread" being a common New Testament phrase indicating the Supper). The early church fathers devoted a far amount of written discussion to the significance of this sacrament.
It is impossible to deny the centrality of the Eucharistic Mass in Roman Catholicism. It constitutes the most important part of Roman Catholic worship and has been since the Middle Ages. Official teaching places it at the center of the church's life; it is the chief means by which spiritual (not temporal) punishment for sin is remitted.
Tomorrow: The Supper in the Reformation.
Early church observance of this sacrament can be found in passages such as Acts 2:42-47. Clearly these Christians valued the gathering of the local body of Christ for prayer, preaching, and the fellowship of the table ("breaking of bread" being a common New Testament phrase indicating the Supper). The early church fathers devoted a far amount of written discussion to the significance of this sacrament.
It is impossible to deny the centrality of the Eucharistic Mass in Roman Catholicism. It constitutes the most important part of Roman Catholic worship and has been since the Middle Ages. Official teaching places it at the center of the church's life; it is the chief means by which spiritual (not temporal) punishment for sin is remitted.
Tomorrow: The Supper in the Reformation.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Of Baptism, XXVIII:7
The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.
Take that, all you Anabaptists!
Again, if baptism is (rightly) understood as a sign and seal of God's grace in salvation, if it points not to our belief but to his promises and his faithfulness, to the regeneration and justification that the Spirit accomplishes and does not need to repeat, then it of course can be administered only once. God does not go back on his word. He is a "once for all" God.
The sacrament of remembrance and renewal is the Supper, which we will take up next after a week-long break while I attend to other matters. May the Lord bless you and keep you over the next several days.
Next: Introduction to the Lord's Supper.
Take that, all you Anabaptists!
Again, if baptism is (rightly) understood as a sign and seal of God's grace in salvation, if it points not to our belief but to his promises and his faithfulness, to the regeneration and justification that the Spirit accomplishes and does not need to repeat, then it of course can be administered only once. God does not go back on his word. He is a "once for all" God.
The sacrament of remembrance and renewal is the Supper, which we will take up next after a week-long break while I attend to other matters. May the Lord bless you and keep you over the next several days.
Next: Introduction to the Lord's Supper.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Of Baptism, XXVIII:6
The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.
Elaborating further on the relationship between the ordinance of baptism and salvation, the divines underscored their rejection of baptismal regeneration by denying that what God does in baptism is necessarily tied to the actual administration of the sacrament. In other words, simply because an infant (for example) receives baptism does not mean that infant is immediately regenerated and saved. This should be abundantly clear from the example of an adult who comes to faith in Christ and submits to baptism. In the case of the adult regeneration and saving faith have come about prior to baptism, which then illustrates the truth of the spiritual transformation already undergone and exhibits or points toward the promises of God. Similarly, the actual application of spiritual benefit in the life of one baptized as an infant does not necessarily occur then and there--indeed, according to this passage, it may never occur if it is not God's will to save that person--but at God's own appointed time then or in the future according to the counsel of his own will.
So it remains a false idea that one can save a person simply by baptizing him. Salvation is of the Lord, and his hands are not tied by the actions of human ministers.
Tomorrow: The frequency of baptism.
Elaborating further on the relationship between the ordinance of baptism and salvation, the divines underscored their rejection of baptismal regeneration by denying that what God does in baptism is necessarily tied to the actual administration of the sacrament. In other words, simply because an infant (for example) receives baptism does not mean that infant is immediately regenerated and saved. This should be abundantly clear from the example of an adult who comes to faith in Christ and submits to baptism. In the case of the adult regeneration and saving faith have come about prior to baptism, which then illustrates the truth of the spiritual transformation already undergone and exhibits or points toward the promises of God. Similarly, the actual application of spiritual benefit in the life of one baptized as an infant does not necessarily occur then and there--indeed, according to this passage, it may never occur if it is not God's will to save that person--but at God's own appointed time then or in the future according to the counsel of his own will.
So it remains a false idea that one can save a person simply by baptizing him. Salvation is of the Lord, and his hands are not tied by the actions of human ministers.
Tomorrow: The frequency of baptism.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Of Baptism, XXVIII:5
Although it be a great sin to condemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
Our Lord has commanded baptism--as we go out into the world and make disciples of all nations, we are commanded to baptise them in the Triune Name of God. So to avoid or neglect baptism is indeed a great sin. Yet it is very important to distinguish obedience to the Lord's ordinance and the salvation through grace that he has accomplished for his people. Baptism in itself does not save; it does not regenerate, and here the divines implicitly deny the (false) doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Baptism is not the agency of regeneration, for that would usurp the role of the Holy Spirit, who moves and works as he wills. Nor does baptism guarantee salvation, as if all who receive it are automatically saved. It is quite possible--although irregular and not desirable--that a Christian could go through life unbaptized and yet be saved.
Tomorrow: More on the relationship between baptism and salvation.
Our Lord has commanded baptism--as we go out into the world and make disciples of all nations, we are commanded to baptise them in the Triune Name of God. So to avoid or neglect baptism is indeed a great sin. Yet it is very important to distinguish obedience to the Lord's ordinance and the salvation through grace that he has accomplished for his people. Baptism in itself does not save; it does not regenerate, and here the divines implicitly deny the (false) doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Baptism is not the agency of regeneration, for that would usurp the role of the Holy Spirit, who moves and works as he wills. Nor does baptism guarantee salvation, as if all who receive it are automatically saved. It is quite possible--although irregular and not desirable--that a Christian could go through life unbaptized and yet be saved.
Tomorrow: More on the relationship between baptism and salvation.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Of Baptism, XXVIII:4
Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.
And here we have arrived at one of the more contentious statements in the Confession. The dispute between conscientious Christians over the proper recipients of baptism that has been conducted in earnest since the early days of the Protestant Reformation is not easily resolved. Both sides (it tends to be a polar debate) claim to have the weight of Scripture. In this regard, it is helpful to point out that there are three types of baptism described in the New Testament: Baptismal accounts naming no individuals; baptismal accounts where the individual has no identifiable household; and accounts of household baptisms. Only nine persons are specifically mentioned as recipients of baptism in the New Testament, and of those two did not have households and two we know nothing more about, while the remaining five persons had households that received baptism. Infants are not specifically mentioned, one way or the other. So both sides argue from silence when it is claimed, on the one hand, that Scripture does not command the baptism of infants, and, on the other hand, that Scripture does not forbid the baptism of infants.
Covenant theologians, in which category the Westminster divines belong, have looked to the parallel between circumcision and baptism (see the previous post on the correlation and continuity between the ordinances of the old and new covenants) as favoring including infants as recipients of baptism. If one does not accept this parallel/continuity then the argument is harder to sustain. Persons interested in learning more about the paedobaptist position should consult John Murray's elegant discussion.
Tomorrow: Is baptism essential to salvation?
And here we have arrived at one of the more contentious statements in the Confession. The dispute between conscientious Christians over the proper recipients of baptism that has been conducted in earnest since the early days of the Protestant Reformation is not easily resolved. Both sides (it tends to be a polar debate) claim to have the weight of Scripture. In this regard, it is helpful to point out that there are three types of baptism described in the New Testament: Baptismal accounts naming no individuals; baptismal accounts where the individual has no identifiable household; and accounts of household baptisms. Only nine persons are specifically mentioned as recipients of baptism in the New Testament, and of those two did not have households and two we know nothing more about, while the remaining five persons had households that received baptism. Infants are not specifically mentioned, one way or the other. So both sides argue from silence when it is claimed, on the one hand, that Scripture does not command the baptism of infants, and, on the other hand, that Scripture does not forbid the baptism of infants.
Covenant theologians, in which category the Westminster divines belong, have looked to the parallel between circumcision and baptism (see the previous post on the correlation and continuity between the ordinances of the old and new covenants) as favoring including infants as recipients of baptism. If one does not accept this parallel/continuity then the argument is harder to sustain. Persons interested in learning more about the paedobaptist position should consult John Murray's elegant discussion.
Tomorrow: Is baptism essential to salvation?
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Of Baptism, XXVIII:3
Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.
Much ink has been spilt over the controversy on the mode of Christian baptism. I do not propose to rehearse that controversy here. Suffice to say that the divines taught that many forms of baptism are valid, preferring the pouring or sprinkling mode that would allow administration of the sacrament in any facility and not just those equipped with a full-sized font.
A friend and Christian brother has laid out the argument for the superiority of the sprinkling mode thus:
1. Christ's blood is sprinkled on us in the imagery of Hebrews 9:13-14.
2. Sprinkling cleanses according to the Old Testament (Leviticus 14:1; see also Hebrews 10:22).
3. Blood sprinkled marks out God's people (Ezekiel 36:25ff.).
4. In the new covenant, no more sprinkling of blood is necessary, but the sprinkling or pouring of water symbolizes the finished work of Christ purifying us and marking us out as his people.
I think it's an interesting argument but for the moment I have a more latitudinarian position. I do believe, however, the Westminster divines would be sympathetic to it.
Tomorrow: The proper recipients of baptism.
Much ink has been spilt over the controversy on the mode of Christian baptism. I do not propose to rehearse that controversy here. Suffice to say that the divines taught that many forms of baptism are valid, preferring the pouring or sprinkling mode that would allow administration of the sacrament in any facility and not just those equipped with a full-sized font.
A friend and Christian brother has laid out the argument for the superiority of the sprinkling mode thus:
1. Christ's blood is sprinkled on us in the imagery of Hebrews 9:13-14.
2. Sprinkling cleanses according to the Old Testament (Leviticus 14:1; see also Hebrews 10:22).
3. Blood sprinkled marks out God's people (Ezekiel 36:25ff.).
4. In the new covenant, no more sprinkling of blood is necessary, but the sprinkling or pouring of water symbolizes the finished work of Christ purifying us and marking us out as his people.
I think it's an interesting argument but for the moment I have a more latitudinarian position. I do believe, however, the Westminster divines would be sympathetic to it.
Tomorrow: The proper recipients of baptism.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Of Baptism, XXVIII:2
The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.
This short paragraph sets out that baptism is to be done by water (as opposed to some other material--just what one would use as a substitute I'm not sure) and according to the Triune God, just as our Lord set forth in Matthew 28. And, as established in the previous chapter that introduced the sacraments, the one celebrating baptism is to be an ordained minister of the gospel.
Tomorrow: The mode of baptism.
This short paragraph sets out that baptism is to be done by water (as opposed to some other material--just what one would use as a substitute I'm not sure) and according to the Triune God, just as our Lord set forth in Matthew 28. And, as established in the previous chapter that introduced the sacraments, the one celebrating baptism is to be an ordained minister of the gospel.
Tomorrow: The mode of baptism.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Of Baptism, XXVIII:1
Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament [new covenant], ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.
The Confession starts its consideration of baptism by reviewing some of the characteristics of a sacrament discussed in the previous chapter:
1. Directly ordained by Jesus Christ.
2. A sign and seal of the covenant of grace
Here baptism is also said to be a sign and seal of the recipient's union with Christ, of his spiritual regeneration, of the remission of his sins, and his sanctification. These are heady statements that will need careful consideration as the discussion of baptism proceeds further.
Baptism as a new covenant ordinance is commanded to be observed perpetually until the return of our Lord.
Tomorrow: The method of baptism.
The Confession starts its consideration of baptism by reviewing some of the characteristics of a sacrament discussed in the previous chapter:
1. Directly ordained by Jesus Christ.
2. A sign and seal of the covenant of grace
Here baptism is also said to be a sign and seal of the recipient's union with Christ, of his spiritual regeneration, of the remission of his sins, and his sanctification. These are heady statements that will need careful consideration as the discussion of baptism proceeds further.
Baptism as a new covenant ordinance is commanded to be observed perpetually until the return of our Lord.
Tomorrow: The method of baptism.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Of the Sacraments, XXVII:5
The sacraments of the Old Testament in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new.
Being good covenant theologians, the Westminster divines drew a direct correlation between the ordinances of the old covenant (circumcision and the Passover) and the new covenant (baptism and the Lord's Supper). Accordingly, with respect to what each ordinance is supposed to signify and display to us, these two sets of ordinances accomplish the same purpose for the people of God. Circumcision and baptism are the outward marks of inclusion in the covenant people, while Passover and the Supper are the visible, tangible, gustatory dramatization of God's redemptive work on behalf of his people.
Many more things will be said about the sacraments as we discuss each in turn over the next several days.
Tomorrow: Introduction to Christian baptism.
Being good covenant theologians, the Westminster divines drew a direct correlation between the ordinances of the old covenant (circumcision and the Passover) and the new covenant (baptism and the Lord's Supper). Accordingly, with respect to what each ordinance is supposed to signify and display to us, these two sets of ordinances accomplish the same purpose for the people of God. Circumcision and baptism are the outward marks of inclusion in the covenant people, while Passover and the Supper are the visible, tangible, gustatory dramatization of God's redemptive work on behalf of his people.
Many more things will be said about the sacraments as we discuss each in turn over the next several days.
Tomorrow: Introduction to Christian baptism.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Of the Sacraments, XXVII:4
There are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.
This paragraph affirms the Protestant view of the number of Christian sacraments and distinctly denies the Roman Catholic formulation. From the Protestant perspective, a sacrament is an ordinance directly inaugurated and established for perpetuity (until he returns) by Christ himself. None of the other five observances that Rome defines as a sacrament meets this criterion.
The Confession also limits the authority to perform or dispense sacraments to the ordained ministry. This is a more controversial point than I would have thought, having encountered sincere questions when teaching this chapter. It likely goes to orderliness and seemliness, especially in the context of Paul's admonition regarding the right observance of the Supper. But I will admit to not having settled my thoughts on the matter as a whole.
Tomorrow: The continuity of sacraments.
This paragraph affirms the Protestant view of the number of Christian sacraments and distinctly denies the Roman Catholic formulation. From the Protestant perspective, a sacrament is an ordinance directly inaugurated and established for perpetuity (until he returns) by Christ himself. None of the other five observances that Rome defines as a sacrament meets this criterion.
The Confession also limits the authority to perform or dispense sacraments to the ordained ministry. This is a more controversial point than I would have thought, having encountered sincere questions when teaching this chapter. It likely goes to orderliness and seemliness, especially in the context of Paul's admonition regarding the right observance of the Supper. But I will admit to not having settled my thoughts on the matter as a whole.
Tomorrow: The continuity of sacraments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
