Thomas Watson on Baptism

This is from his A Body of Divinity:

Baptism

Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them, &c. Matt 28:19.

I. The way whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption, is, in the use of the sacraments.

What are the sacraments in general?

They are visible signs of invisible grace.

Is not the word of God sufficient to salvation? What need then is there of sacraments?

We must not be wise above what is written. It is God’s will that his church should have sacraments; and it is God’s goodness thus to condescend to weak capacities. ‘Except ye see signs, ye will not believe.’ John 4:48. To strengthen our faith, God confirms the covenant of grace, not only by promises but by sacramental signs.

What are the sacraments of the New Testament?

Two: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

Are there no more? The Papists tell us of five more, viz., confirmation, penance, matrimony, orders, and the extreme unction.

(1) There were but two sacraments under the law, therefore there are no more now. I Cor 10:2, 3, 4.

(2) These two sacraments are sufficient; the one signifying our entrance into Christ, and the other, our growth and perseverance in him.

II. The first sacrament is baptism. ‘Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them,’ &c. ‘Go, teach all nations;’ the Greek word is ‘Make disciples of all nations.’ If it be asked, how should we make them disciples? It follows, ‘Baptizing them and teaching them.’ In a heathen nation, first teach, and then baptize them; but in a Christian church, first baptize, and then teach them.

What is baptism?

In general, it is a matriculation, or visible admission of children into the congregation of Christ’s flock. More particularly, ‘Baptism is a sacrament, wherein the washing or sprinkling with water, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, does signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord’s.’

What is meant by the parent when he presents his child to be baptized?

The parent, in presenting the child to be baptized, (1) Makes a public acknowledgement of original sin; that the soul of his child is polluted, therefore needs washing from sin by Christ’s blood and Spirit; both which washings are signified by the sprinkling of water in baptism. (2) The parent by bringing his child to be baptized, solemnly devotes it to the Lord, and enrols it in God’s family; and truly it is a great satisfaction to a religious parent to have given up his child to the Lord in baptism. How can a parent look with comfort on that child who was never dedicated to God?

What is the benefit of baptism?

The party baptized has, (1) An entrance into the visible body of the church. (2) He has a right sealed to the ordinances, which is a privilege full of glory. Rom 9:4. (3) The child baptized is under a more special providential care of Christ, who appoints the tutelage of angels to be the infant’s life-guard.

Is this all the benefit?

No! To such as belong to the election, baptism is a ’seal of the righteousness of faith,’ a laver of regeneration, and a badge of adoption. Rom 4:11.

How does it appear that children have a right to baptism?

Children are parties in the covenant of grace. The covenant was made with them. ‘I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.’ Gen 17:7. ‘The promise is to you and to your children.’ Acts 2:39. The covenant of grace may be considered either, (1) More strictly, as an absolute promise to give saving grace; and so none but the elect are in covenant with God. Or, (2) More largely, as a covenant containing in it many outward glorious privileges, in which respects the children of believers do belong to the covenant of grace. The promise is to you and to your seed. The infant seed of believers may as well lay a claim to the covenant of grace as their parents; and having a right to the covenant, they cannot justly be denied baptism, which is its seal. It is certain the children of believers were once visibly in covenant with God, and received the seal of their admission into the church; where now do we find this covenant interest, or church membership of infants, repealed or made void? Certainly Jesus Christ did not come to put believers and their children into a worse condition than they were in before. If the children of believers should not be baptized, they are in worse condition now than they were in before Christ’s coming.

[1] Objections. The Scripture is silent herein and does not mention infant baptism.

Though the word infant baptism is not in Scripture, yet the thing is. Mention is not made in Scripture of woman’s receiving the sacrament; but who doubts but the command, ‘Take, eat, this is my body,’ concerns them? Does not their faith need strengthening as well as others? So the word Trinity is not to be found in Scripture, but there is that which is equivalent to it. ‘There are Three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these Three are one.’ I John 5:7. So, though the word infant baptism is not mentioned in Scripture, the practice of baptizing infants may be drawn from Scripture by undeniable consequence.

How is that proved?

The Scripture mentions whole families baptized; as the household of Lydia, Crispus, and the jailer. ‘He was baptized, he and all his.’ Acts 16:33. Wherein we must rationally imagine there were some little children. If it be said, there is no mention here made of children; I answer, neither are servants named; and yet it cannot be supposed but that, in so great a family, there were some servants.

But infants are not capable of the end of baptism; for baptism signifies the washing away of sin by the blood of Christ. Infants cannot understand this; therefore what benefit can baptism be to them?

Neither could the child that was to be circumcised understand circumcision; yet the ordinance of circumcision was not to be omitted or deferred. Though an infant understand not the meaning of baptism it may partake of the blessing of baptism. The little children that Christ took in his arms, understood not Christ’s meaning, but they had Christ’s blessing. ‘He put his hands upon them and blessed them.’ Mark 10:16.

But what benefit can the child have of baptism if it understand not the nature of baptism?

It may have a right to the promise sealed up, which it shall have an actual interest in when it comes to have faith. A legacy may be of use to the child in the cradle; though it now understand not the legacy, yet when it is grown up to years, it is fully possessed of it. But it may be further objected: -

The party to be baptized is to be engaged to God; but how can the child enter into such an engagement?

The parents can engage for it, which God is pleased to accept as equivalent to the child’s personal engagement.

If baptism comes in the room of circumcisions, and the males only were circumcised, what warrant is there for baptizing females? Gen 17:10.

Females were included, and were virtually circumcised in the males. What is done to the head is done to the body; the man being the head of the woman. I Cor 11:3. What was done to the male sex was interpretatively done to the female.

[2] Having answered these objections, I come now to prove by argument, infant baptism.

(1) If children during their infancy are capable of grace, they are capable of baptism; but children in their infancy are capable of grace, therefore they are capable of baptism. I prove the minor, that they are capable of grace, thus: if children in their infancy may be saved, then they are capable of grace; but children in their infancy may be saved; which is thus proved: that if the kingdom of heaven belongs to them, they may be saved; but the kingdom of heaven may belong to them, as it is clear from, ‘Of such is the kingdom of God’ (Mark 10:14); who then can forbid that the seal of baptism should be applied to them?

(2) If infants may be among the number of God’s servants, there is no reason why they should be shut out of God’s family; but infants may be in the number of God’s servants, because God calls them his servants. ‘He shall depart from thee, and his children with him, for they are my servants.’ Lev 25:41. Therefore children in their infancy, being God’s servants, why should they not have baptism, which is the tessera, the mark or seal which God sets upon his servants?

(3) ‘But now are they (your children) holy.’ I Cor 7:14. Children are not called holy, as if they were free from original sin; but in the judgement of charity they are to be esteemed holy, and true members of the church of God, because their parents are believers. Hence that excellent divine, Mr Hildersam, says, ‘that the children of the faithful as soon as they are born, have a covenant holiness, and so a right and title to baptism, which is the token of the covenant.’

(4) From the opinion of the fathers and the practice of the church. The ancient fathers were strong asserters of infant baptism, as Irenaeus, Basil, Lactantius, Cyprian, and Augustine. It was the practice of the Greek church to baptize her infants. Erasmus says that infant baptism has been used in the church of God for above fourteen hundred years. And Augustine, in his book against Pelagius, affirms that it has been the custom of the church in all ages to baptize infants. Yea, it was an apostolic practice. Paul affirms that he baptized the whole house of Stephanus. I Cor 1:16.

Having seen Scripture arguments for infant baptism, let us consider whether the practice of those who delay the baptizing of children till riper years, be warrantable. For my part, I cannot gather it from Scripture. Though we read of adult persons, and grown up to years of discretion, in the apostles’ times, being baptized, yet they were such as were converted from heathenish idolatry to the true orthodox faith; but that in a Christian church the children of believers should be kept unbaptized for several years, I know neither precept nor example for it in Scripture, but it is wholly apocryphal. The baptizing of persons, grown up to maturity, we may argue against ab effectu, from the ill consequence of it. They dip the persons they baptize over head and ears in cold water, and naked; which, as it is indecent, so it is dangerous, and has often been the occasion of chronic disease, yea, and of death itself; and so is a plain breach of the sixth commandment. How far God has given up many persons, who are for deferring baptism, to other vile opinions and vicious practices, is evident, if we consult history; especially if we read the doings of the Anabaptists in Germany.

Use one. See the riches of God’s goodness, who will not only be the God of believers, but takes their seed into covenant with them. ‘I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed.’ Gen 17:7. A father counts it a great privilege, not only to have his own name, but his child’s name put in a will.

Use two. Those parents are to be blamed who forbid little children to be brought to Christ; and withhold from them this ordinance. By denying their infants baptism, they exclude them from membership in the visible church, so that their infants are sucking pagans. Such as deny their children baptism, make God’s institutions under the law more full of kindness and grace to children than they are under the gospel; which, how strange a paradox it is, I leave you to judge.

Use three. For exhortation. (1) Let us who are baptized, labour to find the blessed fruits of it in our own souls; not only to have the signs of the covenant, but the grace of the covenant. Many glory in their baptism. The Jews gloried in their circumcision, because of their royal privileges; to them belonged the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants. Rom 9:4. But many of them were a shame and reproach to their circumcision. ‘For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you.’ Rom 2:24. The scandalous Jews, though circumcised, were, in God’s account, as heathens. ‘Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians to me? saith the Lord.’ Amos 9:7. Alas! what is it to have the name of Christ, and want his image? What is baptism of water without the baptism of the Spirit? Many baptized Christians are no better than heathens. O let us labour to find the fruits of baptism, that Christ is formed in us (Gal 4:19); that our nature is changed; that we are made holy and heavenly. This is to be baptized into Jesus. Rom 6:3. Such as live unsuitable to their baptism, may go with baptismal-water on their faces, and sacramental bread in their mouths, to hell.

(2) Let us labour to make a right use of our baptism. Let us use it as a shield against temptations. Satan, I have given up myself to God by a sacred vow in baptism; I am not my own, I am Christ’s; therefore I cannot yield to thy temptations, for I should break my oath of allegiance which I made to God in baptism. Luther tells us of a pious woman, who, when the devil tempted her to sin, answered, Satan, baptizata sum, ‘I am baptized;’ and so beat back the tempter.

Let us use it as a spur to holiness. By remembering our baptism, let us be stirred up to make good our baptismal engagements; renouncing the world, flesh, and devil, let us devote ourselves to God and his service. To be baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, implies a solemn dedication of ourselves to the service of all the Three Persons in the Trinity. It is not enough that our parents dedicate us to God in baptism, but we must dedicate ourselves to him; this is called living to the Lord. Rom 14:8. Our life should be spent in worshipping God, in loving God, in exalting God; we should walk as becomes the gospel. Phil 1:27. We should shine as stars in the world, and live as earthly angels.

Let us use it as an argument to courage. We should be ready to confess that Holy Trinity, into whose name we were baptized. With the conversion of the heart must go the confession of the tongue. ‘Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God.’ Luke 12:8. Peter openly confessed Christ crucified. Acts 4:10. Cyprian, a man of a brave spirit, was like a rock, whom no waves could shake; like an adamant, whom no sword could cut. He confessed Christ before the pro-consul, and suffered himself to be proscribed; yea, chose death rather than betray the truths of Christ. He that dare not confess the Holy Trinity, shames his baptism, and God will be ashamed to own him at the day of judgement.

Use four. See the fearfulness of the sin of apostasy! It is renouncing our baptism. It is damnable perjury to go away from God after a solemn vow. ‘Demas has forsaken me.’ 2 Tim 4:10. He turned renegado, and afterwards became a priest in an idol-temple, says Dorotheus. Julia the apostate, Gregory Nazianzen observes, bathed himself in the blood of beasts offered in sacrifice to heathen gods; and so, as much as in him lay, washed off his former baptism. The case of such as fall away after baptism is dreadful. ‘If any man draw back.’ Heb 10:38. The Greek word to draw back, alludes to a soldier that steals away from his colours; so, if any man steal away from Christ, and run over to the devil’s side, ‘my soul shall have no pleasure in him;’ that is, I will be severely avenged on him; I will make my arrows drunk with his blood. If all the plagues in the Bible can make that man miserable, he shall be so.

Out with the old, in with the new

I know it has been a while (a long while), but my life has been rather busy since I decided to run a half marathon and the training that it entailed.  Plus I have been rather lazy and my thoughts have been elsewhere (like on writing a paper for applying to grad school, hopefully I post some about that later).

One of the credo of the reformed types is “reformed and always reforming.”  Along those lines, I have recently “reformed” my thinking on marriage.  But at the same time it has left me with more questions than my previous view.  For years I held the view that sex is marriage.  Since sex was the act that consummated a marriage, it was my opinion that the sexual bond between two persons was all that was necessary for there to be a marriage.  I’ll admit that some of this is based on my observations on marriages and marriage ceremonies.  Practically speaking there has been nothing special about any of the marriage ceremonies that I have attended.  There was nothing in them that made me believe that something objective/ontological was going on.  They really seemed unnecessary for the most part.  The rate of divorce or failed marriages anecdotally suggests that there is nothing special about marriage either.

Lately my views have completely changed.  I can no longer hold to that view.  I am now under the impression, that marriage doesn’t exist outside of the marriage ceremony, and only when it is officiated by an ordained minister.  Some of this has to do with a change in understanding of love.  The definition of love is radically changed in the Christian “worldview” (I really dislike that term, but I guess it gets its point across).  The view of love in marriage in the Christian worldview is vastly different than that of the non-Christian world (at least it should be).  But the reality is that the average Christian and the average non-Christian have the same view of love.  They both believe in something that is un-Biblical.  Exactly what that definition is I do not know.

The Christian definition of love in marriage founded on the way that Christ loved the church.  This view of love can only be founded in the Christian faith.  My problem with this is that this kind of love doesn’t exist naturally.  The only way for this type of love to be actualized is if it is given from the Godhead.  How does the Godhead give us this love?  The logical answer is that it is through the marriage ceremony.  (It might even be possible to argue that this gift of love is actually given as a benefit of one’s baptism.  The love between husband and wife is similar to the kind of love that the community of believers is supposed to have for each other.  At the same time however there is an added dimension to the marriage charge).  In the marriage ceremony the Father pours out his blessings on the couple through the Spirit.  One of those blessings, is the ability to love this way.  That is not to say that all Christians accept all of the blessings that the Father gives them.  Just as believers reject their baptism and the blessings that God has offered to them, so do married couples.  Just as apostasy happens in the church, so does it happen in marriage.

All of that said, I am more confused about marriage now then I ever was before.  I am curious about the transformation of love during the marriage ceremony.  How is the definition of love different for a couple that is in the courting process versus those that are already married?  Or is it?

A Sticking Question, Part II

This is sort of a follow up to a previous post

I have been attempting to read up some on Federal Vision (FV) recently.  I have tried to do this in the past, but with little success.  I was hearing bad things about the theology and the people “leading” the movement.  Being PCA didn’t really help matters and having Paul Fowler as a professor in seminary didn’t help much either (If you don’t know, he was the chairman of the PCA study committee).  The FVers seemed to be radically changing the categories that I was accustomed to, as well as the definitions of theological terms that I was familiar with.  I saw nothing good of it for a while.  I was considering joining the PCA when the controversy first broke out.  I remember sitting in a presbytery meeting as Joseph Pipa was promoting a book that resulted from the colloquium at Knox Theological Seminary.  His specific target at the presbytery meeting was the issue of paedocommunion.  There was a lot of rhetoric being thrown around (even I could that at the time).  I eagerly waited on the PCA study committee report to come out.  When it came out, I was severely disappointed.  Anyone could tell that the report was pure BS (no offense to Paul Fowler, he is a great guy (I will always be thankful for him introducing me to Ridderbos)).  It made very little sense, you could tell that most of what was there was being taken out of context.  After reading the report and listening to a recording of the debate on the floor of GA, I was no longer satisfied with what I was being told.  But I also was planning to pursue ordination in the PCA at the time, and I knew that questioning its stance on FV would not bode well for me (especially in my presbytery).  I kind of just let it go.

By the time I was finishing up seminary, I began to think a lot about the sacraments.  I became very uncomfortable with what I was hearing from the Presbyterian folk around me.  The more I thought about it, the more I thought that my Presbyterian brothers were losing their grip on the historical reformed faith on the sacraments.  They seemed to have very little meaning for the church anymore.  To read Calvin on the sacraments and then watch the sacraments practiced in the church was shocking to say the least.  The more I thought about it and read, the more I began to think that baptized children were allowed at the table.  But trying to convince your average PCA person of that position was virtually impossible.

The only people that seemed to be open to the idea of paedocommunion were the FVers.  The question I began to wonder about was whether or not it was possible to not be associated with FV, yet still affirm paedocommunion.  I do think that it possible to hold to paedocommunion without taking the FV stance.  But in terms of practicality, I don’t think that it is.  Presbyterians as a whole seem to have lost some of their reformed roots.  (I think this is mostly due to the degradation of reformed worship over the past century.  Presbyterians have lost their theology because they no longer practice it on the Lord’s Day).

The sacraments have virtually the same meaning for Presbyterians these days, as they do for Baptists.  This is where the PCA FV report let me down the most.  I was taught in seminary that all heresies contain an element of truth.  Someone saw the theological pendulum beginning to swing in the wrong the direction and ended up trying to fix it, but swung the pendulum too far in the other direction.  The PCA refused to listen to what the FVers were saying.  They refused to look at what they were trying to regain (even if they did swing the pendulum too far in the other direction.  (that is a debatable point)).

I am still not completely convinced of the FV position, but it is growing on me.  But I too have to worry about falling off the other side of the theological horse.  I think that the question will ultimately remain, as to whether one has to be in the FV camp to affirm paedocommunion.  I no longer think that it is a question of theology, but a question of polity.

Been Awhile

I know it’s been awhile, but things have been rather busy and I recently moved (and that didn’t help matters any).  I don’t have much to say.  I’m a little behind on my reading, and I have a lot that I am still thinking through.  I was recently loaned a book by the elder at my church, The Lutheran Liturgy by Luther D. Reed.  The opening chapter is incredible.  Reed describes the significance of the liturgy as such:

“The liturgy” is a general designation for the officially prescribed services of a church body.  The name is derived from the Greek word, leitourgia, a public act or duty performed by individual citizens for the benefit of the state.  Specifically the term is applied to the approved formulary for the celebration of the Eucharist.  In a less restricted sense, and as used generally, the liturgy denotes the whole system of formal, prescribed services, including the text, the seasons and festivals of the church, the prescribed ceremonial, etc.

In either sense, the liturgy is a work of large dimensions and universal significance.  It is not a “worship program” or a collection of such programs. The latter, usually prepared by an individual pastor for the use of a particular congregation at a single service, develops a topic or theme in accordance with some “psychological pattern.” Lessons, responsive readings and other liturgical extracts, hymns, litanies, and prayers are chosen from various sources and interspersed with organ and choral numbers. This “program” is usually designed as “preliminary” to the sermon in which the topic chosen by the minister is specifically discussed. Such a worship program, however balanced, beautiful and edifying in itself, is necessarily of local and temporary significance. Privately prepared and locally used, it has no connection with the services of other congregations and usually no close relationship with other services in the same congregation. Any such connection or any continuity with the past is soon broken and forgotten.

The liturgy, particularly in the restricted sense of the historical service of the Holy Communion is quite different.  It is not a sheaf of pretty autumn leaves but a noble, living tree.  It is the work and possession of the whole church.  It has been carefully prepared and authorized by a general church body.  It is used by thousands of congregations over continental areas.  Its plan encompasses the cycle of a year.  It  includes a certain fixed framework for every service throughout the year but inserts in this selection of variable material appropriate for particular festivals and days.  The beliefs, needs, and desires of all men find expression in its unchanging order for Confession, its Kyrie, its Gloria and canticles of praise, its Creed, Preface, Sanctus, the Prayer of Thanksgiving, the formula for distribution, the Post-Communion Collect, and the Benediction. (Luther Reed, The Lutheran Liturgy, 19-20).

Is there anything more to say?  (Well, actually yes there is.  The whole of the chapter is really worth posting and pondering over for weeks)

Ecclesiastes

I was in the middle of writing the most insightful blog ever last night, when I realized that I hadn’t done my reading for Bible study tonight, so I had to shelve it for the time being.  It is in the pile with all of the other insightful post that are half finished, eventually though I will come back to them (I hope).

For our Bible Study we are reading and discussing Ecclesiastes Through New Eyes: a Table in the Mist by Jeffrey Meyers.  So far it has been an interesting book.  Meyers makes an interesting observation about Ecclesisastes, he says that a lot of people have misunderstood its purpose, it is either Solomon in a period of lost hope or Solomon is showing the fulitity of a non-Christian worldview.  According to Meyers this is not the point of the book, Solomon is imparting some real wisdom on the reader, after all this is a wisdom book.  Ecclesiastes is one of those books that doesn’t hide the hash truth of life from us.  Sometimes life sucks.  It’s unfair.  You can do everything completely right and still fail or suffer.  What does Solomon says to do with all this, basically to eat, drink and be merry in all of it.

This is something that is rather hard to grasp.  I want to believe that if I follow the directions, everything is going to turn out like I want it to, but unfortunately that is not the case.  I spend so much time thinking everything through, going through various situations and scenarios in head of trying to figure everything out.  I want things to have a certain outcome and I try to figure out a means to that end.  But unfortunately life doesn’t work that way.  You can follow steps A and B and expect result C, but instead what you get is D.  You have no idea where D came from or what do with it.  You sit there and try to figure out D.  By the time you figure out D, E has come into the picture and you are left wondering WTF.  This is something that I have to fight on a daily basis, whether it’s trying to figure out what to say to that girl or what do with the rest of my life (because no matter what you do you’re going to screw it up).  This can be down right depressing the more you think about it.  The message of Ecclesiastes is actually full of hope in all of this, Follow the commands of God and accept your lot in life, and for goodness sake eat, drink and be merry.

I wish I had the wisdom to do this, but I will probably continue to try and control my life.  The father tells us to trust him, and yet, we tell him no.  We think that we can handle it on our own.  We think we know more than the creator of the world, this is pure insanity.  This is what happened to Adam in the garden.  God was preparing Adam to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but Adam in his hastiness wanted it now.  He wanted to take control of his life and paid a hefty cost for.  Hopefully we can learn from Adam and from Solomon to wait patiently for the Lord.  In the meantime, let’s eat, drink and be merry.

Quote from Jeffrey Meyers on Paedocommunion

Here a quote from Jeffrey Meyer’s concerning paedocommunion from his article “Presbyerian, Examine Thyself” in The Case for Covenant Communion, 20.

…does 1 Cor. 11:28 really require the kind of self-examination that Calvin and Presbyterians have traditionally thought?  To whom does Paul address the admonition?  What does the verb “examine” mean in the context of 1 Cor. 11?  Does it actually require “mature faith” and an ability to perform internal soul-searching and deep personal introspection before one can be judged worthy of participation at the Lord’s table?  I am convinced that this text has been made to serve a function in traditional discussions about the admission requirements for Holy Communion that goes well beyond Paul’s solution for the problem in the Corinthian church’s practice of hte Supper.  More ominously, I am convinced that that text, properly understood, actually stands against the traditional Presbyterian practice of excluding young children from the table. Those who fail to commune with the youngest, weakest members of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 11:14-26)  are themselves not “judging the body” (that is, the church as the communal body of Christ) and therefore eating the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner.  (emphasis mine and his)

If I ever had any doubts about paedocommunion, Meyers answered them.

A Sticking Question

Over the past few years there has been a “drastic” shift in my thinking about communion, especially in the area of fencing the table.  I grew up Baptist.  Anyone that has been to a Baptist church when they take communion (usually at an evening service once a year or so) knows how they fence the table.  I think that Doug Wilson’s quote in the previous post accurately pictures the way that a Baptist church practices communion.  Fencing the table in that context looks something like this (perhaps an over-characterization): “If you have sin in your life that you have not confessed or sinned against a brother or sister that you haven’t confessed, then don’t take communion, because God will judge you.”  You kind of live in fear of communion (probably one of the reasons it is done so infrequently, but there are other reasons as well).  This was the view of communion that I held even as I moved over to a more reformed understanding of things.  You still get the same kind of warning in the Presbyterian church (especially in the PCA, the “Baptists” of the Presbyterian denomination), but it is couched a little bit differently.  The PCA BCO basically says something all the lines that the only people invited to partake communion are those that members in good standing in an evangelical church.  The more I thought about this idea of fencing the table, the more I began to dislike it.  I really didn’t like the way the PCA BCO suggested.  It really doesn’t make much sense to me.  I remember talking with my former pastor about it one time (because the church basically read the line out of the BCO word for word).  I asked him if the PCA consider the PCUSA to be an Evangelical denomination.  My feeling was that the PCA wouldn’t consider the PCUSA to be evangelical and he concurred in some sense.  (This may be a debatable issue.)  Then I asked if he would deny someone visiting the church that was a member at a PCUSA church.  He said, no.  So then I asked why make that statement.  My thinking began to shift to the concern of denying people from the table, who shouldn’t be denied the sacrament.  I got to the point where I just wanted to throw out fencing the table language altogether.  I basically jumped on the Methodist band-wagon and affirmed open communion.  (I still think that Wesley may be correct that the communion meal can indeed be a salvific encounter with the Lord for a non-believer, or non-covenant member).  I have since kind of fallen back to what those in the paedocommunion camp have put forth.  Since communion is a covenant meal it can only be taken by those who are members of the covenant.  The sign of membership in the covenant is baptism, therefore all that are baptized may partake of the communion meal.

But this leads to a question, if I take this latter approach, does that mean I have to buy into the Federal Vision Theology or can one affirm paedocommunion without Federal Vision?  The meaning of baptism is going to have to be discussed in the latter approach to “fencing the table”.  I can’t think of anyone within Federal Vision that denies paedocommunion, but I am having a hard time finding people that believe in paedocommunion that aren’t in the Federal Vision camp.  The problem is that I don’t if I completely buy into Federal Vision.  I am sympathetic in some instances, but as of right now I don’t know if I can take it as a whole.

I know I have neglected this thing, but I have been somewhat busy lately, but I’ll try to keep up with it a little better.  I am reading some interesting books right now that I want to finish before I post some things that are on my mind right now.

A quick quote

I haven’t posted in a while, but I do have a couple of posts that I am working on (sporadically at best, mind you, as I have been rather busy lately).   I just started reading The Case for Covenant Communion edited by Gregg Strawbridge, which I am hoping will be good and will help me make up my mind on this issue.  The forward by Douglas Wilson was rather good.  I really liked what Wilson had to say, including this remark:

“Instead of curling up into an introspective cocoon, the saints should be learning to discern that the Lord’s Supper is a corporate event, not an individual event.  Instead of dimming the lights and bowing their heads and closing their eyes, the believers should be looking around the sanctuary, loving and discerning the body.  Instead of groveling in confession, the body of Christ should be seated together with Christ in the central meal of the kingdom. This is the place where the friends of God rule.” (The Case for Covenant Communion, vi)

I will come back to this later.

Weekly Communion and Significance

In my previous post I mentioned that the only common argument against weekly communion is that it would lose its significance.  I said there that I didn’t want to spend any time dealing with in that post, but now I would like deal with this common argument.  To me this is rather ludicrous argument.  It is one of the most irrational arguments that I have ever heard.  ”If we have communion every week, then it will lose its significance.” Or so it is said.  If you ever try to press someone on this issue, he or she never really has any justification for this belief.  I also mentioned that Donald Bloesch’s book The Church was the only book that I can remember reading that says that communion should not be a part of the weekly Lord’s Day Service.  Here is his reasoning: “Because of the Pauline admonition to examine oneself carefully before partaking of Holy Communion, my recommendation is that Communion should be celebrated at but ordinarily not more than once a month.  If this sacred meal becomes too familiar, we begin to lose sight of the fact that is a special occasion in the life of the church, and it is likely that we will ignore the injunction to examine ourselves and repent of all sin before comuning with Chirst in the eucharist.  Communion is a high point of the worship service, but it is not essential for a worship celebration. While the ideal is weekly Communion, the pressures of modern life argue for a less frequent observance of the supper.” (Donald Bloesch, The Church, 164. emphasis mine) There may be various other reasons for non-weekly communion, but I would assume that most of them are fairly analagous to this.

The first time that I read this my iniation reaction was that, “the pressures of mordern life argue” for weekly communion.  Bloesch’s contention is people need time to properly prepare for the Lord’s Supper.  ”Communion should be celebrated about once a month, thereby giving time for the necessary inward preparation.” (Bloesch, 142.) “The Sunday or Wednesday preceding the observance could be devoted to self-examination and confession.” (Bloesch, 164.) I really don’t understand this line of reasoning.  I wonder how preparation for communion and the Lord’s Day Service are any different.

The problem with Bloesch’s reasoning and those who offer similar reasonings is that for them there is a disjunction between word and sacrament, between worship and communion.  I do not mean that they deny a connection between worship and communion, even Bloesch acknowledges this, in one of the quotes above he calls it a high point of worship (but it is not the climax of worship on his view, a very important distinction).  But according to Bloesch and others it is not an essential part of worship.  It is not part of the ontological essence of worship.  Once we begin to divorce word and sacrament, the preaching of the word and the sacraments, we begin to lose focus of their significance.  As a result the Lord’s Supper begins to develop a new significance.  Not only does the Lord’s supper’s significance begin to change, but the other elements of worship develop a new significance.  This is why Barth can accurately describe modern worship, when he says: “At the Reformation the Roman church of the sacraments was replaced by the church of the Word on the basis of the gospel. But very soon this was taken to mean that the administration of the sacraments might be omitted from worship as nonessential, all the emphasis now being put on the sermon. Today, then, we have Rome on the one side, still the sacramental church, and Protestantism on the other, the preaching church, which also administers the sacraments, but not so publicly. Both the Roman Catholic and the Protestant overemphases represent a disruption, a distortion, and even a destruction of the church. What kind of preaching is it that receives its prominence from the suppression of the sacraments, that cannot refer to the sacraments wihch it has to interpret and by which it is to be interpreted? We do not live by what our pastors can say but by the fact that we are baptized, that God has called us. Today, it is true, everyone can see the lack and attempts are being made to make it good by all kinds of substitutes such as the renewing and deepening of the liturgy, the richer embellishment of worship with music, and similar devices. But all these efforts are doomed to failure in advance because they rest on a totally wrong orientation.”  (Karl Barth, Homiletics, 59-60.)  When we begin to lose sight of the proper relationship between word and sacrament, we begin to lose sight of worship as a whole.  Without a proper understanding between the relationship of word and sacrament worship cannot function properly, it becomes an exercise in futility.  Or as Barth put it “doomed to failure.”

When the sacraments are divorced from worship the significance of worship and the sacraments drift away from a significance that draws on each other.  They each begin to move towards insolated events in worship.  This is not just true of preaching and the sacraments, this is true of every element in worship.  They should all be inter-related to each other.  They should draw meaning from each other.  It should be one continuous movement from the Father’s calling us to worship at the beginning to the proclamation of his blessing children at the end of the service.  Instead what we have in most worship services is a bunch of isolated elements that are rarely meaningfully related in the worship service.  They seem to exist on their own.  They are not drawing meaning from each other.  As Barth points out there is a focus on preaching in the protestant church.  This is because we have lost sight of the relationship between the elements of worship.  All that matters is that the Word is preached, the rest is just ad hoc.  It is only when things are approached as a whole that we can see the proper significance of word and sacrament.

This  idea of a wholistic view of worship helps guard us from the mistakes of Bloesch’s view of communion.  Bloesch does rightly see a lot of good in the sacrament.  There is a rich theology in the sacrament for him (although he does at the same time miss the full richness of the tapestry at the table of the Lord).  A non-wholistic view allows us to incorrectly elevate certain aspects of the meal.  It may cause others like Bloesch to focus on Paul’s warnings in 1 Cor. and cause us to miss the full blessing of the table.  I will again appeal to Thomas Watson here to give us a glimspe of the rich tapestry set for us at the Lord’s Table.

“The…circumstance of time is that Christ did appoint the sacrament a little before his sufferings.  ’The Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread’ (1 Cor. 11:23).  He knew troubles were now coming upon his disciples; it would be no small perplexity for them to see their Lord and Master crucified; and shortly after they must pledge him a bitter cup; therefore, to arm them against such a time, and to animate their spirits, that very night in which he was betrayed he gives them his body and body in the sacrament.

This may give us a good hint, that, in all trouble of mind, especially in approaches of danger, it is needful to have recourse to the Lord’s Supper.  The sacrament is both an antidote against fear and a restoration to faith.  ’The night in which he was betrayed, he took bread’ (1 Cor. 11:23).” (Thomas Watson, The Lord’s Supper, 3-4)

The warnings of Paul should not cause us to relegate dining with Lord once a month.  It should call us to see the deeper meaning in the supper.  The Church is called to be one body.  The church in Corinth was not acting like this.  They brought the Greek culture to the table with them, where the most prominent people were treated better than the lower class folks.  This is indeed an abuse of the Table, and Paul’s warning is proper.  Abuse the Lord’s Table and he will judge you.  Bloesch focuses too much on this point.  If we look at communion as an essential part of worship, it will help guard us from focusing too much on one aspect of the Lord’s Supper.  The Lord doesn’t warn us to stay away from his Table, He invites us to it:

“He was always the guest.
In the homes of Peter and Jairus,
Martha and Mary,
he was always the guest.
At the meal tables of the wealthy,
where he pled the cause of the poor,
he was always the guest.
Upsetting polite company,
befriending isolated people,
welcoming the stranger,
he was always the guest.
But here, at this table,
he is the host.
Those who wish to serve him
must first be served by him.
Those who want to follow him
must first be fed by him.
Those who would wash his feet
must first let him make them clean.
For this is the table
where God intends us to be nourished;
this is the time when Christ can make us new.
So come, you who hunger and thirst for a deeper faith,
for a better life, for a fairer world.
Jesus Christ, who has sat at our tables,
now invites us to be guests at his.” (The Worship Sourcebook, 315.)

Some Thoughts on Communion

Sorry about the delay between posts, I have been somewhat busy these past couple of weeks.  I decided to run a 5k about a week and half ago, so I was a bit more concern about not making a fool of myself attempting to run.

Anyways on with the post,

One of the interesting things that Barth says in the quote from the previous post was, “In every respect the church is a physical, historical entity, with true and visible corporeality, and yet in every respect it is also wholly invisible as the mysterious body of Christ. Because the church is both at one and the same time, there must never in any circumstances be separation between administration of the sacraments and the proclamation of the gospel.” (emphasis mine).  As I making my decision to leave GPC, this was one of the most important points along the road.  GPC practiced communion every two months and every two months does a dismal job of practicing communion.  One of the many problems with the modern church is that it has lost sight of the sacraments.  This really seems to be a problem for reformed churches, where the sacraments have a very rich meaning.  In the opening of Thomas Watson’s The Lord’s Supper he says, “Oh! What flames of devotion should burn in our hearts!  How agile and nimble should we be, mounting up as on wings of cheribum, when we are able to meet the Prince of Glory who brings the olive-branch of peace in his mouth, and whose kisses leave a print of heaven upon the soul.” (Thomas Watson, The Lord’s Supper, viii.  As a side note, Watson’s little book is one of the best I have ever read.  I didn’t realize how much I was missing until I read his book.)  In the average service where communion takes place (It is such a sad thing to have to qualify a Lord’s Day Service (as antoher side note, I prefer this language over worship service, but that is a discussion for another day) in this manner.) I highly doubt that this accurately describes what is going on.

Most of the books that I have read push for weekly communion (Donald Bloesch’s The Church, the 6th book in his systematic theology is the only notable expection, but then again its Bloesch and I disagree with him on most things, evangelical Barth, my ass.)  I strongly believe that communion should be part of the weekly Lord’s Day Service.  Jeffrey Meyer’s sums up my stance fairly bluntly, “The Lord’s Supper ought to be a normal part of our weekly worship. Period.” (Jeffrey Meyers, The Lord’s Service: The Grace of Covenant Renewal Worship, 214.)  He does elaborate his postion a little bit early in that same chapter, “We live to eat and eating structures our common life.  This is how God has made us.  This is why covenant renewal worship  should not end with the sermon and offering.  It should never end without Communion.  God has called the Church together to eat with Him…On the Lord’s Day God invites us to His House for meal.  Yes, He cleanses and consecrates us, but before God sends us out to serve Him in the world He first sits down for a common meal.  He must strengthen and nourish us with bread and wine for service in His kingdom.  We must experience the shalom of God at the table.  Therefore, the culmination of the covenant renewal service occurs when we sit down and eat dinner with Jesus, receiving from Him by faith His own lifegiving flesh and blood.” (Meyers, 213-4.)

If this is what communion is all about, then why on earth would any church object to offering every week.  Meyers thinks that the only objection is that it might lose its significance, which is an absurb objection on so many levels (in his and my opinion).  I really don’t want to spend any time on this objection.  I think that there is another problem that needs to be dealt with.  This is the problem that communion has been practiced so poorly in the past century that it has lost all meaning.  For the average parishoner it has no meaning.  It has already lost its significance.  I think that this is plainly evident when you look at how communion is practiced at most modern churches.  I have always found it funny (in a rather morbid sense I must admit) that at your average reformed church more time is spent on fencing the table than anything else.  We have to make sure that we get Paul’s warning out to the masses.  When I was in seminary I remembering spending most of a class period debating different positions about fencing the table.  I never really understood how people in the reformed faith could care so much about this one point.  This one point was discussed more than anything else in my worship classes concerning communion.  I still don’t understand it to this day.  The PCA has had huge debates concerning fencing the table.  The Paedocommunion controvesery resulted in a lot people being called heretics.  Granted who is invited to the Lord’s Table is very important.  I don’t think that telling the people that only those that are “members in good standing in an evangelical church” (from the PCA book of church order chapter 58, slightly paraphrased), should really ever be said during the communion service.  (I doubt that anyone who says it actually believes it.)  We have turned a gracious invitation of the Father into something else.  Instead of communion being a offering a grace and strength from the Father, it has become a time of condemnation.  The focus of the communion service focuses more on Paul’s warnings and fencing the table than it does inviting us to a foretaste of glory, a foretaste of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.  If we have lost sight of the meaning and purpose of communion it is easy to see why churches shy away from practicing the sacraments of the church.  The problem is not that people are afraid that communion will lose its significance if it is practiced weekly.  The problem is that the new significance is something that no one wants.  People live in fear of coming to the communion table.  They are afraid that the Lord is going to strike them down, if they forgot/neglected to confess something to Him.  They are afraid that God is going to judge them as sinners when they come to the Table.  Nothing is further from the truth.

“Has Jesus Christ made his gospel-banquet?  Is He both founder and the feast?  Then let poor doubting Christians be encouraged to  come to the Lord’s table.  Satan would hinder from the sacrament, as Saul did the people from eating honey (1 Sam. 14:26).  But is there any soul that has been humbled and bruised for sin, whose heart secretly pants after Christ, but yet stands trembling, and dares not approach to these holy mysteries?  Let me encourage that soul to come: ‘Arise, he called thee’ (Mark 10:49).

OBJECTION 1: But I am sinful and unworthy, and why should I meddle with such holy things?

ANSWER: Who did Christ die for but such?  ’Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners’ (1 Tim. 1:15)  He took our sins upon him, as well as our nature.  ’Surely he hath borne our griefs’ (Isa. 53:4).  In Hebrew it is our sickness.  See thy sins, says Luther, upon Christ, and then they are no more thine, but his.  Our sins should humble us, but they must not discourage us from Christ; the more diseased we are, the rather we should step into this Pool of Siloam.

Who does Christ invite to the supper, but the poor, halt, and maimed (Luke 14:21)?  That is, such as see themselves unworthy, and fly to Christ for sanctuary.  The priest was to take a bunch of hyssop and dip it in the blood and sprinkle it upon the leper (Lev. 14:7).  Thou who hast the leprosy of sin upon thee, yet if as a leper thou dost loathe thyself, Christ’s precious blood shall be sprinkled upon thee.” (Watson, 60-1.  I hope you can begin to see why this is one of my favorite books.)

The modern church has taken this away from the saints.  No longer do we receive this grace of the Father through the Son by the Spirit.  No wonder the church doesn’t make the sacraments a regular part of the weekly service.  If all they are going to offer is judgment and condemnation.  Maybe Bloesch was right that we shouldn’t have communion every week.  But let us as a church not lose hope.  Grasp on to the promises of the Father in the communion service.

I think that John Knox ’s communion prayer is one of the best there is, it sums up the beauty of communion better than I ever could:

“O Father of mercy, and God of all consolation, seeing all creatures do knowledge and confess thee as Governor and Lord, it becometh us, the workmanship of thine own hands, at all times to reverence and magnify thy Godly Majesty: first, for that thou hast created us to thine own image and similitude; but chiefly that thou hast delivered us from that everlasting death and damnation, into the which Satan drew mankind by the means of sin, from the bondage whereof, neither man nor angel was able to make us free; but thou, O Lord, rich in mercy and infinite in goodness, hast provided our redemption to stand in thy only and well -beloved Son, whom of very love thou didst give to be made man, like unto us is all things (sin excepted), that in his body he might receive the punishments of our transgression, by his death to make satisfaction to thy justice, and by his resurrection to destroy him that was author of death; and so to reduce and bring again life to the world, from which the whole offspring of Adam most justly was exiled.

O Lord, we acknowledge that no creature is able to comprehend the length and breadth, the depth and height, of that thy most excellent love, which moved thee to show mercy where none was deserved; to promise and give life where death had gotten victory; to receive us into thy grace when we could do nothing but rebel against thy justice.  O Lord, the blind dullness of our corrupt nature will not suffer us sufficiently to weigh these thy most ample benefits; yet, nevertheless, at the commandment of Jesus Christ our Lord, we present ourselves to this his table, (which he hath left to be used in remembrance of his death until his coming again), to declare and witness before the world that by him alone we have received liberty and life; that by him alone thou dost acknowledge us thy children and heirs; that by him alone we have entrance to the throne of thy grace; that by him alone we are possessed in our spiritual kingdom, to eat and drink at his table; with whom we have our conversation presently in heaven; and by whom our bodies shall be raised up again from the dust, and shall be placed with him in that endless joy, which thou, O Father of mercy, hast prepared for thine elect, before the foundation of the world was laid.  And these most inestimable benefits, we acknowledge and confess to have received of thy free mercy and grace, by thy only beloved Son Jesus Christ: for the which therefore, we thy congregation, moved by thy Holy Spirit, render thee all thanks, praise, and glory, for ever and ever.” (The Genevan Book of Order)