You are currently browsing the monthly archive for November, 2008.
Thanks to Jonathan for directing me to this post he’s written on Cranmer’s and Calvin’s eucharistic theology. I’m not much of a Cranmer scholar, so I’ve always just assumed that Cranmer and Calvin held identical positions on this issue. The issues that differentiate Calvin from Cranmer are profound. And I also think its ironic that many Anglicans look down upon Reformed sacramentology by claiming that it doesn’t go far enough. I’ve talked to a few friends in the REC who have persistently made this claim. Historically speaking, the opposite is true. Enjoy.
Two observations: First, the Confession specifically condemns memorialism in harsh terms. For 16th century Scottish divines, memorialism is false dogma, plain and simple. Second, note how the Confession speaks of baptism as a principle means of salvific blessing. Third, notice how the Confession views the Eucharist as a salvific encounter in which we feed upon Christ, divine and human, as he is seated in heaven. If you’ve read the Zanchi quote I posted the other day, note how strikingly similar the emphasis is. As Jonathan pointed out in the combox section, this Eucharistic theology puts to rest the Lutheran charge of Nestorianism against Calvinistic sacramentology. Fourth, notice how far we’ve come in either neglecting or forgetting the sacramental heritage of our theological ancestors. Even in some Scottish Presbyterian circles, the sacramental emphasis has waned. Yearly, quarterly, or even monthly communion seems to reflect the spiritual apathy with respect to the centrality of the Eucharist. Border-line memorialism with respect to baptism reflects this apathy as well. As a Presbyterian within the Scottish tradition, I’m very concerned that the sacramental theology of the early Scottish Reformers might be recovered and cherished in our day.
Chapter 21: On the Sacraments
As the fathers under the Law, besides the reality of the sacrifices, had two chief sacraments, that is, circumcision and the passover, and those who rejected these were not reckoned among God’s people; so do we acknowledge and confess that now in the time of the gospel we have two chief sacraments, which alone were instituted by the Lord Jesus and commanded to be used by all who will be counted members of his body, that is, Baptism and the Supper or Table of the Lord Jesus, also called the Communion of His Body and Blood.
These sacraments, both of the Old Testament and of the New, were instituted by God not only to make a visible distinction between his people and those who were without the Covenant, but also to exercise the faith of his children and, by participation of these sacraments, to seal in their hearts the assurance of his promise, and of that most blessed conjunction, union, and society, which the chosen have with their Head, Christ Jesus.
And so we utterly condemn the vanity of those who affirm the sacraments to be nothing else than naked and bare signs. No, we assuredly believe that by Baptism we are engrafted into Christ Jesus, to be made partakers of his righteousness, by which our sins are covered and remitted, and also that in the Supper rightly used, Christ Jesus is so joined with us that he becomes the very nourishment and food for our souls. Not that we imagine any transubstantiation of bread into Christ’s body, and of wine into his natural blood, as the Romanists have perniciously taught and wrongly believed; but this union and conjunction which we have with the body and blood of Christ Jesus in the right use of the sacraments is wrought by means of the Holy Spirit, who by true faith carries us above all things that are visible, carnal, and earthly, and makes us feed upon the body and blood of Christ Jesus, once broken and shed for us but now in heaven, and appearing for us in the presence of his Father. Notwithstanding the distance between his glorified body in heaven and mortal men on earth, yet we must assuredly believe that the bread which we break is the communion of Christ’s body and the cup which we bless the communion of his blood. Thus we confess and believe without doubt that the faithful, in the right use of the Lord’s Table, do so eat the body and drink the blood of the Lord Jesus.
Certainly controversial, Zanchi’s position on baptism seems to reflect much of the sacramental consensus of 16th century Reformation thinking. In this excerpt from his Confessions of the Christian Religion written for his family, Zanchi explains that holy baptism is an efficacious means of regeneration and union with Christ for elect infants. According to Zanchi, regeneration, in the case of elect infants, is a washing of regeneration and new life in Christ. While I might not agree with his position, I think its high time for Reformed Christians to get over their Zwinglian obsession with memorialism and recognize that baptism and the Lord’s Supper, for 16th century Reformation divines, were viewed as instruments of salvation, not merely sanctifying assistants. If you’re interested in Zanchi’s baptismal theology, or something close to it, I’d reccomend checking out Cornelius Burgess, Samuel Ward, Peter Martyr Vermigli, and Thomas Cranmer (whose baptismal theology was much closer to patristic thinking than his eucharistic theology.)
I. Baptism–what it is, and what are the effects of it.
Baptism first is a sacrament of the new covenant wherewith all men, which either having professed true repentance of their sins, do also profess faith in Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:17), and so in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, or at least are believed to appertain unto the covenant through the faith of their parents (1 Cor. 7:14); but especially they, which truly do belong unto the covenant as being now incorporated into Christ are sealed by Him (Acts 19:5), that they should be no longer their own men, but His (1 Cor. 6:19), by whom they are called into the society of the covenant, and consequently into one body with Him and all the saints, and into participation of all spiritual and heavenly good things (Eph. 1:12); and are cleansed by this baptism (Eph. 5:26), as the water of regeneration, from all their sins, by virtue of Christ’s blood (Titus 3:5); and buried into the death with Christ, that as He rose from death by the favor of the Father, so we should walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:4). Whereupon it hath been usually called the sacrament of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4), the sacrament of faith, the seal of the covenant, the water of regeneration, the washing away of sins, the sacrament of new life.
II. The virtue of baptism takes place only in the elect, and they only are baptized with water, and with the Holy Ghost.
But though all these things are said of baptism, and are truly attributed unto it as to the Holy Ghost’s instrument to work these things, and that therefore all which are baptized are truly said to be made and to be such sacramentally–yet we believe that it is not indeed and really performed but only in the elect, which are endowed with Christ’s Spirit, since they only do believe rightly and do truly belong unto Christ and to His mystical body. And therefore, that all are baptized indeed with water, but the elect only with the Spirit; and all do receive the sign, but not all are made partakers of the thing signified and offered by baptism, but only the elect.
III. Of what parts the whole sacrament of baptism consisteth.
And we believe that unto the making of the whole sacrament of baptism, those two things are sufficient which Christ instituted, namely, the simple element of water wherewith the parties are washed, either by dipping in or by sprinkling upon; and that form of words wherewith Christ taught them to baptize–that is, In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, neither did the apostles, as we are persuaded, use any form of words, or added [nor add] anything else unto the water.
IV. The young infants of the faithful are to be baptized.
We believe with the whole ancient church that unto the sacrament of baptism are to be admitted not only they that are of discretion, which having professed repentance of their sins do also profess faith in Christ, but also the young children of such, since they are to be accompted [accounted] to belong to the covenant, (as the apostle saith), the children of the faithful are holy (1 Cor. 7:14); especially seeing God hath nowhere altered that commandment which He gave to Abraham for the marking of all with the sign of the covenant–even the children of the faithful. Nay, He said, “Suffer little children…to come unto Me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:14).
V. How far forth baptism is necessary in the church, and how needful to everyone to salvation.
We believe that baptism is altogether necessary in the church as a sacrament instituted of Christ, and which the church cannot be without–so that where it is not used, if it may be used, there we acknowledge no church. And we think it so necessary unto everyone to salvation, that yet notwithstanding if one die not washed with the water for defect or want of a minister, and not upon contempt, we believe he is not therefore condemned, or wrapped in eternal destruction. For the children of the faithful are therefore saved because they are holy and under the covenant of God; and men grown are saved because they believe in Christ with a true faith, which indeed can suffer no contempt of the commandments of Christ.
VI. Baptism once rightly received ought not to be taken again.
Furthermore we believe that as circumcision was done only once in the flesh, so the baptism of water, which succeeded circumcision, being once rightly and lawfully received, ought not again to be repeated. We say that it is rightly and lawfully administered when first the doctrine of the gospel concerning the true God, Christ and His office, goeth before according to Christ’s institution, and then the parties are baptized with water, and that of a lawful minister, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. For Christ also once died and was buried, and we are baptized into His death and are buried with Him by baptism (Col. 2; Rom. 6:4). Neither do we read that the apostles ever did rebaptize any, except those which Paul did baptize who had not been rightly baptized (Acts 19:5).
VII. The virtue of baptism is perpetual.
Now although we come but once to the sacrament of baptism, yet we hold that the matter of this sacrament and the virtue thereof is perpetual–which virtue is nothing else but the very planting into Christ, and so the participation of His benefits, the washing away of sins, and regeneration, which daily more and more is made perfect by the Holy Ghost. For the apostle saith that He cleanseth the church by “washing of water by the Word, that He might present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle” (Eph. 5:26-27). And His blood cleanseth daily from all sin (1 John 1:7). And therefore we think and believe that the faithful being content with once receiving of the sacrament ought daily to be occupied in remembrance of it, and to weigh in their minds to what end they were baptized, or what they have obtained of God by baptism, and what also they promised to God therein–whereby they may the more be confirmed in faith and grow up into the communion with Christ and be made more careful of performing their duties. For baptism is not bestowed on us for remission of original sin only, or our sins past, but of all the offenses of our whole life, even as the pulling out of the waters is a sign of a new life, not for one day, but for all our time, as the apostle saith, “We are buried with Him by baptism into death”, that as Christ rose from death by the glory of His Father, so we should (always) “walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4). We were once washed with outward water, but the blood of Christ is a continual stream, washing and cleansing us daily from our sins.
VIII. By whom baptism ought to be administered.
We believe also that holy baptism is to be administered by those by whom also the gospel is preached. For to whom Christ said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel,” to them He also said, “Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.”
XI. Errors.
Therefore we condemn all, as well ancient as late heresies, which have at any time been scattered against the sound doctrine of baptism: Selevcus and Hermias, who baptized with fire; the Cerdonians and Marcionites, who used another form of words than that which was prescribed by Christ, and baptized in the name of another god than of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; those also which baptized in the name of John or any other man; the Cataphriges, who baptized dead men; with all Donatists and Anabaptists, who rebaptize them which come unto them, and which deny that infants ought to be baptized; and those also that deny baptism to be true, unless there be added exorcisms, spittle, salt, and other ceremonies devised by men.
Hear the words of a lesser known Italian Reformer whose high-church Calvinism is reflected in his treatise on the Lord’s Supper. The entire treatise can be found here along with others. Here’s a portion in which Zanchi enumerates what is offered to us in the holy Eucharist. I’ve found Zanchi and some of the other lesser known Reformers to be incredibly enjoyable and instructive. What I particularly enjoy about Zanchi’s Eucharistic theology is his emphasis upon the entire person of Christ, divine and human, offered and received by faith in the administration of the holy Eucharist. Zanchi specifically polemicizes against a view which would attempt to separate the divine and human in Christ. Some Reformed scholars have rejected this high-church heritage by focusing entirely upon the spiritual presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. For Calvin, Bucer, Vermigli, Zanchi, Cranmer, the Westminster Divines, and others this was unthinkable. We receive the whole Christ by faith in the reception of the Lord’s Supper.
On a different note, my friend Michael Dewalt over at Reformation Heritage Books provided me with a link to purchase the works of Peter Martyr Vermigli translated into English. I hope to maybe receive a few volumes for Christmas. Have a happy thanksgiving everyone!
Of those things which are given unto us in the Supper
- I believe these three things to be offered unto all men in the Supper and to be received of the faithful.
- 1. The signs, the bread and the wine being joined with the words of Christ. For the word is not separated from the figures, nor the signs from the word; or else the Sacraments were no Sacraments. For the word is added to the element and so the Sacrament is made.
- 2. The body and blood of the Lord, that is the Lord Jesus Christ himself. For as in the Divinity is not separated from the humanity, neither the humanity from the Divinity; even so unto us, the one is not offered without the other. Wherefore neither are they to be separated of us even in thought, but as the whole Christ is offered, so is the whole Christ to be received
- 3. The New Covenant or Testament. I mean that which is renewed and confirmed in Christ. For this is that thing for whose cause chiefly the Supper is instituted and administered, to wit, that we being incorporated more and more into the person of Christ might have the covenant more and more confirmed unto us. Now the body and blood of Christ and the new Testament made in Christ are that Spiritual, but the elements of Bread and Wine are those earthly things whereof Irenaeus speaks.
“Hear the Voice.” When I thought that the Emerging Church couldn’t get more ridiculous, they churn out a “fresh” translation of the Bible designed to fit into their theologically heterox agenda. Literary deconstruction isn’t new. And it’s not surprising that the pseudo-deconstructionist agenda of emergent leaders would be applied to the holy Scriptures. The difference between Derrida and McLaren is that Derrida did it well, while McLaren and his pals are just plain ridiculous. Read it for yourself. What’s known as the emergent church is more clearly manifesting itself as a subjectivistic cult with deep roots in godless pietism. What Machen said of liberalism can be said of “emergent Christianity.” It’s not Christianity at all, but another idolatrous attempt to worship a god of our own making.
Here are a few observations I’ve noted after reading Kuyper’s lecture on Calvinism and politics.
1. We must distinguish between political, ecclesiastical, and social spheres. God is sovereign over all spheres. A particular primordial sovereignty manifests itself in mankind in each of these spheres.
2. The sovereignty of each sphere of life is given by God to act according to its own peculiar God-given nature. Hence, no sphere can directly interfere with another. While overlap may exist, each sphere is distinct in its own right.
3. Civil magistrates are unnatural necessities because of the fall. If there were no fall, there would be no social, economic, and ethnic barriers between peoples, and therefore no need for individual states to govern them. The pre-lapsarian political environment was directly theocratic. The state is an un-natural “stick” to hold up the dying plant.
4. The State cannot intrude into other spheres. For example, the State cannot regulate the life of the family, the life of the church, or education. Public schools are a prime example of statism at its worst, the intrusion of the State into the sovereign sphere of the family and its responsibility to educate its members.
5. Statism or “the omnipotence of the State” as Kuyper labels it, is antithetical to Calvinsim. Forms of Communism and Socialism are historical manifestations of Statism, and cannot be reconciled with Calvinistic thinking.
6. Liberty of conscience must be encouraged and maintained by the State insofar as that liberty does not flagrantly oppose the law of GOd and the order which the State is responsible to provide.
7. The State primarily exists for purposes of justice and societal order. The State bears the sword of the justice and warfare, not the sword of the Spirit. Those who disagree with a particular form of Christianity cannot be punished for their disagreement. The destruction of the soul because liberty of conscience is exercised is a heinous sin. Kuyper refers to the execution of Servetus in the 16th century as “deplorable.”
8. Nevertheless, the State cannot and must not define morality. Statist ideologies seek to define morality and impose it upon the consciences of the people. The law of God must regulate the activity of the State. Something like the legalization of same-sex unions would be antithetical to the exercise of true liberty. It would be a slavish imposition of an alien “morality” upon the consciences of citizens. Liberty must be defined according to its Biblical usage.
9. The State is responsible to consult the Scriptures, and rule consistently with them.
10. Particular forms of government will change from culture to culture. The organizing principles of political ethics remain the same.
11. In contrast to the “popular sovereignty” advocated by the French Revolutionaries, Calvinism insists that ultimate sovereignty belongs to God and not society. In contrast to Statism, Calvinism insists that the State is not the ideal embodiment of political relationships. Civil magistrates live and work “coram deo.” Thus, the sovereignty of the State is derived directly from God and cannot act against or apart from him.
12. Historically, the two-kingdoms theology of Calvinist and Lutheran Reformers was at times inconsistent with their practice. What distinguishes Calvinsim is not what it shares in common with preceding systems of thought [i.e. the ecclesiastical rule of the church through the magistrate in patristic and medieval times] but what is unique in its theological development. The theocratic tendencies of the Reformers were “accidents” to the essence of their theology. Later formulations and purified expressions of Calvinist thinking with respect to politics best reflects its true character- the nature of the soul, the liberty of conscience, the nature of sin, the limitations of the State, the supremacy of the church in the life of the Christian, etc. Kuyper argues that the theocratic tendencies of the Reformers and Puritans are consistent with the political ideology of the Roman Catholic Church. Establishmentarianism [i.e. State Church] is almost identical to Romanism except for its profoundly different theological emphases. Establishmentarianism and Papal Rule are different sides of the same political coin. Same organizing principle. Both are a Christianized form of Statism.
13. Man has no right to rule or exercise authority over any other man except for that which is given to him by God.
The Two Loves of My Life
Earlier this morning, Angela and I were blessed with the birth of our first child, Calvin David Harris. Calvin is a perfectly healthy little boy, 8 lbs. 7 oz., 19 inches long, has jet-black hair, and is already a source of great blessing to our family. Angela started to go into labor on Monday night, and worked through some pretty serious contractions all Tuesday morning. When it was revealed that Calvin would be a little too big for Angela’s size, the doctor decided that a C-Section would be the better option. Calvin came into the world at 10:49 a.m. on Tuesday morning. Angela is doing great in recovering from her Cesarean. I’ve never witnessed such courage, strength, and patience in my life until watching Angela go through 4 days of rigorous early labor, work through bad contractions for long periods of time, and then be sent in for a C-Section after all of the work. Angela is my hero. God has blessed her in such marvelous ways. As of now, Calvin is enjoying sleeping, crying, and, well, thats about it. Anyway, keep Calvin, Angela, and myself in your prayers. And most of all, pray to the Lord that he would graciously condescend to effectually call Calvin early in life, and that his baptism might prove effectual unto regeneration and new life in Christ.
“…This [i.e. Calvinism] is a political faith which may be summarily expressed in these three theses: 1.) God alone and never any creature is possessed of sovereign rights in the destiny of the nations, because God alone created them, maintains them by His Almighty power, and rules then by His ordinances. 2.) Sin has, in the realm of politics, broken down the direct government of God, and therefore, the excercise of authority, for the purposes of government, has subsequently been invested in men, as a mechanical remedy. And 3.) In whatever form this authority may reveal itself, man never possesses power over his fellow-man in any other way other than by an authority which descends upon him from the majesty of God.”
-Abraham Kuyper, Stone Lectures on Calvinism, p. 108
Want to see sin spread like wildfire? Preach the law without gospel, or if that doesn’t satisfy your fancy, preach a softened form of man made law (legalism) and present it as though it were the gospel. We live and breathe in a narcissistic evangelicalism where preaching has been exchanged for therapy, sacraments for personal experience, discipline for dubious notions of sincerity, regulated worshp for entertainment, and the fellowship of the saints for cell-group discussions and self-feeding, all the while scorning ordinary means as “boring”, “lifeless, or the embodiment of “dead orthodoxy.” Christianized forms of pop-psychology and secular ethics dominate the landscape and testify to a very frightening tendency among modern evangelicals. We’ve abandoned the law by creating our own forms of suffocating moralism, thereby precluding us from ever truly seeing ourselves as God sees us. In so doing, we’ve abandoned the gospel by confusing it with our idolatrous moralism. And in our preaching, teaching, and living we’re creating a theological environment in which the sin that we so desperately seek to mortify spreads like wildfire through the particular agency of our moralistic worldview. This problem isn’t new. It’s as old as the apostle Paul who wrote that “sin, taking occasion through the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence, for without the law, sin was dead (Rom. 7:8).” Ministers who preach the law as gospel and the gospel as law are unintentionally enabling lawlessness. Unknowingly, they are subtly undoing the project of the Reformation whose leaders proclaimed salvation sola gratia, sola fide, soli Christo with an unmistakable clarity. Ministers of the gospel take heed. Examine your preaching, carefully distinguish between the law and the gospel, and don’t allow sin to reign by confusing these two realities.
