Category: Word/Sacrament

Posted on

Preaching and sacraments!

I will be making a few generalizations in this blog, and hopefully the larger context of friends will not be too highly offended. Now that I am World Cup free I am able to concentrate a bit more on some pertinent issues that will actually affect my life. This next semester I will be doing an Independent Study on the Sacraments. I will be mentored by Keith Matthison. Dr. Matthison has done a great service to the church in many ways. Beyond his contributions in the area of eschatology, Keith has done some significant research in the area of the sacraments (particularly n the Reformational era). Anyone familiar with Ligonier Ministries knows that their primary goal is to restore God-centeredness in worship by adoring a Holy God. However, adoration and worship have certain demands. For instance, a sacramental gap in worship necessarily lowers the adoration of a Holy God. Though the sacraments to me are significant, in fact, significant enough that without it Orthodox Christianity crumbles, I realize that without preaching, the church does not exist. Parallels can be fallacious because sometime A’s situation differs with B in a minute way, hence avoiding a perfect parallel scenario. Nevertheless parallels in worship have in the last few years made so much sense to me that I cannot but come to one simple conclusion: modern approaches to preaching lead to a weakening of a sacramental life. Some may scorn at my phraseology. However, it is my contention that 95% of the time you show me modern expressions of worship you will also see modern expressions of the sacraments. What does this mean? It means that it is virtually non-existent. R.C. Sproul comments on this when writings in the foreword to Dr. Matthsion’s book:

The absence of a fixed pulpit was not too much of a cultural shock for me as I have seen countless churches wherein plexiglas lecterns serve as portable pulpits, easily removed to make room for the drama presentation.The ancient and historic use of the elevated pulpit that symbolizes the lofty import of the Word of God preached, is now relegated to the realm of the vestigial remnants of the dar ages.

Later he writes that “all forms are art forms and all art forms communicate something.” Everything done communicates something. No earthly expression in worship can be neutral. Modern forms present an uneasiness to historic ways of doing things and actually it may lead to an un-biblical approach to worship. The debate surrounding the regulative principle can be discussed elsewhere, but those on both sides must realize that contemporary applications have affected tremendously our understanding of the Holy. I confess it has not been positive.

Preaching is “indispensable to Christianity” said John Stott, so why is preaching today dispensable for the first activity that overcomes the local church with excitement? The sacraments nourish the church, so why is the church hesitant to give it to the people? If you think one thing does not affect the other you are already part of that unfortunate parallel.

Posted on

Baptism 101 by Alastair

If we wish to understand the meaning of Christian Baptism we will do well to start with a study of its predecessors. The error that many Christians have made is that of studying Christian Baptism as if it were some altogether new rite in history, whose meaning was to be discovered in isolation from any of the rites that had preceded it. Christian Baptism isn’t a rite created ex nihilo. Rather, Christian Baptism is related to a number of previous rites. Its meaning is in large measure to be discovered within its difference from these previous rites (as Peter Leithart observes, Augustine’s argument for this position was an interesting proto-structuralist move on his part). Christian Baptism (to use an analogy of Leithart’s) is a conjugation of a verbal root that is shared with a number of OT rites. Continue here.

Posted on

Michael Horton on the Sacraments

b-host-wi.jpg I first came across Professor Horton’s classic work: Putting Amazing back into Grace several years ago in Pennsylvania while attempting to come to some conclusion on the debated topic of Predestination. Horton’s comments and humor were the perfect antidote to my synergistic background. It has been almost 6 years since then and I have now read articles and a few books by Dr. Horton on a host of issues. My growth into the Reformed tradition has led me to appreciate much of Horton on some issues (critique of modern evangelicalism) and to find some serious disagreement with his ideas on culture and kingdom. However, I have yet to find a troublesome comment on Horton’s view of the Lord’s Supper. I offer you some fascinating quotes from Horton on his contribution to the book: Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy:

“Too often, we see especially in modern American evangelicalism an individualistic and, frankly, gnostic piety that abstracts the soul from the body, the person from the church, and the church from the world. Despite our official theology (I speak here again as a Reformed Christian), in practice we have often downplayed ecclesiology (including the sacraments) in the interest of a one-sidedly inward, subjective piety that not only ignores the objectivity of Christ and his saving work but divorces the Spirit from the Father and the Son. The Reformers, I believe, would have found most of this entirely foreign or would have identified it with the ‘enthusiasts’ against whom they wrote so many treatises” (p. 166).

“As for the charge that in Reformation theology ‘Grace comes from God alone, not via anything earthly or man-made,’ the author [Vladimir Berzonsky] is grossly misinformed. Martin Luther and John Calvin spilled a great deal of ink against this spiritualist error of the radical Anabaptists. For the Reformers, God uses ordinary earthly means to deliver his grace. . . . God’s use of earthly elements as a means of grace is a major emphasis of the Reformers” (p. 186).

“Denial of the sacraments as efficacious ‘vehicles of grace’ is condemned by every Lutheran and Reformed confession. It may be that the author is judging magisterial Protestantism and subsequent evangelicalism by his own experience with various contemporary evangelical groups, especially Baptists . . . It is true, of course, that the Reformers did not regard the sacraments as occasions of synergistic cooperation leading to justification. It is precisely because they are God’s acts that they are means of grace and not means of human moral endeavor” (p. 188).

“While rejecting any univocal identification of the sign and the thing signified in the earthly elements, Calvin and the Reformed confessions developed a highly eschatological and pneumatological account of the union of sign and reality. . . . Calvin openly rejects Zwingli’s view, which separates the sign from the reality. . . . Regardless of whether one agrees, Calvin and his successors argued their case from the logic of Chalcedon and the reality of the distinct integrity and full hypostatic union of the two natures. . . . Calvin’s view, which became that of the Reformed and Presbyterian confessions, was what many have called ‘instrumentalism.’ In other words, the Reformed hold that the sacraments are not merely occasions for subjective faith and piety to act but were principally means of grace. The Westminster Larger Catechism calls them ‘effectual means of salvation’ (Q. 161)” (pp. 262, 263, 264).

Posted on

Good Wine, Good Fellowship!

 


As is custom in my household, a little glass of red wine (any red wine) before my nightly rest is the culmination of my evening. After my glass of wine I know that the evening is coming to a close and all my endeavors of the day whether fulfilled or not are over.

Jesus our great King extends to us as it were a cup of delicious red wine and His friendship. He invites His closest neighbors and friends to join Him in an almost unending table reserved for those who have befriended the host. How about a toast? Posted by Picasa

Posted on

A Holy Meal for a Holy Family

Paedocommunion is the climactic event of the covenant family. It is the first real sign of contrast with worldly practices. There are distinct differences in the familial structures of this world. The Christian family is even more distinct because it embraces a different calling. By investing in the catechetical development of children the home is enriched by a set of new visions; visions that are trans-generational. Furthermore, the home is restored to sanity and stability when the family in its ontological equal status partakes of the meal Christ offers to all who are invested into his body.

Alistair comments:

The practice of paedocommunion is a very powerful tool for raising children in true piety. The Eucharist teaches children the joy of being in God’s presence and the solemnity of eating Christ’s Body and drinking His Blood. The Eucharist teaches children the necessity of living lives shaped by penitence, faith and thanksgiving. If we allow children to participate in a manner that denies the reality of the Supper we do them no service.

Hindering a child from experiencing the presence of Christ is to equate them to the families of the earth who do not possess Christ’s perfect sacrifice. The baptized child is as much a part of the covenant family as his/her parents. Peter himself calls us a holy nation, a royal priesthood. Embracing Christ’s meal for the entire family affirms Peter and consecrates the covenant home.

Posted on

Repentance and the Lord’s Supper

In a brief dialogue with Tim Gallant regarding who can come to the table, a couple comments have been raised that need clarification. Tim mentioned to me that “the biblical solution to this inconsistency, always, is to repent of the sin and come to the Table.” His reference is to my comment that those who are inconsistent with the table and those who are consistent may come to the table. Though there may have been miscommunication or misunderstanding, for the sake of clarification I do agree with Mr. Gallant’s assessment. My point from the beginning was that the evangelical argument that if people who are committed Christians are currently “not right with God”, therefore they should avoid the bread and wine is a misunderstanding of the basic purpose of the sacrament. In my understanding (and I am sure Tim would agree) repentance is essential to the table and only those who come are those who deem it important and repent. The warning is that those who partake of the Lord’s Supper and do not acknowledge the need to repent, and furthermore persist in their inconsistency with the Christian message is already in the hands of an angry God.

The table is for those who acknowledge their inconsistency and seek a commitment to a consistent Christian life (though consistency in no way entails “perfection). Once again I thank Mr. Gallant for his helpful insights in the comments section of my blog.

Posted on

The Feeding of the Righteous

In a sermon I heard recently by R.C. Sproul Jr., he gave a brilliant and emotional defense of paedocommunion. But beyond the splendid element of his analogy was that of Communion being a refreshment for God’s righteous warriors. Accordingly, Sproul mentions that the spiritual life is a war: the families of the righteous versus the broken families of the unrighteous. As in the Old Covenant, when God defended his people against the wicked Canaanites, God once again defends his people by feeding them and preparing them for the battle. In the middle of a war, when both armies crave for replenishment, God’s people alone receive the food and the drink that gives them ultimate victory.

Posted on

Part 5- Analysis of R.B. Kuiper’s The Glorious Body of Christ

Part of R.B. Kuiper’s genius is his ability to communicate profound truth concerning the church in a simple, but yet penetrating style. Kuiper is not only of Dutch origin, but he thinks like the marvelous Dutch scholars that preceded him, such as Abraham Kuyper. As a professor of Practical Theology, Kuiper embraces a sort of boldness in his writings that is not found very often in popular books addressing the church. As Sinclair Ferguson says of Kuiper in his distinguished Scottish accent: “He can certainly get you stirred up.” It is, I believe, his knowledge about the common life of the church, that gives his writings much credibility and substance.

The book covers a range of topics from the theology of the church to the persecution of the church. Kuiper stresses that the glory of the church is fundamental to its very nature. Though at times this glory is compromised in every way, shape, or form, the church remains glorious because God always has a remnant (as in the days of Elijah).

Kuiper’s constant emphasis on the catholicity of the church and his condemnation of sectarianism urges the reader to engage in his passion for true unity in the Spirit. He notes that genuine catholicity is “Biblical Ecumenism.” What is rather peculiar about Kuiper’s treatment of the church is his endorsement of a form of communism in the church of Jerusalem in Acts. This form he argues is diametrically opposed to Marx’s dialectic materialism, but nevertheless a form of communism. He summarizes both positions as follows: “For Unbiblical Communism Thine is Mine; in Biblical Communism Mine is Thine.” This refers to the charitable manifestation of the people in the early church as they reflected the love of Christ to one another through giving to the poor.

The strength of Kuiper’s book is that it carefully summarizes the many facets of the church in concise, but complete thoughts. Though at times I wish he delved more deeply in some subjects, the book accomplishes its goal in communicating a distinctly Reformed view of the church. On the other hand, The Glorious Body of Christ fails in interacting with the benefits of Kingdom growth. Kuiper presupposes certain passages to refer to the deterioration of the influence of the church in culture and at times even assumes its hastening end (pg. 48-49). Paradoxically, Kuiper speaks of culture in every respect being under the lordship of Christ (pg. 276) and at the same time speaks of the fruitlessness of such efforts. This is a constant theme in Dutch theologians (such as Van Til Common Grace).

Kuiper’s book has had a vast influence in Reformed circles in the last 50 years and shall continue to do so. His careful analysis of the evangelical crisis and his worthy remedies for the church serves as an enlightening analysis for the Glorious Body of Christ.