Three Views on the Supper

I do reserve the right to have my mind changed by debate that I do hope happens, but I will just start the conversation because I don’t think the conversation is taking place at all, and that is to our detriment.  

The conversation is about the Lord’s Supper and the phrase “Means of Grace”.  Everywhere one looks on the internet you can find people complaining about Zwinglianism and the answer to it always be more like Calvin, which is defined then as a Means of Grace view.  First, I think Zwinglianism is an acceptable Reformed view, and undeniably the original reformed view.  Second, I think there are more Reformed views than these two, namely you have Bullinger’s view.  Third, I think all three views are rightly described as a “Means of Grace”.  

It starts with the word “means”.  Dictionary.com shows us that definition can be “to be used to convey; denote” or it can be “to act as a symbol of; signify or represent”.  If you are familiar with the Zwingli vs. Calvin debate in the Lord’s Supper, I think you can see Calvin would use “means” according to the first and Zwingli fits nicely into the second definition of “means”.  Calvin thinks the bread and wine instrumentally convey grace and Zwingli thinks it represents grace already accomplished.  Thus even Zwingli could claim the Supper as a means of grace since pondering what is symbolized and represented in the bread and wine is using the Supper as a means to understand and remember the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.  So this debate needs to stop degrading Zwingli so thoughtlessly.  It really is more a debate between “Symbolic Memorialism” vs. “Symbolic instrumentalism”.  And there is another option.

Bullinger had a different view that one could easily argue was actually the majority opinion in the Reformed Churches known as “Symbolic Parrallelism”.  Bullinger admits a present grace, but denies the instrumental connection that Calvin demands.  As Bullinger describes in Chapter 19 of the Second Helvetic Confession, “so that the faithful, when they receive them [sacraments] of the ministers, do know that the Lord works in His own ordinance, and, therefore, they receive them as from the hand of God”.  Bullinger admits a present grace, which Zwingli seems to reject, but Bullinger has the physical sacrament on a completely different track than the receiving of the grace.  Grace can be seen as parallel to the sacraments, but not physically united to it.  Compare that to say the Scots Confession of 1560 Chapter 21, which after damning those who believe in bare signs and rejecting transubstantiation goes on to say, “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 operation of the Holy Ghost, who by true faith carries us above all things that are visible, carnal, and earthly, and makes us to feed upon the body and blood of Christ”.  Note here the conjunction of the grace to the physical element.  Again in the French Confession of 1559 Chapter 37, “He sacramentally exhibits; and, therefore, we enjoin with the signs the true possession and enjoyment of what is offered to us in them.”  They are not parallel, but intersected.  Christ is in the signs, and true enjoyment of the grace of Christ is offered in the bread and wine.  The sacrament is the instrument used by Spirit to bring grace to us.  

If you are looking to categorize Confessions we can easily see many that are Calvinistic “Symbolic Instrumentalism” such as the French Confession, the Scots Confession, and The Belgic Confession”.  We can see some Zwinglian “symbolic memorialism”.  And we can see many Bullinger inspired confessions or “symbolic parallelism” such as the Second Helvetic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism.  Yes, the Heidelberg is Bullinger on the Lord’s Supper.  Question 75 goes to great length to keep grace unfettered from the sign.  “As certainly” as I see the sacrament, I know Christ the promise of Christ being offered for me.  It is a “pledge and token” (Q.73), “testifying” (Q.80) of what Christ offers and has done.  The grace is parallel to the sacrament, not presented in or instrumentally through.  In fact Question 76 of what does it mean to eat the crucified body and drink the shed blood can be summarized as simply “believe the promise of God and be united to Christ” something not really tied to the administration of the sacrament at all.  

Still think it might be Calvinistic?  Consider this comment from Calvin in a dedication to Frederick III of the Palatinate:

That we really feed in the Holy Supper on the flesh and blood of Christ . . . we freely confess.  If a clearer explanation is asked, we say, that the substance of Christ's flesh and blood is our spiritual life, and that it is communicated to us under the symbols of bread and wine. (as quoted in A Faith Worth Teaching, Jon Payne, pg.117)

That is not what the Heidelberg says.  Feeding on Christ is not said to be done in the Supper, but in believing, and never is it communicated under the bread or wine.   

The Westminster Confession is ambiguous, but the Larger Catechism (especially 170) is very Calvin.  The First Confession of Basel is ambiguous, but clearly not Zwinglian.  The First Helvetic Confession is Bullinger’s Parallelism although perhaps a Zwinglian could claim it.  Farel’s Geneva Confession of 1536 is Zwinglian.  Laski’s Emden Catechism of 1554 is Zwinglian.  

I hope that we can see that it is not as simple as Zwingli vs. Calvin and that toss everything that is not Calvin aside is to throw away the vast majority of the Reformation.  There will be more, but for now I stop to listen to the comments (if any).  

Venema's Children at the Lord's Table

I have been reading Dr. Venema’s book entitled Children at the Lord’s Table, and I have to say I am quite disappointed. Venema is against them, but I do think he gives away too much, argues for the wrong thing, and therefore loses the debate. I have made no secret that I argue for Confirmation based Communion. Or in other words, communion based on instruction in the faith, understanding of the faith as well as a profession of faith. Venema merely argues for the last part: profession of faith. And in so doing he gives away too much. His opening chapter states that a soft padeocommunion (young children professing faith) is just a slight historic deviation, not something that is wrong. Rev. Wilson actually shows the silliness of this position, in effect it becomes merely an argument over age rather than principle. Thus, he is merely arguing about age with the padeocommunists, and I think Venema stands outside the Reformed tradition and biblical teaching on the point. What makes it worse is that Venema agrees, he just does not seem to notice that he does.

Let me illustrate. His third chapter on the Reformed Confessions states that “they [Reformed Confessions] also insist that such children, prior to their reception to the Table of the Lord, require instruction in the Christian faith in order that they might be prepared to receive properly the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament” (pg.27-28). Terrific! I agree. Admission to the table requires more than a profession of faith, it requires instruction (implied understanding) as well. This must be done before kids can partake. Venema then does a nice job of proving the confessions teach just that. Yet, Venema takes it all back when he states at the end of the chapter. “The purpose of catechetical instruction instruction of children of believing parents is to prepare them to make a credible confession of faith, which, in the traditional practice of Reformed churches, is effected by means of a “public profession of faith”.”(pg.48). No, that is not correct. People can make a credible profession of faith, and still be admitted to the table. Catechism was traditionally done prior to first communion. Calvin did it and Bucer did it (although Venema leaves both of those facts out of his history). Lutherans still do it, as do the churches of the RCUS. Even in history the Roman Catholics required Confirmation before First Communion. Traditionally catechism is not to get a public profession of faith, but to instruct them into a fuller understanding of the faith. Public Profession may have been done, or confirmations may have been done (which might be considered the same thing), but we cannot confuse a profession of faith with an instructed understanding of the faith.

Just in case you think I am misrepresenting Venema he states up front what his position is: “the traditional view, which emphasizes the necessity of a public profession of faith prior to the believer’s admission to the Table” (pg.2). All Venema is arguing for in the book is a public profession. It appears as the book goes on that he might want some instruction, but he consistently fails to make it a requirement. Yet, his historical research shows that it was always a central part. The Reformed Confessions argue for instruction prior to the admission to the table. Even the Scriptures argue for the admission being based on a knowledge that is deeper than just a profession of faith. I think I will comment further on this book as I have some theories as to why Venema fails to put the addition of the instruction in his requirements. But let us save that for another post.

Rev. Wilson and the Cup

Doug Wilson is at it again. In a recent post about the Lord’s Supper he illustrates what is wrong with his view of the Supper.
First, Matthew 23:25-26 is not talking about the Supper. Thus, to apply this to the supper just because it mentions the word cup seems wrong headed.
Second, this sentence is just plain wrong. "When the Lord’s Supper is observed rightly, what is on the inside of the cup? It is the blood of Christ, the blood that cleanses from all sin."
It is not the blood of Jesus on the inside of the cup. It is wine. Unless one believes in transubstantiation it is always wine on the inside of the cup. The wine symbolizes the blood, but it is still wine. He is right that only the blood cleans us from sin, but he specifically states that if the Supper is rightly observed that the inside of the cup is blood on the body is on the platter. This is Romanism, and after over a thousand years it is still wrong.
Third, he contradicts himself in this next paragraph.
"Cleansing the inside of the cup is not accomplished by introspection. Cleansing the platter is not brought about by self-accusation. Sinners can only be cleansed because Christ their Savior died—and at this meal, we are confronted with that reality. Christ bled. Christ was broken. This broken bread cleanses the platter. This shed blood cleanses the cup. Look to that reality and respond in faith."
Note in this paragraph he says it is only the reality of the death of Christ that makes us clean. And that reality is not in our cup (admitting that the cup is only wine). That is much better, but does contradict what he said in the paragraph right before. He also seems to be confused about the benefit in the meal. He wants to deny it is benefit from mental activity, so he states it is not from introspection. Then he admits the benefit is only found in looking to Jesus, which is not actually in the cup. Thus, benefit can only be derived from a mental activity, the one of faith. "Look to that reality and respond in faith" is what the meal is supposed to do. Remind us the death of Christ. In faith, we can be strengthened through our remembrance of Him. But, the whole point of this post by Wilson is to say what is inside the cup cleans us. That cannot fit with "look to that reality and respond in faith."

Wilson tries to have it both ways in this post. That is part of the problem with Rev. Wilson. He just wants it both ways. But two opposites cannot both be true.

Children at the Table but Not at the Baptistry

I wanted to read Dr. Venema’s book Children at the Lord’s Table. So I went on Interlibrary Loan and typed in the title of the book. Silly me, I did realize that there were multiple books by the same title. I ended up getting the same titled book, but by a Disciples of Christ minister named John T. Hinant. And while I still plan to read Dr. Venema’s book, I am glad that I made the mistake. Hinant’s book was fascinating for several reasons even though I disagreed with his conclusions. Hinant is in favor of infants and children at the table despite the fact that the Disciples of Christ is an ‘adult only baptism’ church. I had no idea how far spread this movement had become until I read this book. Hinant argues that the right order of events is communion-confirmation-baptism. Hinant’s book is also interesting because it grew out of a poll by mail he conducted about the subject. Apparently communing unbaptized children is a fairly regular practice despite the fact that it is not supposed to be in the Disciples churches. Hinant also briefly touches on one major fact that I think is missing from the Presbyterian-Reformed debate and that is the confirmation aspect.

I do think that Hinant overstates the historical evidence for Paedo-Communion (PC). He fails to note the seeming objections of Origen, Clement of Alexandria as well as the Didascalia. He then also just sweeps out of hand the idea that Cyprian’s adherence to the practice might not be universal. Most of the rest of his historical proof is about young children, but clearly not infants. He then admits that as Confirmation was moved away from the moment of baptism so too did the taking of communion move away from baptism. Confirmation was necessary. Hinant called this a problem for Protestants who did not want to make Confirmation a sacrament since it barred access to a sacrament.

One other point that seemed to be the case in some of the quotes about infant communion is that they were linked to a reading of John 6 that required the eating of the flesh to be saved. Infant communion is inextricably linked to the idea that communion is necessary for salvation. Clearly the ancients who did adhere to this idea viewed it as necessary for eternal life that is why infants are argued for then and it is still the reason now. Sacramentalism is a prerequisite for the PC position.

Some of the quotes made me wonder if they administered the sacrament once to infants to get them “saved”, but was the communing continued? It was hard to tell from a lot of the quotes.

It was an educational book to see adult baptism only denominations allowing young children and infants to the Table. I still disagree with his book, but it was interesting to

Paedocommunion vs. Confirmation: Part 2

I just want to take a brief glance at the history of Paedocommunion in the Church. Venema apparently does this in his book and comes to the conclusion that some churches may have practiced it and others probably did not. I agree with this assessment. In fact some of my thoughts can be found in the comment thread on this post. You can find some arguments that Paedocommunion is the historical practice by Tommy Lee on the web.

The Reformers rejected the practice and Wolfgang Musculus is the only one with any sympathy toward it at all. But even he rejects it in the end. The Roman Catholic Church had long since rejected the practice and Eastern Orthodox Church kept the practice. If you read the articles in favor of Paedocommunion you will see that many scholars think the Roman Catholic Church did not practice infant communion in the first and second century. I will not undertake a refutation of their refutation at this point as that would be tedious. However, I simply want to point out the fact that scholars are not as agreed as they would have you think. But more importantly I want to draw attention to their reasoning as to why the Roman Church dropped the practice. Mr. Lee writes:

If paedocommunion was the common practice of the church in ancient days, then why do we not practice it today? Keidel asserts that infants and children were forbidden from the Lord's Supper because of "the doctrine of transubstantiation and the doctrine of concomitance (i.e., that Christ is present entirely under either kind)... The fear that infants and children might spill the wine and thereby profane the actual body and blood of the Lord appears to have been the primary reason for this discontinuance."49 Actually, it was not only the infants and children who ceased drinking the "transubstantiated" wine. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries all of the laity (in the West), adults included, began to back away from the cup. 50

Yet, I see this as a blatant attempt to spin the historical debate in their favor. If the only reason to forbid the Table to infants was a heresy, then we should give it back right? There are several things that make it obvious that this reason is not the best, if one at all. First, Transubstantiation was not official, but was the primary understanding as early as the beginning of the Eleventh century as Pope Leo X had condemned views opposing Transubstantiation by 1050. That is a few centuries earlier than most of these people admit that infants no longer took the Supper, and it seems likely that Transubstantiation must have been around prior to that in an accepted way for Leo to be able to make such a decision. Second, people withdrew from the cup at different times in the history of the church. Pinning down one reason is difficult. In footnote 49 Mr. Lee does admit a growing demand for intelligent reception. Then he also has this important toss away phrase.

Other contributing factors may include the separation of confirmation from the time of baptism (made necessary because Christianity grew rapidly while the number of bishops did not) which encouraged a break down in the three part rite of initiation into the church (baptism, confirmation, eucharist) and the development of the idea of childhood.

Note the dismissive italics. Yet, it is clear that this separation is important. Confirmation used to be handled right after baptism and then the Supper was placed in their mouth. All three signs of being a member of the church crammed into one ceremony. Interestingly you will note that the Eastern Orthodox Church still does all three at once, and the Roman Church does not. Do you think this has any bearing on the fact that the Eastern Orthodox still communes infants and the Romans do not? Probably. The rite of confirmation moved, and with it communion.

Confirmation has already moved by the time of Charlemagne as Ratramnus of Corbie defended the removal of Confirmation from baptism by declaring it the ordination of the laity. In other words they were called into true service of God now at Confirmation, declared of age to participate in the fight. It should be noted for the theory above that Ratramnus rejected Transubstantiation. Confirmation prepared people for the fight of Spiritual Warfare, which necessitated maturity. This language can be seen with regards to confirmation as early as the fifth century in France. We also see that Confirmation for the Welch in Great Britain was not done until they were seven as early as the 9th century. Egbert Archbishop of York in the early part of the 8th century makes it clear that in England (at that point still separate from the Welch) a seven year old is confirmed and then they receive Communion. The Council of Lambeth (1281) made it clear that no child should partake of Communion until after Confirmation. They were not introducing a new idea, but strengthening the neglected rite of Confirmation. Pope Leo XIII in 1897 stated that the practice of the ancient church was to confirm children before their first communion, and that practice should be maintained. I will just assume the Pope has access to more ancient documents than I do, but I do realize that trusting a pope is not a good idea.

The point being here is that Confirmation has always played an important role. Even in the churches that did give the bread and wine to infants, they were almost always confirmed first. Now, I am clearly not arguing for a Roman Catholic doctrine of Confirmation, but I am saying that it is something that cannot be left out of the discussion.

And in fact when the Reformers re-examined everything they of course did not believe Confirmation a sacrament, but they did find it a useful rite of the church. One based now on catechism, instruction, and knowledge. And it served as a wonderful way to make sure children were ready to take the Lord’s Supper. Bucer introduced catechism based Confirmation into the churches of Germany and the churches of England. This of course rubbed off on the German speaking Swiss cantons. The French speaking cantons followed the lead of Calvin, who also performed catechism based Confirmation usually at about age 10. The historic Reformed position then is pretty clear. It is not just allowing people with a profession of faith to the Table at a certain age, it is allowing people to the Table after Confirmation, which involves instruction from the church.

And that in the end, is what I am arguing for. I am not arguing for some random age. I am arguing for participation in the Lord’s Supper to be after a church based examination that involves more than just a profession of faith, but an actual in-depth time of study and knowledge before being allowed to the Table. I shall call it Confirmation Based Communion. I think it is biblical, historical, and the proper thing to do. I hope to expand some basic Exegetical arguments in the next posts.

Paedocommunion vs. Confirmation

I am afraid that the paedo-communion discussion has been lost by the reformed side of the debate. I don’t wade into this lightly because I have some friends who are adamant about the issue, but I fear they are losing. Why? Because it has already been accepted in principle, now all that is left is to haggle over the age. The serious problems of paedo-communion are too often left out of the discussion, or worse, assumed to be true.

Let me give some examples. Steve Hays at Triablogue asks this question.

I have one question: If a pregnant woman takes communion, is that a form of paedocommunion?

Now I admit Hays is not arguing for either side just looking for some clarification, but you would be really surprised to see how often this argument comes up. Hays does not comment on the incipient sacramentalism in the thought. If the baby in the uterus partakes of communion through the mother then clearly we have the transmission of a spiritual blessing through a physical act: the act of eating. Which by the way is exactly what they say. Wilson calls it "eating grace" (Reformed is Not Enough. Pg. 93).

Rev. Douglas Wilson and Rev. Lane Keister are currently blogging through a book by Rev. Cornelius Venema about the issue of paedocommunion. I have great hopes that this will still end up in a strong rejection of paedocommunion as carrying with it a latent sacramentalism. However, Rev. Keister informs us that the book will make a difference between the "strict" view of anyone capable of eating coming to the table and the “soft” view which accepts young professions of faith. Rev. Wilson rightly called this a major flaw. More to the point Rev. Wilson informs us that the book considers the "soft" view a mere modification of the historic reformed view. Things get worse when we see that Rev. Keister admit he is a soft paedocommunionist. This debate is now between a "Strict Paedocommunist", a "Soft Paedocommunist", and a book that thinks "Soft Paedocommunism" is acceptable.

This is why I fear the debate is lost. The practice of allowing children and people in general to the table has been very lax in America for generations. The entrance to the table for most people is merely a Conversion Narrative (an invention of the New Side Presbyterians in the First Great Awakening). If you can tell people when you were saved or that Jesus is your savior, and the Session/Consistory believes you then you are allowed to the Table. Is that the historic Reformed Practice? More importantly, is that the Biblical practice?

In the next several posts I would like to examine this question as thoroughly as my meager efforts can. You will notice the title of the post involves the issue of Confirmation. I think that Confirmation is left out of the discussion far too often, and perhaps is the reason that all the important ground has already been ceded to the Paedocommunists. Few churches practice this rite of the church that was fully endorsed by the Reformation and a prerequisite to the Table.

Sacramental Exegesis?

Lost in all the modern controversy about Federal Vision is the exegetical controversy about Grammatical-Historical exegesis. There is a sudden rise in people desiring to replace Grammatical-Historical exegesis with a Medieval exegesis that includes not only typology, but allegory and basically gives free reign to the exegete.

Barb of Whilin Away the Hours gives us a good example of the modern Medieval exegesis. Barb finds symbolism of baptism in Jonah and then finds the baptism again in the water that Jesus turns to wine in John 2. Thus, baptism and the supper are linked, and she is able to then use the link (she has a few other dubious connections) to argue for padeo-communion.

With this sort of exegesis linking water to baptism (both judgment and salvation), why not use Judges 12. In that chapter Jephthah and the Gileadites are standing in the water killing the Ephraimites; thus the judgmental waters of baptism. 42,000 Ephraimites died, which surely would have stained the water with their blood; thus, the Supper is pre-figured. The Blood of the Supper calm the waters of baptismal judgment and make them calm waters of baptismal salvation. The Gileadites then re-emerge from the waters onto a now calm and peaceful land.

Am I right in my new found exegesis of Judges 12? I found water and blood, surely that means the sacraments are in view? What logic did I use in Judges 12 that is not employed in the Jonah story or finding the sacraments in John 2? If Grammatical-Historical exegesis is set aside, we can find the sacraments or whatever we want anywhere in the bible. It is the Grammatical-Historical exegesis that forces us to deal not in fanciful connections of symbology, but with context. What in the context of Jonah makes us think of baptism other than the mere appearance of water. Nothing. Does baptism fit into the point the book of Jonah is making? No. What about John 2? Jesus turns water into wine, but what makes us think it has anything to do with baptismal water? There is nothing in the context to suggest it at all. There is nothing at all wrong with typology, but typology must not get out of control. I am afraid that by shedding grammatical-historical exegesis we will see more of this find-what-you-want-anywhere typology.

Should a General Assembly celebrate the Lord's Supper?

The blogosphere is quite because the PCA is in its General Assembly. Everyone and their grandmother is down there in order to participate in the row over the Federal Vision Study Committee report. I glanced at their docket, and something else caught my eye. They are going to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. It is after the session is declared open and called to order by the moderator. The RCUS does have worship services, but they are not technically part of the Synod. The meetings are not in session as we worship. The Synod in the RCUS does not have the power to offer the sacraments, only the local church. Yet, clearly the PCA General Assembly is offering the sacrament. It cannot be participating in a host church’s Lord’s Supper because it is not in a host church, but rather a convention center. I found it interesting because I wonder what sort of difference this implies in the view of the church?

Federal Vision and the Three Forms of Unity: Baptism

Many have recently wondered why the Federal Vision is such a big controversy in Reformed circles. I admit that the (sometimes) obscure discussions could cause the casual reader to wonder whether or not this debate concerns the essentials of the Christian faith. I believe it does, and this post is my attempt to show where some Federal Vision teaching basically and fundamentally contradicts the Reformed Confessions.

I realize that the ultimate source of truth is not the Confessions, but the Word of God. However, since all sides claim to be faithful to the Confessions, this is a reasonable place to start. Then if anyone would like to argue that the Confessions should be changed, we can get into that discussion. I also will be comparing various Federal Vision positions to the Three Forms of Unity since they are the Confessions with which I am most familiar. I do freely recognize that the majority of the people I will be quoting hold to the Westminster rather than the Three Forms. If anyone wants to argue that there are significant differences between those Reformed Confessions, that might be fun, too. But for the purpose of this post, I will be using the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and Canons of Dordt.

Baptism:
The Heidelberg Catechism teaches:
Q65. The Holy Ghost works faith in our hearts by the preaching of the Holy Gospel and confirms it by the use of the Holy Sacraments. (emphasis mine)
Q.74. Yes, for since they [infants] belong to the covenant and people of God, and through the blood of the Christ both redemption from sin and the Holy Ghost, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents, they are also by Baptism, as a sign of the covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, as was done in the Old Testament by circumcision, in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is appointed.
The Belgic Confession reads:
Article 34, " . . . He, having abolished circumcision, which was done with blood, has instituted the sacrament of baptism instead thereof; by which we are received into the Church of God, and separated from all other people and strange religions . . . and serves as a testimony to us that He will forever be our gracious God and Father."

Federal Vision teaches:
Auburn Ave. Presbyterian Church (minister Steve Wilkins) states:
4. . . . When someone is united to the Church by baptism, he is incorporated into Christ and into His body; he becomes bone of Christ’s bone and flesh of His flesh (Eph. 5:30). He becomes a member of "the house, family, and kingdom of God" (WCF 25.2). Until and unless that person breaks covenant, he is to be reckoned among God’s elect and regenerate saints.
7. By baptism, one enters into covenantal union with Christ and is offered all his benefits (Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:1ff; 2 Cor. 1:20). As Westminster Shorter Catechism #94 states, baptism signifies and seals "our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace." Baptism in itself does not, however, guarantee final salvation. What is offered in baptism may not be received because of unbelief. Or, it may only be embraced for a season and later rejected (Matt. 13:20-22; Luke 8:13-14). Those who "believe for a while" enjoy blessings and privileges of the covenant only for a time and only in part, since their temporary faith is not true to Christ, as evidenced by its eventual failure and lack of fruit (1 Cor. 10:1ff; Hebrews 6:4-6).

Steve Wilkins said in an interview:
It's like a wedding. There is a transformation that takes place because of the ritual. A single man becomes a married man. He is transformed into a new man, with new blessings and privileges and responsibilities he didn't have before. A similar thing happens at baptism. The one who is baptized is transferred from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light, from Adam into Christ, and given new privileges, blessings, and responsibilities he didn't have before

Doug Wilson says “By means of baptism, baptism with water, grace and salvation are conferred on the elect” (pg. 107 Reformed is Not Enough).

Peter Leithart states, “[Baptism] is not a picture of a man being joined in covenant to Christ it is a man being joined in covenant to Christ” (pg. 85-86 Against Christianity).


Notice the difference. The Three Forms teach confirmation of faith, not the creation of faith, in the act of baptism. Thus baptism it is not the forgiveness of sins, but a confirmation of our forgiven status. The Auburn Avenue Church states baptism engrafts one into Christ and offers all the benefits of Christ, which would include forgiveness. Wilson says it "confers" grace and salvation. The Three Forms declares that one is in covenant, and thus deserves baptism as a sign of that reality, while the Federal Vision men say the person comes into covenant with God at his baptism. In other words, baptism communicates that reality rather than testifies to it. Notice also that the Belgic and Heidelberg state baptism joins one to the Church, while the Federal Vision men says it joins one to Christ and all his benefits.

One must conclude that the definition of baptism according to the Federal Vision greatly departs from that of the Three Forms with regard to Baptism. I think we should stop here for now. We can examine more differences later.

More John 6

Another round of debates has occurred about John 6 at Reformed Catholicism. Paul Owen began the discussion about why most Calvinists miss the Eucharistic point of John 6. I will respond to Dr. Owen, but his post provoked a response from James White, which contained some reasoned points, but far too many personal attacks. Kevnin Johnson defended Dr. Owen and his own comment about reading John 6 through the ‘mind of the church’.

I am going to wade into this debate because I do not believe that John 6 is about the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper if you prefer. However, I do not believe that John 6 is primarily about the decrees of God or predestination either, which is the false dilemma presented by Dr. Owen. I think the sense of the passage is about the necessity of believing in Jesus Christ, not about partaking of His meal. It is not about eating his flesh, but that was used to represent belief in Him. As he says in verse 63, It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. And as Peter rightly answers when asked if they will depart like the others in verse 68-69, The Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. This is the main point of the passage, not the decrees, and not the Supper.

Dr. Owen does make a claim that Jesus is not talking of the eternally predestined in verse 37, and that verse 40 telling us that Jesus will raise them up on the last day is not about eternal glory but rather speaking about church membership and God’s desire to not see anyone perish. He attempts to reference 2 Peter 3:9, but does not show a strong connection. I would be interested in all of the talk about the mind of the church for Dr. Owen to bring someone out that actually made that argument before.

The crux of the debate seems to be to me whether or not one wants the meaning to be determined by the words of Jesus to his audience there in John 6 or the writing of John to his audience decades later. Dr. Owen and others argue that John’s audience would have been familiar with the Eucharist and would have ‘clearly’ seen the reference being made, and the fact that Jesus spoke these words to an audience prior to the institution of the Eucharist does not matter. Kevin Johnson argues that John had another ‘agenda’ in his gospel, supposedly one about the Eucharist. This idea I find hard to support. John’s gospel describes itself (John 21:31) as arguing for believing in Jesus unto eternal life (which is what I argue is the point of John 6), not some agenda about the Eucharist. If John has an agenda to make reference to the Eucharist, why is John’s the only gospel that does not have the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Instead, John includes the foot washing, but not the Supper. This problem is not discussed in either article.

Both articles including the commentors make a great deal about the history of interpretation. Commentor Mike Spreng on Kevin’s post, states,

Don’t you just love how he fires those shots without leaving a chance for anyone to comment on his site (not that anyone wants to interact with such a man)? What can be said about guys like this that only go as far back as Spurgeon, or at best Zwingly(sic)?

I have posted on that before, but people thought John 6 did not refer to the Eucharist long before Zwingli, Calvin, Luther, and Suprgeon (who all think John 6 is not about the Supper). Such early church lights as Basil, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria denied the link between the Supper and John 6. So perhaps the ‘mind of the church’ argument works against viewing John 6 as a Eucharistic reference.

Before departing I want to point out one other thing that needs to be said. Dr. Owen begins his piece by stating:

Nowhere do we get a clearer illustration of the folly of anti-sacramental, non-churchly Christianity than in John 6. Calvinists take a clearly Eucharistic passage and turn it into a treatise on predestination. It is not.

His sixith point then reads:

6. Now none of this is to say that this passage in John 6 is incapable of a different interpretation.

Now unless, Dr. Owen means that it is possible to have an ‘anti-sacramental, non-churchly’ interpretation he is contradicting himself. He either thinks that denying the link between John 6 and the Supper is ‘folly’ that betrays a dislike of the church and sacraments, or he thinks it a legitimate possibility for an informed reading of the text. One cannot have it both ways.

The Eucharist, John 6, and the early church

It has been asked of me to find some examples of the use of John 6 in the early church fathers, to see how they read this section.

It cannot be denied that some church fathers read John 6 as referring to the Eucharist. Cyprian stands as one clear example. But, did anyone ever read John 6 as not referring to the Eucharist, the answer is yes. Eusebius the Historian reads John 6 as referring not to the Supper, but to his words, which Eusebius holds to be the true food to the soul of believers (as quoted in Schaff History Vol 3. Pg. 495). Basil also ascribes the 6th chapter of John to the words of Jesus Christ (ibid., pg. 497). These men specifically relate John 6 to his words rather than the Eucharist.

Clement of Alexandria also seems to see John 6 as meaning something other than the Eucharist. He uses John 6:54, "Whosoever eateth my fles and drinketh my blood shall have eternal life" which he says, "describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and promise" (ANF vol. 2 pg. 218). He does not seem to equate it with the Eucharist, and even when he quotes from John 6 and talks of the Eucharist, it involves more metaphors rather than a direct correlation.

Tertullian has a clear exposition of John 6 to mean one must believe in Christ and His words, and makes no mention of the Eucharist at all. His very nice summary of John 6 includes this idea "Constituting, therefore, His word as the lifegiving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because too the Word had become flesh" (ANF vol. 3 pg. 572).

This does not mean that everyone else believed that John 6 related to the Eucharist. Many of those properly called Apostolic Fathers did not directly quote John 6 nor explain it. However, Ignatius in his epistle to the Romans speaks of desiring the ‘bread of God’ and the ‘bread of life’ which he says is the flesh of Jesus Christ and then the drink he defines as ‘incorruptible love and life eternal.’ Here, it is unclear whether or not Ignatius is referring to John 6, but he is clearly speaking about the ‘bread of life’ in a non-sacramental manner, as this discussion appears in his reasons for wanting to die a martyr (Romans chapter 8). He is desiring the bread of life, which seems to be given to him when he dies, not here on earth. Such comments from Ignatius and the prior citations (for they are citations from leaders of the early church) seem to indicate that John 6 was not read ‘liturgically’ by the early church, at least a great many of them read John 6 as referring to Christ's words.

I was also asked to see if the early church fathers viewed the Supper as ‘anything more than a symbolic spiritual representation’. Why that wording is mine, it is clearly not the best wording. But, not wanting to back down from a challenge, I shall endeavor to show that the Zwinglian interpretation has precedent in the Church Fathers. Oecolampadius’s view is almost directly taken from Tertullian who claimed the bread and wine figured the body and blood. Cyprian too here favors a figurative interpretation with the focus on the "is" in the words of institution being figurative. Augustine followed those African fathers in teaching a symbolical theory of the Supper. He maintains a distinction between the outward sign and the inward grace, and maintains the figurative character of the words of institution. Of course still talking of spiritual feeding by faith (with which Zwingli agreed) in the Supper. From Augustine we can see his view disseminate throughout the church’s history. It can be easily seen in men like Facundus, Fulgentius, Isidore of Sevilla, the Venerable Bede, the Carolingian bishops, and finally Ratramnus and Berengar. Both Augustine (d.404) and Ratramnus (ca.944) each used John 6 to point to the Eucharist, but came out with Spiritual views of the Supper. Ratramnus’s book, which quoted liberally from Augustine, was republished by the Zwinglian Reformers as proof their position on the Eucharist was the historic position of the church. Other men who held this view during the 10th Century were Rabanus Maurus, Walafrid Strabo, Christian Druthmar, and Florus Magister, not to mention the book received royal endorsement from Charles the Bald. John Scotus Erigena appears to have written against a Real Presence view, but his work is lost, so we cannot be certain. The Eleventh Century saw Berengar agree with Ratramnus along with Eusebius Bruno (bishop of Angers) and Frollant (bishop of Senlis), but he was condemned for his views. Thus, the Zwinglian claim that the church held their beliefs about the Supper is not entirely without merit, nor then is my claim that a symbolic and spiritual view of the Supper is the position of the early church.

Liturgical Exegesis

Alastair has an interesting post up about the idea of Double Resurrection and Double Justification taught by James Jordan. If I had nothing but time this would be the sort of stuff I would like respond to at great length. However, I do have a job, so I will just respond to one paragraph that stuck out.

Most contemporary Christians would believe that such a passage is far too obscure to play any role in our doctrine of justification and that Paul’s theology never could have been informed by such a thing. This is the natural response for Protestants, who have very little time for liturgy. The assumption is that the ‘Bible’ is the only place where God’s revelation of saving truths is to be found. There are a number of problems with this notion. Chief among them is the fact that what we call the ‘Bible’ is a relatively recent creation. The people of God of previous ages encountered the Scriptures in the form of liturgical performance not as we do, by reading words off the pages of our mass-produced, privately-owned Bibles. It should not surprise us that, approaching the Scriptures as they do, most modern Christians make little sense out of it.

Alastair is advocating here the fact that the Scriptures should primarily (or at least equally) be revealed in the liturgy of the church rather than a book in the hand. The context is about why an ‘obscure’ passage (his words not mine) like Numbers 19 might actually be essential in understanding justification. His argument is that through the liturgy such passages would have received the proper emphasis and that through the liturgy it would be lived out in the life of the believer. Alastair explains further in another post.

If the Bible was given to be encountered primarily as a printed or written text the Church is not that necessary. However, I believe that the Bible was given to be ‘performed’ (much as the Shakespearian play). The chief ‘performance’ of the Bible is that which occurs in the Church’s liturgy. It is read aloud in the lectionary. It is prayed, sung, meditated upon, memorized and recited. Its story is retold in various forms. It is our conversation partner and our guide.

While, I certainly agree that we should read the Bible, pray the words of Scripture, and sing psalms during worship that misses the point. Was the Bible primarily written to be encountered and performed? Is a Sunday liturgy to be the main way that people get the Word of God? Does having a Bible in every believer’s home that they read daily make the Church unnecessary as Alastair claims? I do not believe so, but first let us see the other implications of this idea as put forth by Alastair himself.

The Bible that most modern Christians think in terms of is an object; what we encounter in the liturgy is nothing less than the personal Word of God, Jesus Christ Himself.

This is not only a denial of the power of the Spirit in reading the word of God (at least a significant downplaying of it), but it sets the stage for a sacerdotalism where the Church is necessary to dispense the benefits of Christ. There can be no way to encounter Christ with out the minister/priest. There can be no way to receive forgiveness without the church service and perhaps specific points in the service. Without ‘inhabiting’ or becoming part of the liturgy then we are separated from Christ. This paves the way for the necessity of the words of absolution from the minister, and the sacraments and other elements of the worship service. Salvation occurs weekly as we live out the story again and again in the worship service. Subtly here the definition or purpose of worship has changed from glory we give to God to salvation we receive from God.

Secondly and just as important is this point:

It seems to me that the displacing of typological and liturgical ways of reading Scripture and the rise of pure grammatical historical exegesis owes much (for numerous reasons) to the invention of the printing press. . . Liturgy provides us with a hermeneutical context for reading the Word of God.

The liturgy is not just something we do as a we to encounter and participate in Jesus Christ, but it is a way to read the Bible. This debate over John 6 is a good example of a practical debate about the subject. It is not as important as what Jesus meant when he spoke of eating his flesh, but it is more important of how the readers of John’s gospel would have read that phrase with regard to their worship service. It also is the point of the original post by Alastair. For Alastair, we do not get our understanding of justification primarily by reading the Scripture and trying understand what it says. Instead we should get our understanding from the Liturgical Word and it supposed forerunner in Israel. This is what he means by using the liturgy as a hermeneutical tool. This point is nothing more than a complete reversal of the Reformational Sola Scritptura. How do we interpret Scripture? Alastair’s answer is through the tradition of liturgical worship. In fact, he is arguing that the liturgy is the way for believers to encounter Scripture. There is nothing wrong with your leather bound Bible per se, but you should read it through what the Church says about it via the liturgy.

I do have a few objections to Alastair’s view. The first is Acts 17:10-13. The Bereans appear to do just the opposite of what Alastair advocates. They go to the service, listen attentively and then read the service through the light of the Scripture, not the Scripture through the light of the liturgy/service. And the Spirit calls them ‘more noble’ for doing so. II Timothy 2:15 seems to counter his understanding as well. ‘Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.’ This sound much more like the grammatical parsing and rational thinking through the Word that Alastair seems to eschew rather than the ‘inhabiting’ the word through the liturgy advocated in the posts.

A second point is with the historical understanding that underlies his position. The Scriptures were originally written down before they were used in the liturgy. They existed as books and epistles long before the existed in a liturgy. While it is true that before the printing press not everyone had a nice bound copy to stick in their pocket and church may have been the way many heard the word, it does not change the fact that they were originally written. Let us not forget that we see the Bible existing as we have it now quite early on. Athanasius in the 4th century gives a list of the books that stand in our bible, meaning that churches and people were collecting the inspired books into one canon by that time. The Muratorian Fragment suggests is was by the 2nd century and the collection of Marcion suggest even in the 1st century people were gathering it all into one book rather than keeping it only in the liturgy. They are not originally a play as his Shakespeare analogy would suggest, but rather they are originally a novel turned into a play, and when it was turned into a play is up for some debate. We have far earlier evidence of men using the Scriptures as we would use a modern English bible than we have of early liturgies. In fact, the Roman liturgy seems to be no earlier than 451, which is different than the Liturgy of St. James and the Eastern liturgies (5th Century), and they differ still from the Gallican liturgy (494), which is different than the Alexandrian liturgy (late 4th century), and still it differs quite radically from the heretical liturgies (5th Century) of Nestorius. In fact, we have several confessions of faith that pre-date these liturgies.

The high liturgical service of the Middle Ages was not necessarily the worship service of the early church.
In fact this a great example of the problem of using liturgy to encounter the Word and as our hermeneutical guide. The idea that the Lord’s Supper was anything more than a symbolic spiritual representation was rejected by the church at least through 9th century. Yet, it changed and the bread became the body and John 6 was used a proof text. Christians before the 10th century would have understood John 6 in a completely different way than those after. This makes the ever changing liturgy a very shaky guide to finding truth in the Scripture. Instead of the liturgy being a way to find typological meaning it seems to be a way for meaning to be created and/or lost. For the record the grammatical historical method of exegesis existed at least since Theodoret (5th century).

It should also be remembered that letting the Church interpret Scripture did not lead to a greater understanding of the Word, it led to no one understanding the word. There was mass ignorance of what the Bible actually taught until the printing press. This is one of the points of the Reformation, everyone should be a Berean.

Is the Heidelberg Catechism Lutheran?

There has always been a movement to identify the Heidelberg Catechism with Lutheranism. It dates back as far as John Nevin and Philip Schaff. It served their purposes to try and read Lutheranism into the Catechism of Ursinus and Olevanius because they wanted to Lutheranize (or Romanize) the German Reformed Church. Playing down the Reformed character of the foundational Catechism seemed a good way to accomplish the task. The Confessing Evangelical revives this claim. He states,

Back in my Reformed days, this was my favourite of the Reformed catechisms. It turned out that this was because it is the most Lutheran, not least because it was written for a Lutheran crowd: it was intended to unite Reformed and Lutheran believers in the Palatinate, or at least to express Reformed doctrine in a manner that would be as palatable as possible to Lutherans.

Now, I am not denying that the Heidelberg was written to unite the Lutherans and Reformed in the Palatinate, but it was not written for a Lutheran crowd. It did avoid a few things that may have angered Lutherans, such as a clear teaching about election, but it was written to untie Lutherans with Reformed by making them Reformed. Even the Confessing Evangelical admits this by accident in his next paragraph.

From a Lutheran perspective, a lot of the Catechism's answers are pretty unsatisfactory, especially its explicit rejection of baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence. Instead, it takes a "just as surely as X happens, so does Y" approach:

He also makes the hard to understand claim that the Heidelberg was not pastoral, but didactic. Hardly a document written for a Lutheran crowd since it explicitly rejects the main contention of sacraments between the two parties. This difference is explained a bit further by the Confessing Evangelical in his next post. Note the sacraments do something different in the two catechisms, baptism and the Lord’s Supper are both very different. Hard to imagine that one is based upon the other, as the original claim contends. The Confessing Evangelical even tries to state that the Heidelberg was based on Lutheran documents. He tries to show how Question and Answer number 1 are based on Luther’s exposition of the Second Article of the Smaller Catechism, even claiming it is “clearly” based. Yet, the four areas of comfort spelled out in Q and A #1 from Christ and in fact the entire idea of comfort and joy being the unifying principle of the catechism probably came from John A’Lasco and his series of catechisms. The catechisms of A’Lasco, Leo Juda, Calvin, and the Strassbourgh Refomers (Capito and Bucer) are the four main sources. James I Good has an excellent book on the sources of the Heidelberg Catechism called, The Heidelberg Catechism in its Newest Light. Some of it is out of date now, such as I believe Olevianus’s contribution is better understood, but it is still very good. It is in the RCUS James I Good collection available at www.rcus.org.

Now this post has led some to comment about the Heidelberg Catechism being ‘weak’ on the sacraments. However, I think it ought to be viewed as separate from the Lutheran view and sources, and thus, it should simply be viewed as different. For while I disagree with the Confessing Evangelical’s idea that Lutheranism stands as a source for the Heidelberg, he is at least honest enough to see that the Heidelberg does not allow a Lutheran view of the sacraments, not at all. Something to rememeber as the Federal Vision discussion proceeds.

Occasional Observance of the Supper

I do believe the Bible teaches an occasional observance of the Lord’s Supper. I do not believe the frequency is ever specified, and thus, it should probably be left up to the local church as to how often the Supper should be administered. For the sake of disclosure, my particular church follows the Zwinglian model of when to take the Supper, which means on Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, and once in the fall. We usually have the fall Supper near Thanksgiving.

First, much like baptism is the NT version of circumcision, so to is the Lord’s Supper the NT version of Passover. It was instituted at Passover, they point to the same truth, and both proclaim the Lord’s death. Passover, you will recall, was only administered once a year. Passover was not devalued, it was not ignored, it was not taking that sign for granted. To argue a necessary weekly administration makes one wonder about any continuation or connection with Passover. Without a clear biblical command to partake weekly, dismissing the occasional nature of Passover is unfounded.

Second, I Corinthians 11:25-26 tells us "as oft as ye drink it" and "as often as ye eat this bread." The word ‘often’ here means ‘as often as’ or ‘whenever’. Thus, ‘whenever you take the Supper, do it in remembrance of me.’ This is odd phraseology if they are supposed to be taking the Supper every week. Yet, ‘as often as’ or ‘whenever’ fits nicely with an occasional model of partaking the Supper. It gives great leeway to the local congregations. Whenever they decide to administer the Supper, they are to do it in remembrance of Christ. This allows local churches to avoid profaning the Supper by either a to frequent or too infrequent administration of the Eucharist.

Third, no clear command for any sort of time frame is given. As mentioned earlier, it is not necessary to believe that ‘breaking of bread’ in Acts 2:42 means the partaking of the Lord’s Supper. In fact, the evidence appears to be just as strongly against that idea. Acts 2:46 and Luke 24:30 both use the same phrase, ‘breaking of bread’ in conjunction with eating meat, which is not a Lord’s Supper activity. The Luke example is in the midst of the regular evening meal. Acts 20:7 is another example where it is not necessary to hold that it is Communion that is being administered. I do freely grant that it might be, but the sentence losses nothing if they are gathering for a fellowship meal. I personally think Acts 20:7 probably is talking about the Lord’s Supper, but again it is not a proof for weekly communion. The addition of the phrase, "in order to break bread" may actually be seen as proof of non-weekly communion. If they always partook of the Supper when they gathered together on the First day then the phrase "in order to break bread" is redundant. However, if they did not then the phrase is showing the specific event that was taking place on that particular Lord’s Day. This would support the idea of a communion season, where it is taken only a few times a year. The main point is this verse does not clearly demonstrate anything that except on this particular Sunday, the church in Troas took the Supper.

Fourth, I do believe that examples exist of meetings where no Supper is recorded. We do not see the Supper on the first Easter, or anywhere between Christ’s resurrection and his ascension even though he 40 days to participate with them in it. John 20 records the first Easter and the Sunday afterward without any mention of the Supper. We do not see it at the ascension, nor at Pentecost. We do not see it in the ministry of Paul at Antioch (Acts 13:14-50), we don’t see it in Ephesus despite the fact Paul resided there for years, we do not see it in Miletus (Acts 20:13). In fact, with the exception of 2:42 and 20:7, both of which are extremely debatable, we do not see the Supper at all in Acts. We see Baptism a lot, but no Eucharist.

Fifth, the sacraments are not regular elements of worship. They are elements of worship, do not mistake me, but they are not the regular elements of worship. Many weekly communion people argue why leave this regular element of worship out on any Sunday. The synagogue worship had reading of the Word, explanation of the Word, prayer, psalms, but it did not always contain circumcision or Passover. If one argues from the sacrifices present in the temple worship, then we have lapsed into a theology of the sacraments, or perhaps worship itself, argumentation that I will deal with later. Even if one assumes a point of discontinuity on this point between the Old and New, there becomes a problem of Baptism. Why is the Supper a regular element of worship, but Baptism an occasional element. After all baptism is seen more in the book of Acts, it is in the Great Commission, and it is a sacrament as well? I think it must be argued then that sacraments in general are not regular elements of worship, but are occasional elements of worship.

In summary, I think the Bible does not give a command as to how often one should partake of the Supper. I do believe that occasional partaking is exegetically supportable mainly through the connection with Passover and Acts 20:7, which tells us that they gathered together "in order to break bread". Yet, in the end the Scripture is full of deafening silence on the matter of ‘when’. Thus, for me, when the Bible is silent we should be as well. It is not right to bind consciences to a prescribed pattern. If a church wanted to celebrate monthly, that is their right, if they wanted quarterly that is their right, if they wanted annually, again, it is their right. I even think weekly is allowable. Each church should be allowed to assess the need of the congregation and decide in that manner. However, I do think weekly communion arguments are designed around a re-definition of worship and the Supper, and that is not allowable. I shall post on that next.

Weekly Communion and John 6

I do think that in the discussion of weekly communion, one often sees John 6 pop up. It is the main text to prove transubstantiation, but we will not be dealing with that as no Presbyterian/Reformed exegesis would include such an error. Still many will point to John 6 as showing a need for weekly communion claiming John 6 discusses the Eucharist. I do not believe this chapter in John is speaking of the Lord’s Supper at all, but rather is teaching us about Christ. In as much as the Lord’s Supper also proclaims Christ the two have overlap, but that does not mean John 6 applies to the Supper.

First, this speech of Jesus is well before the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Many commentators think that this is easily a year prior to the institution of the Supper. Taking the Supper then and imposing it back upon this chapter seems a little like forcing one’s views about the Supper onto a text. Rather we ought to let the text tell us what it is talking about.

Second, this text appears not to be pointing forward to a yet to be instituted Lord’s Supper, but rather backward to Moses and the Manna. This is not a theology of the Supper, but a fulfillment of sign of manna in the wilderness. Jesus says as much in verse 32-35. The true bread from heaven is Jesus. He points back to the manna again in 48-50.

Third, the bread from heaven is figurative. I am not sure any disagree on this point, but what is the figure should be explained. John 6:35 tells us that Jesus is the bread of heaven and those who come will not be hungry and those who believe will not thirst. The next verse condemns the crowd for seeing, but not believing, and then Jesus launches into a discussion about being drawn and believing. Thus, the figure appears to be about believing on Jesus, not about any sort of partaking of bread in the Lord’s Supper. See also verse 47. These verses cannot be ignored as we discuss eating and drinking his flesh in verses 51 and following.

Fourth, after Jesus says to eat his flesh and drink his blood, he says those that do eat his flesh "shall live forever"(v.58). This should bring our minds back to verse 47 where Jesus says "whoever believes has eternal life." It is reasonable to assume then that the figure of eating his flesh that produces ‘living forever’ is the same as the believing that produces ‘eternal life.’ After all this is in the same discourse. Notice also the similarities in verse 44 and 54. Both those who believe and those who eat the flesh and drink the blood are ‘raised up on the last day.’

Fifth, thinking that Jesus was speaking about the act of eating was the mistake of the crowd. Verse 52 shows us the crowd wonders how they can eat the flesh and blood of Jesus. And Jesus seems to rebuke them for thinking that way. When they continue to murmur in verse 61 Jesus openly rebukes them. Yet, what is there mistake if Jesus is really speaking about eating the bread and wine of the Supper? They are simply wondering how they can eat the flesh and drink the blood, which is a very legitimate question if Jesus has not yet said, ‘This is my body’ and ‘this is my blood.’ How could they have known he meant the sacrament that has not yet been instituted. Jesus seems to think they should have gotten the message and thinking it was eating anything was a mistake. In fact, verse 63 Jesus says, "The words I speak unto you, they are spirit, they are life." Jesus seems to equate his message about being the true bread to his words, and believing his words. Indeed as he states in the same verse, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing." When the crowd leaves it is because they do not believe (64).

Sixth, the disciples who stay understand the meaning of the teaching. They explain it for us in Peter’s answer in verses 68-69. "Lord to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Peter and the other faithful know that Jesus has been speaking about believing and trusting his word. Peter’s answer corresponds nicely to the discourse as well. Peter believes in Jesus as Christ commands in verse 35 and the crowd fails to do in verse 36. Peter confesses the ‘eternal life’ that Jesus spoke about in verses 40, 47, 53, 57, and 58 is found in believing the words of Jesus. Which by the way is also what Jesus says directly in verse 63. Peter also confesses Jesus to be the Son of the Living God which fits nicely with verses 36-40, and being the bread "from heaven" (32-33) that gave the crowd trouble in verse 42.

Thus, I hold that John 6 is not about the Lord’s Supper, but is about believing on Jesus and his words in general. We should not take the sections that speak of Christ’s flesh and blood to be references to the yet to be established Supper because Christ in the discourse applies them to belief in Him and His words. They are used figuratively here for belief in Jesus, not for bread and wine.

Today some argue that we should read Scripture through the lens of the Liturgy, and thus read this passage as one pertaining to the Lord’s Supper. They use this as proof the grammatical-historical method is not the main way to read the Scripture. This is a disturbing development in the push for weekly communion, and hopefully is not a method used by all of its advocates.

Weekly communion advocates want to point to John 6 and say we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood in the Supper so that he dwells in me and I in him. They argue then that not partaking weekly under values this chapter and this teaching of Christ. Yet, if this chapter is talking about believing in Jesus and believing his words, then it has no force at all for a weekly communion argument.

Weekly Communion in History

Before I get into exegesis about weekly communion, which could be a multiple post endeavor, let me briefly talk of the history of the Lord’s Supper. D.G. Hart and John Meuther had written a piece about the conflict inherent within the Directory of Worship for the OPC. Is the Supper an ‘occasional element’ or is it to be ‘frequent’? He then goes into a nice history of Calvin’s desire for weekly communion, and claims the OPC has become practical Zwinglians by only taking a quarterly communion. There is no denying that Calvin desired weekly communion, but that hardly means we should all follow the example. In fact, it could be argued that Hart and Meuther neglect the submission of Calvin to a quarterly partaking of communion, which was in accord with the Zwingli/Bullinger practice. The article seems to imply that quarterly partaking of communion necessitates a Zwinglian view of the Supper, but if that is so, then Calvin himself held a Zwinglian view since he partook quarterly. The article does admit that Knox, who did study with Calvin, and the Scottish church practiced monthly communion. So too did the early American Puritans.

Thus, in actuality, the Reformed tradition is one of non-weekly communion. The desire of Calvin and even Bucer for weekly communion should not overshadow the actual facts of practice. Their churches did not have weekly communion. The vast majority of Reformed and Presbyterian history then is one of quarterly or monthly communion with a small dose of yearly communion from the Scottish revival tradition.

Even if one wants to line up desire and thought rather than practice the overwhelming number still favor a non-weekly approach. For weekly you have John Calvin, Martin Bucer, and perhaps other Strassborg men like Wolfgang Capito and Matthew Zell. Against it you have Ulrich Zwingli, Henrich Bullinger, Zacharias Ursinus, John Knox, John Cotton, Cotton Matther (in fact all Mathers), William Ames, Herman Witsius, and probably Peter Vermigli, and John Oecolampadus. If one wants to speak of a Reformed tradition, one must accept that the tradition favors non-weekly communion.

Admittedly tradition is not our rule of faith (remember exegesis is coming later), and there is a tradition that exists prior to the Reformation. Looking prior to the Reformation is really a hodgepodge of practices. Some early works favor weekly communion such as the Didache and the Constitutions of the Apostles. Justin Martyr as well seems to record a weekly communion. However, some evidence exists of daily partaking of the Lord’s Supper especially with Cyprian in Afirca. We do see liturgies with weekly communion forms as time progresses past the persecutions, but we also see by the 4th and 5th centuries people watching the liturgy and communion, but not partaking. We see daily Masses(the Lord’s Supper) as common by the time of Charlemagne, and we see non-weekly communion practiced in Middle Ages as well. There is evidence of pre-Reformation non-weekly communion. Some Synods held that people should communion at least every third Sunday. And prior to the Reformation it went to only on High Feasts days, which is what Calvin is reacting against. Thus, prior to the Reformation the tradition can be used by almost anyone to support their position.

With this historical backdrop, we can now proceed on to the exegesis.

Plea for Weekly Communion Examined

A new website, the Reformed Liturgical Institute gives a link to a paper encouraging weekly communion. It deserves a response.

Rev. Daniel Hyde is the author and his plea is divided into exegetical, theological, historical, and practical reasons for going to Weekly Communion. I shall deal with the first two in this post.

His exegetical reasons revolve almost exclusively around Acts 2:42. "And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, an in breaking of bread, and in prayers." Rev. Hyde argues that this shows the early church gathered to do these four things during their worship. But is Acts 2:42 talking about worship? Is breaking of the bread the Lord’s Supper? Luke 24:35 uses the same phrase, "breaking of bread" to describe Jesus in the home of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. Jesus was known to them during the breaking of bread. This is how the disciples related it to Peter and the others. Luke 24:30 specifically tells us that Jesus sat "at meat" with them then broke bread and revealed himself. The addition of the phrase "at meat" makes it fairly plain Luke is talking about a regular meal, not worship and not the Lord’s Supper. Another problem for making the phrase breaking bread to be a synonym for the Lord’s Supper is just four verse later in Acts. Although Rev. Hyde mentions Acts 2:46 where "breaking bread" is done ‘daily’, his paper still argues for weekly rather than daily communion. Why the difference? It is not explained. He also does not deal with the implications of partaking the Supper in one another’s home without elder supervision, which is how every church practices it today. Acts 2:46 also includes the idea of "eat their meat with gladness", which indicates regular meals rather than the Lord’s Supper. Why then is one verse speaking of worship and the other speaking of just eating at another’s house?

Rev. Hyde does move along to deal quickly with I Corinthians 11, but does not specifically single out verse 20 where we see the actual phrase the "Lord’s Supper". The act is named specifically, which leads one to wonder why the euphemism of "breaking bread" if the proper title is used as proven by I Corinthians. Why would Luke, a companion of Paul, use a euphemism when Paul never uses the euphemism, instead calls it by name?

His theological reasons also leave much to be desired. He does give quite a few theological reasons, and I shall deal with them in the order he provides.
First, the sacraments are the gifts of God for the people of God. And as His gifts to us we need to take advantage of them as much as possible as we live in "this present evil age"
This is a stretch at best. I agree the Supper is a gift, but does that mean we must use them as much as possible? Was not Passover a gift to the Israelites, but they did not celebrate it weekly. The Day of Atonement came but once a year as well, yet it was gift. Baptism too is a gift, but it is to be administered only once in your entire life. If the Supper is a gift to be used as often as possible, then why not partake daily? Why limit it to weekly? Daily makes a consistent fit with Acts 2:46. He has not supported the idea that a gift must be used often or weekly to be used rightly. In fact, there is ample biblical evidence that sometimes overuse is a bad thing. Take the Bronze Serpent of Moses. It was a gift to be used when bitten by a snake, yet it was overused, and its meaning lost. It had to be smashed because what was given as a gift had become perverted. A lesson not dealt with by Rev. Hyde.
Second, they are an accommodation from our Father to us. This is the meaning of "mindful." As David says in Psalm 103, "For He knows our frame, He remembers that we are dust." This is true, but not an argument for weekly communion. The same is true for his third and fourth points.

He then goes into a discussion of the application of the blessing, and he makes the following dangerous statement. We are not Pietists nor are we Zwinglians, we are Reformed. Therefore the Lord’s Supper is not a matter of my working, my receiving, my believing, my preparing, my coming, but of God’s action, His work in us through these means. Notice what Rev. Hyde has said, the blessing of God comes through the means of the Supper even if you do not believe. If this is true what blessings do those unbelievers receive when they partake of the Supper, and what is Paul talking about in I Corinithians 11:29 when he warns of unworthy eating receiving, not a blessing, but damnation? These questions Rev. Hyde ignores.

Rev. Hyde then makes another astounding statement. He claims the Supper is the "clearest way the promises of God are given to us." Wait, are the sacraments more clear than preaching? Rev. Hyde thinks so. The preaching of the Word is not the clearest manifestation of the Gospel, then. Note that well. Instead, it is the administration of the sacraments through the hands of ministers that most clearly gives us the Gospel. For his support he cites no Scripture, but only a quote from Calvin and one from Beza where they speak of the Word not appealing to our senses while the sacraments do. No one denies the Supper appeals to different senses than the preached word, but does that make it more clear because it is more physical? That is not what we see Paul saying in II Timothy 4. Instead Paul commands preaching of the Word. In Romans 10:14 says ‘how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard?’ Paul is not talking about the Supper, he is talking about preaching. Jesus does not even mention the Lord Supper in the Great Commission (Mt. 28:19). If the Supper is the clearest way to present the promises of God, why is it left out? Why do we believe that the Supper should never be separated from the Word if we think the Supper so clear by itself? Would not the Supper then become the high point of worship, and not the preached word, if the Supper is indeed the clearest explanation of the gospel? Yes, yes it does, and Rev. Hyde agrees. For his last point is the point so often made by James Jordan that the Supper is a covenant renewal ceremony. Jordan and Hyde, on account of his echoing Jordan, believe that true worship and covenant renewal has not taken place without partaking of the Supper. Thus we see the weekly communion tied into the redefinition of worship so that it is God renewing his covenant with us, and one must have the sacrificial meal in order to seal it. Rev. Hyde does not explain why God must renew his covenant of grace with us, or what happens to those who do not take the Supper weekly since God has left the covenant unrenewed for them. Yet, these questions shed light on a few of the problems of this redefinition of worship as a covenant renewal. Why does the covenant of grace need to be renewed? Why renew it weekly? What is the new character of the Supper since it is now essential to remaining in the covenant, or at least essential to God renewing his covenant with you? This questions are important questions because one gets the sense that weekly communion redefines many other doctrines, at least weekly communion as argued for by Rev. Hyde.

The Christian Reformed Church allows infants to the table

The Christian Reformed Church is approving infant communion, or all baptized-member-communion. One wonders if this a sign of things to come for Presbyterian denominations. The PCA and the OPC are both meeting in their respective General Assemblies this week. Each will be dealing with overtures about the Federal Vision, which does not necessarily include infant communion, but I believe it to be a step in that direction. We shall see how it all plays out.

History and Paedocommunion

I have put some thoughts about Paedocommunion up at Westminster Brass. I thought here I would continue the subject by examining the claims of Paedo or Infant communionists that history supports the practice of giving infants communion.

Tim Gallant gives a few quotes and comments upon them. Tommy Lee gives a fuller set of quotes and discussion. Neither, in my opinion, proves their case. While I will grant that Africa around the time of Augustine must have practiced giving communion to infants, a wide spread practice of paedocommunion seems hard to establish. Nor can any firm proof be brought forth from 1st or 2nd century documents. A few examples of their overstatement of the facts are in order.

Both men cite the Apostolic Constitutions as proof of Infant Communion. They point out that the document tells the catechumens, hearers, and non-believers to leave before communion is served. It then goes on to state, "Let the mothers take their children" and goes on to give the order in which communion should be received. ". . .the deaconesses, and the virgins, and the widows; then the children; and then all the people in order." Here we see that children were to receive the sacrament. Sounds like proof, but all is not finished. Gallant neglects to point out the prayer mentioned in the book. Lee shares it with us. It concludes by praying,

sanctify Thy people, keep those that are in virginity, preserve those in the faith that are in marriage, strengthen those that are in purity, bring the infants to complete age, confirm the newly admitted; instruct the catechumens, and render them worthy of admission...

Now Lee takes this to mean that infants were to be at the table. Yet, he neglects to see if there is a difference between the use of the word infant and the word children. The above proofs all speak of children coming to the table, and the prayer mentions infants specifically. Are they overlapping groups? The prayer seems to indicate not. The prayer is to "bring infants to complete age." What this means is not precisely known, but it seems probably that this is a prayer for infants to come to an age of understanding to partake in the Supper. This is bolstered by the rest of the prayer, "instruct the catechumens, and render them worthy of admission." The same section of the prayer is praying for catechumens, who were dismissed, to be taught so that they might be worthy of admission. It seems likely that the infants need to be of complete age to be worthy of admission as well. At the very least, this is no longer a clear proof for infants having been at the table, and more likely proof they were not allowed.

Let us add to this an earlier citation, one even earlier than Cyprian and Augustine. Justin Martyr tells us of the eucharist and who partakes of it. "This food is called with us the eucahrist, of which none can partake, but the believing and baptized, who live according to the commands of Christ." Clearly, Justin Martyr reports to us that infants were not allowed at the table. For the only ones allowed at the table were baptized, believing, and obedient to Christ. Not something that would be said of infants at their mother’s breast, and probably not something that would be said about very little children. Justin sees more than just baptism as a requirement to gain admission to the table. Remember Justin is not telling us his opinion of the Lord’s Supper, he is merely reporting the common practice of his time, the common practice of the 2nd century Christians.

In the end, the Paedocommunionists can do nothing more than prove that around the 3rd and 4th centuries paedocommunion was practiced in North Africa. This I will grant. But they need to be more honest and admit that the general custom and the earlier custom seems to be forbidding infants from the table.

Shepherd vs. Heidelberg Catechism

Norman Shepherd has posted a brief response to Barry Hofstetter’s online critique of Shepherd’s book A Call of Grace. In this article Shepherd attacks the idea of the imputation of the active obedience of Jesus Christ. In other words, the imputation of Christ’s obedience to the law, his righteousness, to us. His basis is of course denying that a Covenant of Works exists.

I just wanted to briefly respond. Many men better than I have already responded to the basic principles he discusses. However, in this response Rev. Shepherd admits that the Covenant of Works and Active Obedience of Christ may be found in the Westminster, but he denies it is found in the Heidelberg Catechism. It is this claim that I wish to debunk.

Shepherd cites Q.1, 66, and 67 as proof that the Heidelberg knows nothing of a covenant of works, or imputation of obedience to the law. Question one states that we "belong to our faithful savior Jesus Christ, who has fully satisfied for all our sins by his precious blood." Shepherd states that his sacrifice on the cross is the only grounds for the sinner. Q.66 and 67 are discussing the sacraments, and they state that we have "everlasting life for the sake of the one sacrifice of Christ accomplished on the cross." Shepherd says that adding Christ’s obedience to the law to the cross hides the cross as the only ground of salvation. Shepherd further states that we have two sacraments and they both memorialize the death and resurrection, not the life, of Christ.

Allow me briefly to illustrate the Covenant of Works and Active Obedience of Christ in the Heidelberg Catechism. It is implied in the beginning of the catechism with Q.4 which tells us the Law of God requires perfect obedience, and then again in Q.7 and 9 both tell us that Adam and Eve broke this law, and lost righteousness for their descendants. In case any have missed it the Catechism adds Q.18 where Christ is given to us "for complete redemption and righteousness." Our Lord gives us redemption and righteousness. Q. 21 tells us that God has given “not only to others, but to me also, forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness, and salvation freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits. Here we see we are given righteousness by the merits of Christ. Merits of Christ! This is exactly what Shepherd is denying in his article. The Catechism goes on to explain the Apostle’s Creed. When we confess that Christ ‘suffered’ for us what does that mean (Q.37)? It means, "all the time he lived on earth, but especially at the end of His life . . ." Clearly here more than the death of Christ is in view, but his entire life is for us. The same question ends, "He might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us the grace of God, righteousness, and eternal life."

Then the really clear questions begin. Q.56 asks what we believe concerning the ‘forgiveness of sin?’ The answer, ". . . but God graciously imputes to me the righteousness of Christ, that I may never more come into condemnation." Shepherd cannot confess this question and hold to what he wrote in the article or the book. God gave us the righteousness of Christ. Q.60 further explains when it asks, ‘How are you righteous before God?’ The answer concludes, "yet God, without any merit of mine, of mere grace, grants and imputes to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ, as if I had never committed nor had any sins, and had myself accomplished all the obedience which Christ has fulfilled for me, if only I accept such benefit with a believing heart." Nothing can state the case any clearer than those two questions. Not only the satisfaction made on the cross, but his righteousness, which is linked to his obedience is imputed to us to be our own. There is not a better description of salvation anywhere, and Shepherd denies it, and claims the Heidelberg Catechism never teaches Christ’s obedience is given to us. He either does not read his Catechism, or does not understand what it says. See also 61, 62, and 84.

Just to show also that he did not even finish reading the Catechism regarding the sacraments. Q. 76 tells us that eating the crucified body and drinking the shed blood of Christ means, "to embrace with a believing heart all the sufferings and death of Christ. . ." When we reference what the Catechism has already taught us regarding the suffering of Christ in Q.37 we see that this means his entire life, not just the end of it. So, Shepherd’s claim that no sacrament memorializes his life is also wrong.

Thanks to Barb for directing me to the articles.