The Presence of God and the Means of Grace

I THINK THAT THIS POST HAS MOVED FROM ITS ORIGINAL POSITION IN THE BLOG DUE TO BLOG ISSUES WHILE I'M HANDLING THE POSTS.  IF THE ORIGINAL POSITION OF THIS POST IS EVER FOUND, REPOST IT WITH THAT DATE AND TIME.

THIS MAY BE CONNECTED WITH THE POST ON JUNE 3, 2011.

I'm referring to the angle of concurrence between the actions of corporate worship in Word and Sacrament and the actual, effectual and sovereign working of the Holy Spirit upon the souls of the believers.

When the degree of concurrence between the sovereign, invisible action of the Spirit and the visible activity in Word and Sacrament is small, then the two classes of action, visible and invisible, do not necessarily interact at all.  They are independent.  The Spirit performs his actions sovereignly and probably most often unconsciously in the hearts of the elect, and probably most often independently of the immediate exposure to the visible actions of Word and Sacrament.  The ministry of Word and Sacrament finds the elect where they have been put by the invisible work of the Spirit, and when the two classes of action happen to intersect, then there is a conversion to Christ, or a step upward in spirituality and growth in grace.  There is no necessary connection between the two classes of action, visible and invisible, but each has its own place in the scheme of things.  In the extreme, Word and Sacrament are seen not as channels of real grace, but as teachers of ideas, and reminders of God's grace, and mainly as actions that we take to testify to our faith.  The downside of this view, taken to an extreme, is that there is no certainty at any point in time that the visible actions of Word and Sacrament are having any effect in the church.

On the other hand, when the degree of concurrence between the invisible action of the Spirit and the visible activity in Word and Sacrament is very high, that is, when Word and Sacrament are actual instruments or vehicles of the Spirit, then we expect to find spiritual life and progress exclusively through exposure to Word and Sacrament.  The downside of this approach is that grace can be bound to the Word and Sacrament in such a way as to discount the working of the Spirit in the elect under general circumstances, and we also now have a more difficult time explaining those circumstances when Word and Sacrament seem to "fail" in certain persons, even though they have been applied to them.

Between these two extremes there must be a nuanced medium.  We want to know what the Scripturally normative degree of concurrence should be between the activity of the invisible Spirit and the visible Word and Sacrament.

The special presence of God in the worshiping assembly would tend to put much emphasis on Word and Sacrament as instruments in the hands of the Spirit.

John 15:7   7 "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you.

John 17:8   8 "For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me.

Acts 5:20   20 "Go, stand in the temple and speak to the people all the words of this life."

Acts 11:14   14 'who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.'

Romans 9:6   6 ¶ But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,

Romans 10:8   8 But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith which we preach):

Romans 10:17   17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

1 Corinthians 15:2   2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you -- unless you believed in vain.

Facts and Vision

We're so used to trying to apply the truth of God's Grace in Christ as "factoids" from his Word, that we may not perceive in those facts the vision of the Glory of God which gives true and abiding faith in the facts.  Knowing the facts of God's Grace toward us raises us, but not without a vision of His glory seen through them.  Faith in the good things God does for us -- that is, reliance on a list of good ideas about Him in which we attempt to put our trust -- is no substitute for a living vision of the Living Word in the Word, Who gives us the power to believe His divine promises.  Seeing who He is -- through the gift of the Spirit bringing repentance and faith -- fills the promises with power.

This vision comes in worship -- usually corporate worship.  Without it, we are nothing.  But, in true worship, with unveiled faces we behold His glory and are changed into his image!

May you find Spirit-filled corporate worship in Word and Sacrament -- worship that points to the glory of the Triune God, and especially to Christ as Mediator between God and Man!

Meeting Christ in the Apostolic Word

 ¹ What was ⁽¹⁾from the beginning, what we have ⁽²⁾heard, what we have ⁽³⁾seen with our eyes, what we ⁽⁴⁾have looked at and ⁽⁵⁾touched with our hands, concerning the ⁽⁶⁾Word of Life— ² and ⁽⁷⁾the life was manifested, and we have ⁽⁸⁾seen and ⁽⁹⁾testify and proclaim to you ⁽¹⁰⁾the eternal life, which was ⁽¹¹⁾with the Father and was ⁽¹²⁾manifested to us— ³ what we have ⁽¹³⁾seen and ⁽¹⁴⁾heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our ⁽¹⁵⁾fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. ^{4 (16)}These things we write, so that our ⁽¹⁷⁾joy may be made complete. 

(1) John 1:1f; 1 John 2:13, 14
(2) Acts 4:20; 1 John 1:3
(3) John 19:35; 2 Pet 1:16; 1 John 1:2
(4) John 1:14; 1 John 4:14
(5) Luke 24:39; John 20:27
(6) John 1:1, 4
(7) John 1:4; 1 John 3:5, 8; 5:20
(8) John 19:35; 1 John 1:1
(9) John 15:27; 1 John 4:14
(10) John 10:28; 17:3; 1 John 2:25; 5:11, 13, 20
(11) John 1:1
(12) John 1:4; 1 John 3:5, 8; 5:20
(13) John 19:35; 2 Pet 1:16; 1 John 1:1
(14) Acts 4:20; 1 John 1:1
(15) John 17:3, 21; 1 Cor 1:9
(16) 1 John 2:1
(17) John 3:29

From Biblegateway.com

An amazing point of the teaching in this paragraph of I John is that the personal familiarity, to the point of tangible, tactile fellowship with the God/Man, the Creator of the Universe, was not only had by those apostles, and could be described by them to us, but that it is also a fellowship that can be spiritually communicated to us by the Word of those Apostles!

We are accustomed to hearing the Word as the Word of truth.  We also know that this Word, in its truth, is spiritually perceived.  But, do we always understand that the communication that is instituted through spiritual perception of this Word mediates the Real Presence of Christ to our souls?

This ought to give us a hint why the forces of evil always work in our lives to draw our attention away from this Word.

A Brief Illustration of the Means of Grace

The term “Means of Grace” refers to God-ordained religious practices (hearing the Word preached; receiving the Sacraments) which are used as instruments by the Lord in converting and edifying his people.

Since these religious exercises are physical, mental and spiritual in nature, some understanding ought to be sought from the Word concerning the relationship between these activities and the work of the Holy Spirit.

Let me introduce a physical model which might help explain what I mean: Think of the physical activity of hearing the Word preached, coupled with God’s work in making the Word spiritually understood by us.

Consider the following figure #1:

                                             The Holy Spirit Works

                                                          |

                                                          |

                                                          V

The Word Preached --------------->    Hearer

The idea being portrayed here is that the preaching of the Word and the actual work of the Spirit to sovereignly prepare hearers are independent activities that may even take place at different times. There is a “right angle” between the effects of the ministry of the Word preached and the ministry of the Spirit giving understanding of the Word. Word and Spirit come at the hearer in different ways and at different times, according to the sovereignty of the Spirit.

Now consider the following figure #2:

            Holy Spirit ->Word preached -> Hearer 

In this image the work of the Spirit is pictured as happening in intimate conjunction with the preaching (without intending to imply that the Spirit never works independently).

These two figures convey two different impressions of the function and significance of the “Means of Grace.” 

In Figure #1, the “means,” which in the example is the preaching and hearing of the Word, is decoupled from the Spirit in some measure (without in any sense denying the profound necessity for the Spirit’s ministry). The Spirit works independently from the “Means of Grace,” and we have no sure connection between the exercise of the “Means of Grace” and the work of the Spirit.

In Figure #2, a peculiar supernatural significance is attached to the preaching. There will be times when the dead will be command to live – and they will. The preaching takes on a significance beyond the conveyance of information to hearers who have been prepared by other means, independently of the preaching. There is real supernatural power in the preaching, which from time to time may even become visible to us, just as Jesus raised Lazarus, not by supernaturally waking him from the dead so that he could hear his name being shouted, but simply by the shouting of his name:  Just as “God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.”

Now the same approach can be used with respect to the Sacraments. They preach. In a sense, they do nothing more than preach, since there is no Sacrament without the Word. A Sacrament is the gospel in Word, and in seen and felt Images (taste, etc.). Figure #1, illustrating the “uncoupled,” or “distant” connection between Sacrament and Spirit leads to one conception of the “Means of Grace” in the sacraments, namely, that they are not means by which grace is received at all, but are testimonies to grace already given by the Spirit in another way, and perhaps at another time. On the other hand, Figure #2 intends to show the strong correlation between the Spirit’s work and the preaching of the Gospel, and also the Spirit’s work and the administration of the Sacraments. There is real supernatural power there.

Significance of the Two Figures

When the angle between the religious exercise and the work of the Spirit is large (independent), then we have a “low church” view of the “Means of Grace,” if they are granted at all to be “means.” When the theological angle between the religious exercise and the work of the Spirit is small (parallel), then we have a “high church” view of the “Means of Grace.” This extends not only to Word and Sacrament, but even to liturgy, etc., which takes on a kind of quasi-sacramental character. Indeed, it extends to the spiritual fellowship of the church herself.

In the “low church” view, there is no chance that the “means of grace” will be substituted for Christ. But, the full understanding and usage of “means,” and the respect that goes with them, will be lacking except for the preaching. The exclusive emphasis on preaching can then change the church into a school, where information is mainly conveyed, along with a few rudiments of worship. A high view of sacraments, or of the real character of preaching, of liturgy, and of the real nature of the church herself, will probably be lacking – though the fellowship in the Lord among the people is certainly enjoyed. The “high church” way of life will be rejected, because “the Spirit doesn’t work that way.” He doesn’t work through means like that, or to that extent. They believe fully in the works of the Spirit, but that independency between the religious exercises and the work of the Spirit dominates the thought.

In the “high church” view, there is more respect for the “Means of Grace,” and more edification through them, according to the terms of Scripture. However, it is also possible for the “means” to be exalted unduly, or for Pharisaism to set in as people pride themselves on mechanically operating the liturgical machinery. The centrality of evangelical preaching again comes to the fore here, as the salvation of the spiritual “highness” which is accorded to the Means of Grace.

How do we characterize the relationship between Means of Grace and the Holy Spirit?

With a high view of the Means of Grace, we have to have a Scriptural balance on what we think of these Means.  For example, in Romanism, the elements of the Supper are transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ. That is, Christ is himself “incarnate” in the sacrament. (I realize this is a misuse of the word “incarnate,” but please bear with me). Since Christ himself is really there in the elements of the Sacrament, he should be worshiped there. But, we see no evidence of this in Scripture. Christ is not “incarnate” in the elements of the Supper. So, how is he present? I suggest that we may speak of the elements being used as “instruments” or “mediators” of Christ’s bodily presence. Likewise, Baptism is an instrument of Christ’s presence, and preeminently preaching is an instrument of Christ’s presence. There is a high degree of “parallelism” between the use of the Means of Grace and the ministry of the Trinity through the Spirit. But, by maintaining the “instrumentality,” we are preserved from an unscriptural reverence for bread, wine, water, Bibles, or the persons of preachers. They are real mediators of the real thing, but they are not the real thing in themselves.

Now, we don’t have any idea how the Spirit works. We do not understand the spiritual “engineering.” It is helpful to take Calvin’s approach here, and say that the Scripture revelation is “accommodated” to our babyish understandings.

Therefore, when we read

1 Cor 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

we must admit that the bread and cup are a (real) participation in the body and blood of Christ through the elements as instruments or “mediators” in the hand of God. We do not make them instruments of grace to ourselves by the force of our own faith, but they are real instruments in the hands of the Spirit for grace which we receive by faith.

When we eat and drink, we may rest in the true and living faith of the gospel, that by receiving this sacrament I do receive the forgiveness of sins, and participation in all the virtues of Christ, as well as commit myself to him and his body, the church.

Boyd Murrah

23 October 2008 

revised 14 Dec 2009
revised 3 June 2011 for the blog

Union with Christ, Baptism and the Lord's Table

It is very interesting to see how Paul's doctrinal exposition in the Epistle to the Romans presents the doctrine of union with Christ in a certain order.

In Chapter 5, we have the presentation of the similarity and distinction of the two racial heads Adam and Christ.  The two are made the heads of their two races, and not much is said about the mechanics of the union.  This is obvious in the case of Adam: physical generation, leading to offspring in his own image.  But, what is the means of union with Christ?  Well, Paul doesn't give details for us in Chapter 5.  We just see that we are represented by Christ, who conveys to us life, rather than the death conveyed to us by Adam.

This direct imputation from Adam to me, or from Christ to me is called "immediate imputation."  Paul teaches the "immediate imputation" of sin (and death through sin) from Adam as head to each member of his posterity, and also teaches the "immediate imputation" of the righteousness of Christ to each one who is in him.

In Chapter 6, Paul then speaks of our deliverance from the realm of law and judgment by describing our union with Christ through baptism.  This union is described as a union with him in his death -- a union which continues from that point on into his resurrection and glorification.  His death is the disconnection for us both from the old age of law and judgment, and is followed by his resurrection and ours into the realm of the New Creation, we being resurrected spiritually in our souls now, and ultimately also in our bodies.  This union with him is a union which is so close that we in Christ are plunged with him into his very death, and then included with him in his very resurrection in righteousness.

Therefore, Paul, in Chapters 5 and 6 of Romans definitely describes our union with Christ, first with him as head (Chapter 5), and then in him by a union sealed by baptism, which disconnects us from the dominion of the law (Chapter 6).

In Chapter 7 of the Epistle, Paul then begins to bring in the Spirit.  The Holy Spirit is the one whose power works in us to recreate us anew in a way that the letter of the law on the bare flesh could not do.  The experiential and practical effects of our union with Christ are mediated to us by the Spirit.  By him, we are made over into the image of Christ, so that Christ is in us, the hope of glory.  Just as the "bloodline" was the basis of our relationship with Adam, so that his sin is imputed to us his posterity, so it is the case that Christ's righteousness is imputed to his "bloodline," his "posterity," which is a creation of the Spirit.  By the Spirit, we grow within that union with him which is described in Ephesians 5 as being bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh.  The Word of God received in faith, and the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper convey and seal this union to those of faith.  This union is no theological figment or abstract concept, but a reality.  

The "reality" of the "real presence" at the Lord's Table is the reality of this vital and realistic union with Christ -- a union which is fed and grows by the power of the Holy Spirit, through Baptism, Baptism remembered, and the Bread and Cup received in faith.

Real Presence -- Real Fellowship

One of the issues concerning the conduct of the Lord's Supper is whether the elements (bread and cup) should be passed among the people assembled for worship, or whether the people should come forward to receive the elements from the hands of the servers (i.e., directly from Christ's representatives).

Even though the latter position has much historical tradition behind it, I believe that the Scripture indicates that the former way better illustrates important doctrine concerning the real fellowship of the believers with one another in Christ.

Let us examine relevant passages from Paul, in I Cor 11:

1 Corinthians 11:2   Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.

At this point, Paul begins to speak about head-coverings -- a subject we will not discuss in this post.  After discussing head-coverings, Paul makes the following comment:

1 Corinthians 11:17-18   17 ¶ Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come together not for the better but for the worse.  18 For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it.

When Paul speaks of "giving these instructions," he is just finished with his discussion of head-coverings (as one of the "traditions" he has taught them).  So, it appears that he continues discussing these important traditions by taking up the question of conduct at the Lord's Supper.

It is clear that his first concern is that there are divisions at the Supper.  Our rationalistic minds are apt to wonder what the divisions were about, and whether or not they were justified.  We have a lot of curiosity here, and also feel that we're justified in "knowing."  But, the point of what Paul is saying is that they are morally unjustified in having those divisions.  Now, it's true that Paul himself discusses proper doctrine in many places, and sometimes makes comments which indicate his willingness to sever fellowship over certain issues.  But, here, in teaching on the "tradition" of the conduct of the Supper, he forbids divisions.

Paul's concern to avoid divisions reveals a very important doctrinal aspect of the Supper: the fellowship of the believers in Christ.

Now, attention can focus on a lot of important aspects of the Supper:  "real presence," the "words of institution," the nature of the Eucharistic Prayer, who has the right to administer the Supper, whether the Supper can be carried away from the gathered church to be administered to the sick, etc., etc.  But, the opportunity to investigate the deep and marvelous lore of all these questions -- valuable as it is -- can take attention away from a profound observation:  We are in this together.  Yes, our connection to the Head of the Body is vital.  But our connection to one another in the Body is also vital and often neglected when talking theology.  This post wants to pay attention to that neglected element.

We may cast our investigation, then, in terms of this question:  What are the implications of the Communion we have with one another in Christ for the conduct of the Supper?

Paul continues:

1 Corinthians 11:20-22   20 Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper.  21 For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk.  22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.

The point here is that the fellowship of the church cannot be disrespected in the conduct of the Supper.  This is vital.  It is for this reason that the apostle disapproves of their meeting, and even says that "it is not the Lord's Supper"!  Clearly, it can only be the "Lord's Supper" when the fellowship of the church is respected.  There is decidedly little "individualism" present in these comments.  Because of the broken fellowship in the church (evidently on a fairly grand scale), Paul can say that the meeting is "not the Lord's Supper" for any of them (not just the unspiritual ones).

Paul continues in vss 23-26 detailing the ordo of the Supper.  Then, in vss 27-32 he details the need for self-judgment, and the discipline of the Lord, and finally he picks up the same thread of thought that he began this discussion with:

1 Corinthians 11:33 - 12:1   33 ¶ Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.  34 But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come. 

This passage -- which picks up the initial thread of exhortation, namely, the thread of fellowship within the church body -- must set the tone for all that comes in between.  That is, the ordo of the ceremony, the necessity for self-judgment, and the application of the Lord's discipline to those who insufficiently repent are all understood in the context of the fellowship of the church.

Concerning the ordo, it is said:

1 Corinthians 11:23-24   23 ¶ For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread;  24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

Just as the Lord "took" bread, so we "take" it, too.  And, our "taking" and "eating" is given as command to "us" (in the plural).  In other words, the Lord does not give the bread to "you" singular -- that is, to each one of us individually, but he gives it to "you" plural -- that is, to all of us -- the Body.  He makes the fellowship and spiritual priesthood of the Body to be involved in mediating the serving of the bread and cup.

As a consequence of these observations, I suggest that the dominical instructions that Our Lord gave when instituting the Supper (which are repeated by the apostle) indicate that giving the elements ultimately into the hands of the Body for distribution to the Body is most in harmony with the theology of the ceremony and the meaning of Christian fellowship in the meeting.

Real Word and Sacrament

We are accustomed to think that Word and Sacrament convey information, primarily, and that the information conveyed serves to strengthen our faith and to strengthen our union with Christ.  So, when we hear the gospel preached, we think of ourselves receiving the information in the spirit of faith, and therefore we are edified by it.  Likewise for the sacraments.  The Lord's Supper conveys information, by words, by sight, and by taste.  This information is received in a spirit of faith, and therefore, we are edified by the Spirit through faith.  This is true, as far as it goes.  But, consider the raising of Lazarus:

Lazarus, though dead, heard the words, "Lazarus, come forth."  And, hearing the words, he was raised from the dead.  This certainly involves the communication of information, but the primary power is the power of the Word of God to create reality.  So it is in the church.

Men who hear the gospel are raised from spiritual death and come to spiritual life in Christ, and not simply by the conveyance of information!  Being dead, they nevertheless receive Christ "by ear."  And, having received Christ, they continue to receive him afresh by the ministry of Word and Sacrament in the Gospel.  Our receiving is not merely the receiving of information.  It is also the receiving of Christ himself.

When we hear the word to our spiritual edification, we are receiving Christ by ear -- by actual participation.  When we are baptized, we are also receiving Christ by water -- by actual participation.  When we receive the Supper to our spiritual edification, we are also receiving Christ by mouth -- by actual participation.  (This has nothing to do with "consubstantiation.")

One writer from the 19th century gives an example:  A blind person who receives the gospel by applying his lips to the feel of the letters on the paper, receives Christ "by mouth," because it was by mouth that he understood it. 

So it is when we receive the Supper.

The Secret Work of God Saving Souls

It's worth a deeper and broader investigation of the Scriptural data concerning God's secret work when converting souls to himself.  Here are a couple of questions for your consideration.

Does regeneration come first?

Those of us of "Calvinist" persuasion (a recent name for an understanding of Scripture that goes back through Aquinas and Augustine to the Apostles and Our Lord) sometimes speak of the "antecedent" work of the Spirit in preparing souls to receive the gospel.  Sometimes some of us (or even some of our confessional material?) speak of this "antecedent" work as "regeneration," meaning the spiritual bringing to life of the soul in such a way that it can be attracted to and receive the gospel.

It turns out that in Reformed academic theological circles that conceptions of the workings of the ordo salutis which involve events in sequence of time are held in serious question.  A brief consideration will show that there are still grounds for investigating the ordo to try to determine a more Scriptural statement of it.

Consider this:  Rom 4 clearly states that God justifies the ungodly.  But regenerate people, though sinners, are not "the ungodly."  Therefore, if God regenerates a man so that he may receive the gospel, then that man is made righteous enough to receive the gospel (by regeneration in the inner man) before he hears and exercises faith.  So, he's born again before he's justified.  But, the gospel isn't for saving those already born again.  The gospel is to bear them again itself.

In my opinion, therefore, it is better to say that the Spirit, when implementing union with Christ in a person's heart, simultaneously inhabits him, gives him new birth including faith (the first feeling of life), and brings him into union with Christ in "one fell swoop."  This view also tends to keep a realistic closeness between the preaching of an "efficacious" gospel and the fruits of it (conversion of hearers).

There have been times in the Reformed camp when regeneration and conversion have been envisioned as being separated by a considerable distance in time for some hearers.  This tends to separate the converting work of the Spirit from the administration of the gospel "sacrament," thus turning the "sacrament" of the gospel into an opportunity to show allegiance to Christ (unwitting Zwinglianism) rather than seeing that the "sacrament" of the gospel is a converting ordinance in itself.

When Christ is preached, and sinners are exhorted to believe, then some of them who hear do immediately obey, rising from spiritual death, just as Lazarus rose from physical death as an analogy.  Christ did not awaken Lazarus so that he could hear the words calling him out of the tomb.  Christ's call to come out of the tomb woke Lazarus from the dead!

Is the Gospel Offer well-meant to the non-elect?

Also consider this:  If the secret work of the Spirit in preparing souls for Christ were not a mystery, then one could say that the gospel offer to sinners was not sincere or well-meant on God's part, when it was addressed to the non-elect.  However, it's a trivial argument from Scripture to prove that God often offers a well-meant gospel to people who reject it.  Christ wept over Jerusalem.  In fact, unless a sinner sees the offer as well-meant, he cannot be saved.  He must accept it as well-meant.

Therefore, we must dig deeper.

All gospel offers from God are well-meant.  The particular, secret work of the Spirit on the elect is to make them willing.  To say just blatantly that God does not desire the spiritual rebirth of certain sinners who hear the gospel opens many questions.  A sinner must then say to himself, "I hear this gospel offer, but do I have grounds for accepting it?  Perhaps it is not meant for me."  This conundrum has been a real problem in certain epochs of Reformed history.  But, this will never do.  The first question a sinner asks when he hears the gospel must not be, "Is this for me?"

It is for him.

We know that it is at God's sovereign ordination and agency that the man believes.  But, how it works is a mystery.

Schism in Reformation

(In order to understand this post, you need to know that the theological category called Ecclesiology includes not only church government, but all the spiritual doctrines concerning the efficacy of Word and Sacraments).

Please pardon the rambling nature of this post.  I just wanted to say this as an expression of concern.

The Reformation began with Luther and Lutheranism, then, simultaneously to slightly later, the Reformed and Anabaptist movements began.

The Reformed movement became Puritanism and the "Second Reformation," the latter term often used among the Dutch.

The Baptists arose, influenced somewhat from Anabaptism, but mainly from Continental Arminianism (General Baptists) or from English Calvinism (Particular Baptists).

Then came the Great Awakenings and Evangelical Revival.

It seems to me that all these stages form a sort of sequence, such that those from later stages, more or less in the sequence that I've enumerated them here, regard themselves as more thoroughly and Biblically reformed than the stages that have gone before.  Of course, there are still those whose convictions place them in "older" stages, but they can't help being influenced by the later stages either.

As I write this blog entry to my friends who are Calvinistic Baptist, Calvinistic Bible Church, and "Evangelical" Presbyterian in habit and conviction, I would like to suggest the following points to help sort things out:

1)  The modern publishing movement for Puritan and Calvinistic literature (and the kind of Lutheran literature read by us) still tends to play down the ecclesiological questions that loomed large in those older generations.  This is in harmony with the spirit of our evangelical and revivalistic age which plays down ecclesiology.

An example of the consequence of this is the ecclesiological history of Dallas Theological Seminary.  That DTS was, and in some ways still recognizably is, a Presbyterian institution would be surprising and shocking to many of its graduates and those influenced by them.  Lewis Sperry Chafer was a Congregational and Presbyterian minister.  He intended to found the seminary along with Griffith Thomas, an Anglican.  Rev. Thomas died before the seminary was in operation.  However, I presume that the seminary was founded to prepare ministers of the word of all denominations in Dispensationalism and the "literal hermeneutic," and thus the heavy -- and wonderful -- emphasis on the original languages of Scripture.  One consequence of this, whether intentional or not, was to downplay ecclesiological distinctives, possibly in order to teach students from all denominations the new ways.  This was also in harmony with the spirit of the evangelicalism of that age.  But, the consequence of downplaying ecclesiology was the conversion of the seminary, sacramentally, into a "baptist" institution -- a consequence probably not envisioned by her founders, and a consequence certainly not in harmony with their original Presbyterianism and Anglicanism.  During the year that I studied there, I remember that I was amazed that the student insurance company was Presbyterian Ministers Fund, and also that one of my fellow students was a Lutheran.  How incongruous, I thought, even way back in '67-8.  The consequence was that DTS created its own "denomination," which was probably NOT the purpose of her founders.

2.  The decline of ecclesiology under the evangelical and revivalistic spirit of the late 19th and 20th centuries was actually the replacement of older ecclesiologies with a new one that might be described as "zwinglian," because of its deemphasis on church membership, corporate worship and especially the sacraments as means of grace (and a parallel development of parachurch ministries as specialized ministries of grace).  As a result, the older Reformation ecclesiologies are not understood by most "evangelicals" today, and many Reformational doctrines, particularly on the sacraments, are regarded nowadays as remnants of Roman Catholicism.  It probably comes as a shock to many that the word "evangelical" originally referred to Lutheranism -- baptismal regeneration and all!  Some Reformed sentiments at the Westminster Assembly weren't far behind, though the final doctrinal statement from that Assembly made the efficacy of baptism come to apply not necessarily at the moment of administration, but potentially later in life (for those who turn out to have been unconverted at the time of administration.)

In any case, this shows the cleavage between the today's doctrinal stance and that of the Reformation.  We only imagine that we are in harmony with the Reformers on ecclesiology.  Generally speaking, in our day we are not.  The illusion of harmony is maintained by omitting ecclesiology from the world of discourse.  The consequence of this is a "zwinglian" ecclesiology that has no conception of the ecclesiology of Lutheran and Reformed origins.  Among those who are self-consciously "reformed" in our day, people think that Reformed Theology is "evangelicalism" plus the Five Points of Calvinism.

3.  One consequence of the "evangelical" and revivalistic spirit today is the replacement of the doctrine of the gospel of justification by faith alone in Christ alone with the experience of conversion.  This is something the Reformers would never do.  They had their experiences, but they never made the replacement I speak of.  Experiences are subjective, personal, and often unreliable.  My conversion experience, though real, is for me.  My doctrine -- provided it is the doctrine of Scripture -- is for you.  The result nowadays is that sudden outward conversion is regarded as the norm, rather than quiet inward conversion sitting in the pew under the steady Gospel ministry of Word and Sacrament.

4.  There is a revival of the old ways.  It began in the 20th century, but not among "fundamentalists," even though this revival may be practiced perfectly compatibly with the high doctrine of Scripture and the doctrine of justification by faith alone which is held to by all fundamentalists and real evangelicals.  As the ecclesiological revival feels its way along, it takes more and more "flak" from other evangelicals.  Nothing has been stranger in this experiment than to be disfellowshipped by old evangelical friends over this movement back to Reformational (and early church) origins.  Whereas in the old days there was a necessary schism carried out over the doctrine of justification, and whereas there was a questionable schism carried out between the Lutherans and Calvinists over nature of the "real presence" in the Lord's Supper, it now appears that the fundamental active schism outside Romanism is over the "high" vs. the "low" ecclesiology.  The fight between the Lutherans and the Reformed has never been resolved, and the "Reformed" have reformed themselves so far away from Reformational ecclesiology that it is not recognizable to them any more.

5.  My guess is that the cleavage between the "zwinglians" and those of that more traditional ecclesiology being revived from Scripture will continue, and possibly in some ways harden, if attitudes do not change.  Perhaps we will just accumulate a new set of Christian friends, and life will go on.  I do not know what the future holds.

Sacraments and Faith

Participation in a sacrament is analogous to participating in the gospel.  The gospel brings union with Christ the Savior, through faith, a spiritually receptive capacity which is the gift of God and given through the Holy Spirit.  Baptism brings union with Christ, through faith.  The Eucharist brings union with Christ, through faith.

But faith is not faith in faith.  Faith is not a looking inward, so that I may analyze my heart state, and thereby be able to discern the presence of faith.  Faith is looking outward at Christ, at the objective truth of God's grace, and receiving it.

Faith is receiving the Words of the Gospel.  Faith is receiving Baptism as union with Christ.  Faith is receiving the Bread and Cup as the Body and Blood of Christ.  We know we are Christians because we receive the Words of the Gospel (not because we look inward and see that we have faith).  We know we are Christians because we have received the "washing of regeneration."  We know we are Christians because we have received the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

If the sacraments and the Word of the Gospel are only validated by some inward "faith" that we have to look inward to be sure about, then our assurance of salvation, our assurance of Baptism, our assurance of participation in the Eucharist in a meaningful manner is all contingent on how well we are doing in our faith.  Poor faith means poor participation.  Perhaps we don't benefit spiritually.

But, if the sacraments and the Word of the Gospel are external objective realities that we can receive, then we can know we are Christians when we look outside ourselves and receive these things.

This is why it is so vital that we see that the Word of the Gospel is objective and objectively powerful to save, and receive that.  This is why Baptism is objectively powerful to save, and we receive that.  This is why the Eucharist, and its sharing in Christ, is so objectively true and powerful to save, and we receive that.

This is why we must not only believe (receive) the Gospel, but also believe (receive) the sacraments as objective manifestations of the grace of God.

I, a believer in Christ, have received the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, because I ate in faith, and tasted the bread and the wine.

"Bread Worship"

The mystical union between our human natures and Christ's human nature is a real union transcending the apparent distance between us.  So, in the Supper, he can be objectively present for us, as we receive him by faith.  But, if he is there, what kind of respect do we show the bread and cup?

Calvin and Melanchthon shared an opposition to what Melanchthon privately called "bread-worship" in letters between them.  One of the reasons for the Reformed opposition to too much "real presence" down on earth at the Eucharist was that it was the basis for the "overly-respectful" treatment of the bread and cup in high Lutheran worship, which, in turn, was too reminiscent to them of the worship that was paid to the bread and cup in Romanism.

But, rather than denying "real presence" on earth during the Eucharist, would it not be more reasonable to observe that the mystical union that we have with Christ, so that Christ is in each of us, does not oblige us to worship each other even though Christ is present there?  The Corinthian church would hardly have needed the exhortation to "discern the Lord's body" when taking the bread if those elements were being "worshiped."  Clearly they were not.

The bread and cup are instruments of Christ's real presence, but are not Christ in themselves, and thus are not worshiped in any fashion.

How is Christ Present in the Eucharist?

There is a historic, nearly 500 year old schism between the Magisterial Reformationalists -- the confessional Lutherans and the (non-Zwinglian) confessional Reformed -- over the nature of Christ's presence in the Eucharist:

1)  The Reformed say that we two agree that Christ is present in his body and blood, but we seriously disagree on how he is present -- that is, on the 'mode' of his presence.

2)  The Lutherans say that we two really don't agree that Christ is actually present in his body and blood.  The Reformed are self-deceived in their own words.

The test question put by the Lutherans is this:  Do non-believers who come to the Lord's Table receive the body and blood of Christ?  Of course they don't mean, do the non-believers receive it savingly.  They don't.  But, the Lutherans believe that the answer to this question is "yes," because the body and blood are objectively present -- and received unto judgment by non-believers.  The Lutherans also believe that our Reformed theological and philosophical principles require us to say "no" to the test question.  The body and blood of Christ are not and cannot be present in the Eucharist to non-believers, since Christ in his human nature is not omnipresent, and the body and blood are in heaven.

Calvin is especially singled out by the Lutherans because his doctrine of the Lord's Supper is so "Lutheran" to begin with.  His view of the "real presence" is therefore regarded as particularly dangerous by the confessional Lutherans, because he could deceive Lutherans into subtly beginning to accept Reformed views not only of "real presence" but of other things just as vital.

But, the mystical union between me and Christ in our common human nature is a fact.  Christ's humanity and mine are joined intimately, and not just by some principle of "spiritual action at a distance."  Christ is in me, my hope of glory.  Christ said to Saul on the Damascus Road: "Why do you persecute me."

If Christ as a man is in me, and I am in him as a man, then there is no problem with Christ in his sacrificed body and blood being with me in the Eucharist.  This is what the mystical union is all about.

And, just as the offer of Christ in the gospel is just as real to a non-believer as it is to me -- though it may be rejected by a non-believer; so, the offer Christ in his body and blood in the Supper is just as real, whether the recipient is a believer or not.  But, only believers receive the offer savingly.

Union with Christ

In Adam we all die.  In Christ we all live.  As we have had both a real and a covenant union with Adam, so we must have a real and covenant union with Christ.  We ought not to think that our relationship to Christ is any less strong, sturdy and real than was our relationship to Adam.  And, the reality is also physical, because we rise from the dead "like him, for we shall see him as he is."

The "mystical union" between Christ and his church is likened to the union between man and wife.  Just as Adam bore Eve through his sleep in the Garden, so Christ bore his church in his own sleep in a Garden.  And, having borne us through death, in his own body, he is now our husband, triumphant in resurrection.  We are in him, and he is in us, forever.

It is to this union that Baptism and the Lord's Supper speak, each in its own way.  We are one with Christ in cleansing, and we are one with Christ in spiritual sustenance.

Consider the Lord's Table:

NKJ 1 Cor 10:16-17  The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?  17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.

The reality of our union with Christ and with each other, as experienced and refreshed in the Eucharist, cannot be overstated.  It communicates by faith a true and real union with Him through his sacrificed body and shed blood, a union which looks forward to that communion meal which is the marriage supper of the Lamb.

So we are refreshed not only by words and actions which strengthen our faith, but by words and actions through which Christ the Savior actually comes to us to feed and strengthen our union with him through his sacrificed body and blood.

We are warned not to eat and drink in an unworthy manner, not discerning the Lord's body. But this warning is not given to turn the Eucharist into a disciplinary act.  Just the opposite.  This warning is given as a principle to the unruly:  Come to your senses and do not miss the joy of feeding on Christ!

Glory be to God!