Calvinist/non-reformed church members and a strictly memorial view of the Supper

[Alive in Christ]

Forgive me if this has been covered before, but in my church we have, aside from a few members and half the elders, mostly Calvinists who read MacArthur, hold to premillennial dispensationalism, and yet use the term "reformed" to refer to themselves. We even have a handful of Arminian members. They are my brothers and I love them - I can overlook a lot of that, but one area that grieves me about my church is that it seems to hold to a strictly memorial view of the Lord's Supper. We practice it every week and it is not closed, which I find dangerous, and it is said to be for the purpose of remembrance of Christ and self-examination. Granted, my church isn't really confessional, but, in the words of the elders, holds to more of a "consensus agreement with the historic reformed confessions" - but my church takes it's statement of faith from the 1833 New Hampshire (which is Calvinistic Baptist and not really reformed).

I am not sure even the 1689 is strong enough in that area. It's clear to me that the early church fathers believed that Christ was spiritually present during the Supper. Furthermore, if it were strictly memorial, there would be no reason for Paul to warn about partaking in an unworthy manner. This is a big enough issue for me that I would consider switching to a PCA or an OPC church, provided the Presbyterian view is more in line with church history. Seeing as how I have also come to believe that Christian parents should baptize their children, and I already reject dispensationalism in favor of covenant theology, it makes sense to consider switching. Though leaving a church is not a small matter when you really love the people.

Would you consider this issue important enough to warrant leaving one's church? And in what way js the Presbyterian view of the Supper more in line with historic Christian practice?

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

The 1689 says essentially the same thing about the Lord's Supper that the Westminster Confession does, so if the 1689's language isn't "strong enough" for you, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[dsanch1120]

Echoing Sean's post above, you may want to read through the Westminster standards. It's also worth considering WCF 27.3

The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it: (Rom. 2:28–29, 1 Pet. 3:21) but upon the work of the Spirit, (Matt. 3:11, 1 Cor. 12:13) and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers. (Matt. 26:27–28, Matt. 28:19–20)

A sacrament's efficacy doesn't depend on the piety and intention of the minister. Your concerns about open communion and a memorial view are certainly valid, but I don't think that you're receiving an invalid sacrament.
There also is more you should consider with respect to switching churches.

• Have you discussed this with your elders? Not like a "here I stand, I can do no other" discussion with the whole session, but a "let me buy you coffee" conversation with a trusted elder where you can share what you've been wrestling with.
• Do you have children that you desire to have baptized? If so, do you feel that you're in active disobedience by not doing so?
• Do you desire to be ordained into any office or go into vocational ministry? If so, would your views on the sacraments and covenant theology prevent you from doing so at your congregation?

 

[Alive in Christ]

Echoing Sean's post above, you may want to read through the Westminster standards. It's also worth considering WCF 27.3

A sacrament's efficacy doesn't depend on the piety and intention of the minister. Your concerns about open communion and a memorial view are certainly valid, but I don't think that you're receiving an invalid sacrament.
There also is more you should consider with respect to switching churches.

• Have you discussed this with your elders? Not like a "here I stand, I can do no other" discussion with the whole session, but a "let me buy you coffee" conversation with a trusted elder where you can share what you've been wrestling with.
• Do you have children that you desire to have baptized? If so, do you feel that you're in active disobedience by not doing so?
• Do you desire to be ordained into any office or go into vocational ministry? If so, would your views on the sacraments and covenant theology prevent you from doing so at your congregation?

I mentioned the Supper in a roundabout way during lunch one day, but it was more in the nature of me asking questions to learn - I didn't indicate that I had any concerns (in fact I was careful not to) and the subject of open communion didn't come up.

I do not have children needing to be baptized. Though if I did, I would definitely feel compelled to have them baptized, as children are sanctified by believing parents and I would see my entire family as belonging to Christ. I have come to view the arguments against infant baptism as completely unconvincing due to circumcision in the old covenant. I am getting off subject, but suffice to say that I have not mentioned my view on this to anyone in the church save my close friend, and he was not at all receptive to it.

As of right now I do not feel called into public or teaching ministry. But if I were called, I would not be allowed to suggest that parents baptize their children. I am certain I would likewise be discouraged from teaching against certain error (such as the pre-trib rapture) in the interest of unity. But by far the biggest issue for me is the Lord's Supper, and I am reasonably certain that having such a strong conviction on the spiritual presence of Christ would preclude me from teaching ministry.

 

[pastorgrumbles]

I don't see any reason to leave a church over the memorialist vs spiritualist view of the Lord's Supper. However, regarding your stance on baptism, have you had this discussion with the elders? Do they allow paedobaptists into membership when they hold to the NH Confession?

 

[MW]

The 1689 Confession removes the sacramental union between the sign and thing signified. It is a systematic change and evident enough to show there was a distinct difference in understanding to what was declared in the Westminster Confession.

 

[TheInquirer]

Furthermore, if it were strictly memorial, there would be no reason for Paul to warn about partaking in an unworthy manner.

I would have to disagree. If what we are remembering, and claiming to be our own via the blood of Christ (membership in the New Covenant), then there is quite a seriousness to it that does not necessarily warrant a spiritual presence of Christ in the elements itself. Additionally, if you look at the context of the "unworthy manner" that the Corinthians were partaking (drunkenness, etc.) and making a hedonistic mockery of the table, then the seriousness is additionally warranted.

 

[Alive in Christ]

I don't see any reason to leave a church over the memorialist vs spiritualist view of the Lord's Supper. However, regarding your stance on baptism, have you had this discussion with the elders? Do they allow paedobaptists into membership when they hold to the NH Confession?

I have not mentioned to the elders my stance on baptism, but yes, membership is open to everyone who holds to the essentials, demonstrates the fruit of repentance, and completes the new members class. It's why we are a mix of reformed baptist, Calvinistic baptist, with a few Arminians sprinkled in.

I would have to disagree. If what we are remembering, and claiming to be our own via the blood of Christ (membership in the New Covenant), then there is quite a seriousness to it that does not necessarily warrant a spiritual presence of Christ in the elements itself. Additionally, if you look at the context of the "unworthy manner" that the Corinthians were partaking (drunkenness, etc.) and making a hedonistic mockery of the table, then the seriousness is additionally warranted.

You make a good point, particularly your consideration of the context surrounding that passage and the behavior of those to whom it was written. The only issue I have is that Paul talks about "failing to discern the body" and "eating and drinking judgment". It seems pretty cut and dry, regardless of audience. It's just really hard for me to make sense of Paul's warning unless I hold to a more historic view of the Supper. If by partaking in an unworthy manner, I can eat and drink judgment, then what am I eating and drinking if I partake in a worthy manner? I apologize if I am being overly simplistic here, but it seems very obvious to me that there is more to it. And then when considering the way the early church fathers spoke concerning the Lord's Supper, I just find the memorial view completely untenable.

 

[Andres]

Would you consider this issue important enough to warrant leaving one's church?

Yes.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

The 1689 Confession removes the sacramental union between the sign and thing signified. It is a systematic change and evident enough to show there was a distinct difference in understanding to what was declared in the Westminster Confession.

The LBCF does not state that the Lord's Supper is a "seal" (of course, the LBCF is correct here, and the WCF is not), but with respect to the "memorial" vs. "real presence" issue, the LBCF promotes the same view as the WCF, which was my point.

 

[Northern Crofter]

The LBCF does not state that the Lord's Supper is a "seal" (of course, the LBCF is correct here, and the WCF is not),

So do LBCF folk have their own catechism(-s)? The Westminster Shorter and Larger Catechisms, correctly of course, both refer to the sacraments as seals:

Q. 92. What is a sacrament?
A. A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ; wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, and applied to believers. (WSC)

Q162: What is a sacrament?
A162: A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ in his church, to signify, seal, and exhibit... (WLC)

 

[RamistThomist]

Rev Winzer has the correct insight. It's not simply memorial vs non-memorial. The Reformed view insists upon the sacramental union between sign and thing signified.

 

[Northern Crofter]

So do LBCF folk have their own catechism(-s)? The Westminster Shorter and Larger Catechisms, correctly of course, both refer to the sacraments as seals:

I was genuinely curious so I looked for and found it. Apparently one exists - first known as Keach's Catechism, then the 1677 Baptist Catechism, the 1693 Baptist Catechism, and the 1695 Baptist Catechism. Apparently some now call it the 1689. It is favored by the likes of John Piper. Some pertinent notes about the The Baptist Catechism:
(1) the word "sacrament" is never used - "the Word, Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Prayer" are all called "ordinances" (Q.95)
(2) Baptism and the Lord's Supper "differ from the other ordinances of God in that they were specially instituted by Christ to represent and apply to believers the benefits of the new covenant by visible and outward signs." (Q.99)
(3) Baptism (5 questions) and the Lord's Supper (only 2 questions) are called "holy ordinances" (Q.s 100 and 107, respectively - apparently in distinction from the other 2 ordinances listed in Q.95; some versions leave out the word "holy")
(4) The numbering is slightly different depending on the version/year - some have added the question "How do Baptism and the Lord’s Supper differ from the other ordinances of God?" and some have deleted the question "Who are the proper subjects of this ordinance [the Lord's Supper]?"

The LBCF does not state that the Lord's Supper is a "seal" (of course, the LBCF is correct here, and the WCF is not), but with respect to the "memorial" vs. "real presence" issue, the LBCF promotes the same view as the WCF, which was my point.

Perhaps. But there are more differences, it would seem, as to how the Lord's Supper is approached and administered - perhaps more subtle than with baptism, but enough to explain why the OP is troubled in a congregation drawing from that tradition.

Would you consider this issue important enough to warrant leaving one's church?

If it troubled my conscience as much as it seems to yours, and there was an alternative, then, yes.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

I was genuinely curious so I looked for and found it. Apparently one exists - first known as Keach's Catechism, then the 1677 Baptist Catechism, the 1693 Baptist Catechism, and the 1695 Baptist Catechism. Apparently some now call it the 1689. It is favored by the likes of John Piper. Some pertinent notes about the The Baptist Catechism:
(1) the word "sacrament" is never used - "the Word, Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Prayer" are all called "ordinances" (Q.95)
(2) Baptism and the Lord's Supper "differ from the other ordinances of God in that they were specially instituted by Christ to represent and apply to believers the benefits of the new covenant by visible and outward signs." (Q.99)
(3) Baptism (5 questions) and the Lord's Supper (only 2 questions) are called "holy ordinances" (Q.s 100 and 107, respectively - apparently in distinction from the other 2 ordinances listed in Q.95; some versions leave out the word "holy")
(4) The numbering is slightly different depending on the version/year - some have added the question "How do Baptism and the Lord’s Supper differ from the other ordinances of God?" and some have deleted the question "Who are the proper subjects of this ordinance [the Lord's Supper]?"

Perhaps. But there are more differences, it would seem, as to how the Lord's Supper is approached and administered - perhaps more subtle than with baptism, but enough to explain why the OP is troubled in a congregation drawing from that tradition.

If it troubled my conscience as much as it seems to yours, and there was an alternative, then, yes.

The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith and the Baptist Catechism do prefer the term "ordinance" as opposed to "sacrament", but the men who compiled those documents used the term "sacrament" and "ordinance" interchangeably in all of their other theological writings.

Also of note, the Baptist edition of the Heidelberg Catechism (often called "An Orthodox Catechism" and compiled by Hercules Collins in 1680) also retains the term "sacrament", as this was the common terminology of the Reformed Baptists at that time.

Oh, and there's also a Baptist Larger Catechism too. That's a relatively recent work but some prominent Reformed Baptist theologians had input on the wording of several of the questions, and the language of "sacrament" is retained.

 

[No Other Name]

I am not sure even the 1689 is strong enough in that area. It's clear to me that the early church fathers believed that Christ was spiritually present during the Supper. Furthermore, if it were strictly memorial, there would be no reason for Paul to warn about partaking in an unworthy manner.

Dear Samuel,

I hope you are doing well. I would like to talk with you about your post. If you can possibly see past the other replies here and take in what I am going to say. Most of the replies here are not from Reformed Baptists and have a limited understanding of the distinctives of our confession, catechisms and covenant theologies.

1) 1689 affirms the very thing you seem to think is missing from it. The spiritual presence of Christ.

1689 affirms that the Lord's Supper is not only a memorial. - it is far more than that. It is "an effectual means of salvation ... by the blessing of Christ and the working of the Spirit in those that by faith receive them." (Baptist Catechism #96)

But, you might fairly wonder, what of 30.2?

"Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sin of the quick or dead, but only a memorial of that one offering up of himself by himself upon the cross, once for all" ...

this is merely stated to refute "the popish mass" that declares Christ sacrificed over and over and the Roman denunciation of "the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect". (30.2)

Furthermore, 30.7 states clearly:

"Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses."

Sean's first post was correct. On the issue of "memorialism" and sacramental union, 1689 and WCF are basically in harmony here. If I have been unintentionally unclear, please let me know. I am not 100% sure I understand your consternation fully.

Some here claim that 1689 does not contain the word "sacrament" and therefore, an "ordinance" means a rejection of the sacramental nature of both baptism and the Lord's Table. This is untrue.

The term "sacrament" and its cognates regularly appear in Particular Baptist literature of the time of the LBCF. Nehemiah Coxe used it for all his writings on how to administer the ordinances. The very manual for ministers commissioned by the 1689 London General Assembly was called The Gospel Minister's Maintenance Vindicated and the entire unit on the ordinances was titled: "Holy Sacraments and Sacred Institutions".

So why did the confession and catechisms use "ordinances" instead of "sacraments" if the sacramental union was not denied but rather affirmed?

One word: polemics. Polemics against the Westminster Federalism and paedobaptism.

"Ordinance" means something decreed, prescribed or commanded". Ordained.

"Can there be an Ordinance, and no Coherence of the Quality of the Subject that is to Obey?" (Thomas Minge, Gospel Baptism, p. 42)

So when WCF says in 27.1: "Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace,a immediately instituted by God,b to represent Christ and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him;c as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the church and the rest of the world;d and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his word"

1689 clarifies what we see as muddied by saying in 28.1 that "Baptism and the Lord's Supper are 1) ordinances of 2) positive and 3) sovereign 4) institution 5) appointed by the 6) Lord Jesus, the only law-giver to be continued in his church to the end of the world."

Again, so many misunderstand and say that 1689 Baptists reject sacraments and the union between the sign and the thing signified. While we do differ on the nature of the sacramental union, we do not differ on the fact of the sacramental union.

"What do we actually mean by a sign and a seal? A sign is something visible which points to inward and spiritual realities. ... The Lord’s Supper likewise functions as a sign of the New Covenant. A sign to be celebrated and not neglected, because, with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, we remember the Lord’s death until He comes (1 Cor. 11:26). When we remember the Lord’s death in the Lord’s Supper, we have the gospel in visible form. We remember His great love for His own and the sacrifice of His life for our sake. We experience spiritual union with our Savior. We remember and express our thanksgiving for His great salvation and the forgiveness which he offered us on the cross and offers us daily. We celebrate His grace, in that he, God over all blessed forever (Rom. 9:5), became a man to take our sins upon Himself and give us His perfect righteousness.

"What is the seal of the New Covenant? What is a seal? A seal is an 'engraved or inscribed stamp, used for marking an impression in wax or other soft substance, to be attached to a document, or otherwise used by way of authentication or security.' ... A seal functions as a mark of ownership and security, therefore, the seal of the New Covenant must (unless the New Testament is the exception, of course) function this way too. So, who or what is described in this way in the New Testament? There can only be one answer, namely: the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is explicitly identified as the seal upon believers (Eph. 1:13; 4:30). In 2 Corinthians 1:22, it is said that God 'has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit'.

"The New Covenant has two signs, baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The seal of the New Covenant is the third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Spirit. A sign is something visible which signifies the realities of the covenant, while a seal is a stamp of ownership and protection."

(quotes from Keach's Gold Refin'd and John Gill's Exposition on the Entire Bible, taken from Word Bible Software and quoted on the calvinist.net)

I already reject dispensationalism in favor of covenant theology, it makes sense to consider switching.

I rejoice in your refutation of dispensationalism. It seems you are bent towards embracing Westminster federalism. Ok, but I would like to point out that 1689 (which you affirm in your signature) is not dispensationalist in the slightest.

If I have opened more questions than answers, that was not my intent.

God bless you, brother, as you seek his will in these difficult times for you and your family. Amen.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Excellent exposition, Brad!

 

[MW]

The LBCF does not state that the Lord's Supper is a "seal" (of course, the LBCF is correct here, and the WCF is not), but with respect to the "memorial" vs. "real presence" issue, the LBCF promotes the same view as the WCF, which was my point.

Look at the two together. What is sacramental in one is figurative in the other.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Look at the two together. What is sacramental in one is figurative in the other.

I've compared them side to side, and also read what the men who wrote the Confession had to say about it. There's no substantial difference.

 

[MW]

I've compared them side to side, and also read what the men who wrote the Confession had to say about it. There's no substantial difference.

Under the sacraments, the 1689 speaks of baptism and the Lord's supper, and removes every section concerned with discussing the nature and efficacy of sacraments. Then under the Lord's supper it systematically replaces sacrament with ordinance. It does this not only in words, but in substance, removing every idea of objective grace in the "ordinance." This is apparent in section 5, which replaces sacramental union with a figurative interpretation.

WCF: The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly, and only, bread and wine, as they were before.

1689: The outward elements in this ordinance, duly set apart to the use ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, although in terms used figuratively, they are sometimes called by the names of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ, albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Under the sacraments, the 1689 speaks of baptism and the Lord's supper, and removes every section concerned with discussing the nature and efficacy of sacraments. Then under the Lord's supper it systematically replaces sacrament with ordinance. It does this not only in words, but in substance, removing every idea of objective grace in the "ordinance." This is apparent in section 5, which replaces sacramental union with a figurative interpretation.

WCF: The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly, and only, bread and wine, as they were before.

1689: The outward elements in this ordinance, duly set apart to the use ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, although in terms used figuratively, they are sometimes called by the names of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ, albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.

Every one of your concerns has been addressed up-thread.

if I had a Kindle edition of Jim Renihan's exposition of the 1689, I'd copy a few paragraphs that address them even more in detail (Brad summarized them in Post #15), but I don't feel like typing out that much text by hand.

 

[pastorgrumbles]

Under the sacraments, the 1689 speaks of baptism and the Lord's supper, and removes every section concerned with discussing the nature and efficacy of sacraments. Then under the Lord's supper it systematically replaces sacrament with ordinance. It does this not only in words, but in substance, removing every idea of objective grace in the "ordinance." This is apparent in section 5, which replaces sacramental union with a figurative interpretation.

You are correct that there is obviously a difference in wording. But there's a reason for the difference, and it isn't that the Particular Baptists denied the LS as a sacrament. @No Other Name handled it well. Renihan's new exposition goes into more detail and then you can follow the references.

@Alive in Christ I agree with what a few other guys have said here. You are rejecting the dispensationalism of the church you're in, but it doesn't seem you entirely grasp the Particular Baptist perspective of the 2LBCF.

 

[MW]

You are correct that there is obviously a difference in wording. But there's a reason for the difference, and it isn't that the Particular Baptists denied the LS as a sacrament. @No Other Name handled it well. Renihan's new exposition goes into more detail and then you can follow the references.

You will have to present your case, not simply make a counter-statement.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

You will have to present your case, not simply make a counter-statement.

Calvinist/non-reformed church members and a strictly memorial view of the Supper

Forgive me if this has been covered before, but in my church we have, aside from a few members and half the elders, mostly Calvinists who read MacArthur, hold to premillennial dispensationalism, and yet use the term "reformed" to refer to themselves. We even have a handful of Arminian members...

www.puritanboard.com

 

[MW]

Calvinist/non-reformed church members and a strictly memorial view of the Supper

Forgive me if this has been covered before, but in my church we have, aside from a few members and half the elders, mostly Calvinists who read MacArthur, hold to premillennial dispensationalism, and yet use the term "reformed" to refer to themselves. We even have a handful of Arminian members...

www.puritanboard.com

All you have is a reference to the use of the word "sacrament" by men who are connected with the Confession in the 17th century. There is no attempt to define what they mean, nor is there any account given why the word has deliberately been avoided in the Confession, nor why the teaching of Westminster has been voided altogether with respect to sacramental union, nor is there anything to deal with the substantial difference I have brought from section 5. If this is all you have it is very flimsy.

 

[Alive in Christ]

I want to thank everyone who took the time to respond. You have all been very helpful and have given me a lot to think about.

Dear Samuel,

I hope you are doing well. I would like to talk with you about your post. If you can possibly see past the other replies here and take in what I am going to say. Most of the replies here are not from Reformed Baptists and have a limited understanding of the distinctives of our confession, catechisms and covenant theologies.

1) 1689 affirms the very thing you seem to think is missing from it. The spiritual presence of Christ.

1689 affirms that the Lord's Supper is not only a memorial. - it is far more than that. It is "an effectual means of salvation ... by the blessing of Christ and the working of the Spirit in those that by faith receive them." (Baptist Catechism #96)

But, you might fairly wonder, what of 30.2?

"Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sin of the quick or dead, but only a memorial of that one offering up of himself by himself upon the cross, once for all" ...

this is merely stated to refute "the popish mass" that declares Christ sacrificed over and over and the Roman denunciation of "the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect". (30.2)

Furthermore, 30.7 states clearly:

"Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses."

Sean's first post was correct. On the issue of "memorialism" and sacramental union, 1689 and WCF are basically in harmony here. If I have been unintentionally unclear, please let me know. I am not 100% sure I understand your consternation fully.

Some here claim that 1689 does not contain the word "sacrament" and therefore, an "ordinance" means a rejection of the sacramental nature of both baptism and the Lord's Table. This is untrue.

The term "sacrament" and its cognates regularly appear in Particular Baptist literature of the time of the LBCF. Nehemiah Coxe used it for all his writings on how to administer the ordinances. The very manual for ministers commissioned by the 1689 London General Assembly was called The Gospel Minister's Maintenance Vindicated and the entire unit on the ordinances was titled: "Holy Sacraments and Sacred Institutions".

So why did the confession and catechisms use "ordinances" instead of "sacraments" if the sacramental union was not denied but rather affirmed?

One word: polemics. Polemics against the Westminster Federalism and paedobaptism.

"Ordinance" means something decreed, prescribed or commanded". Ordained.

"Can there be an Ordinance, and no Coherence of the Quality of the Subject that is to Obey?" (Thomas Minge, Gospel Baptism, p. 42)

So when WCF says in 27.1: "Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace,a immediately instituted by God,b to represent Christ and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him;c as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the church and the rest of the world;d and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his word"

1689 clarifies what we see as muddied by saying in 28.1 that "Baptism and the Lord's Supper are 1) ordinances of 2) positive and 3) sovereign 4) institution 5) appointed by the 6) Lord Jesus, the only law-giver to be continued in his church to the end of the world."

Again, so many misunderstand and say that 1689 Baptists reject sacraments and the union between the sign and the thing signified. While we do differ on the nature of the sacramental union, we do not differ on the fact of the sacramental union.

"What do we actually mean by a sign and a seal? A sign is something visible which points to inward and spiritual realities. ... The Lord’s Supper likewise functions as a sign of the New Covenant. A sign to be celebrated and not neglected, because, with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, we remember the Lord’s death until He comes (1 Cor. 11:26). When we remember the Lord’s death in the Lord’s Supper, we have the gospel in visible form. We remember His great love for His own and the sacrifice of His life for our sake. We experience spiritual union with our Savior. We remember and express our thanksgiving for His great salvation and the forgiveness which he offered us on the cross and offers us daily. We celebrate His grace, in that he, God over all blessed forever (Rom. 9:5), became a man to take our sins upon Himself and give us His perfect righteousness.

"What is the seal of the New Covenant? What is a seal? A seal is an 'engraved or inscribed stamp, used for marking an impression in wax or other soft substance, to be attached to a document, or otherwise used by way of authentication or security.' ... A seal functions as a mark of ownership and security, therefore, the seal of the New Covenant must (unless the New Testament is the exception, of course) function this way too. So, who or what is described in this way in the New Testament? There can only be one answer, namely: the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is explicitly identified as the seal upon believers (Eph. 1:13; 4:30). In 2 Corinthians 1:22, it is said that God 'has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit'.

"The New Covenant has two signs, baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The seal of the New Covenant is the third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Spirit. A sign is something visible which signifies the realities of the covenant, while a seal is a stamp of ownership and protection."

(quotes from Keach's Gold Refin'd and John Gill's Exposition on the Entire Bible, taken from Word Bible Software and quoted on the calvinist.net)




I rejoice in your refutation of dispensationalism. It seems you are bent towards embracing Westminster federalism. Ok, but I would like to point out that 1689 (which you affirm in your signature) is not dispensationalist in the slightest.

If I have opened more questions than answers, that was not my intent.

God bless you, brother, as you seek his will in these difficult times for you and your family. Amen.

I really appreciate your post - it is very informative and I know it must have taken you some time.

The thing about the 1689 that I found troubling is the language used in 30:2. In fact, when I created this account, that was one of the things I named as an area of disagreement with my chosen confession. But the way you have explained it makes it clear that I have a lot more to think about and a whole lot more to learn. Truth be known, reading through this thread has made it obvious to me that I don't know near as much about these things as I ought.

Sadly, it is also clear to me that my church is far from being confessionally reformed in any meaningful sense. I pretty much knew this already. But I love my brothers and sisters very much and it would grieve me to leave them. I live in Fort Worth, so there are plenty of confessionally reformed churches to choose from if I should decide to leave. This is something I will have to pray about and not something I can decide on the internet, though I find the advice and insight from you guys extremely helpful.

Yes, I rejected dispensationalism not long after my conversion. I remember having an argument with my Pentecostal Pastor over Israel. I was shocked because he called Israel the apple of God's eye and almost made it sound like the church was second place in the heart of God. I didn't know hardly anything about covenant theology at the time, but I remember rejecting what my pastor had said on the grounds that it made God out to be a spiritual bigamist. And then when I realized that a pre-trib rapture is literally nowhere to be found in the Apostle's teachings, the groundwork was already laid for my embrace of covenant theology before I was even reformed.

I don't know what I am going to do. But I know that God, in His wisdom and sovereignty, has brought me this far. I am confident that things will work out for me. God bless you, brother. And thank you again for your detailed post, you have given me a lot to look into and think about.

 

[Sam Jer]

Yes, I rejected dispensationalism not long after my conversion. I remember having an argument with my Pentecostal Pastor over Israel. I was shocked because he called Israel the apple of God's eye and almost made it sound like the church was second place in the heart of God. I didn't know hardly anything about covenant theology at the time, but I remember rejecting what my pastor had said on the grounds that it made God out to be a spiritual bigamist. And then when I realized that a pre-trib rapture is literally nowhere to be found in the Apostle's teachings, the groundwork was already laid for my embrace of covenant theology before I was even reformed.

Wow, praise God! This was literally a question I remember asking myself and finding difficult. Eventually I came to the conclusion - the bride of Christ mus be identical with the olive tree in Romans 11.
It took me years to realise the consequences of that conclusion.

 

[No Other Name]

@Alive in Christ you are in my prayers today as you were yesterday. My only advice is take what you need to learn and break it up into very small and focused pieces - and work it daily. Search the Scriptures with prayer.

If you have any questions about the WCF, there are very godly brothers here who can help guide you. This is also true for 1689 as well.

You are not alone. You are part of the body of Christ, and your issue over the church you are currently in is very important, but you can have faith in him who has redeemed you and brought you forth from destruction. Keep your eyes on his cross; balance your searching with the Scriptural promises of God for those who believe. Those are promises to you to whom has been given the ability to repent and believe and grow in knowledge and righteousness for his glory alone.

God bless you, brother.

 

[No Other Name]

@ everyone else -

May I humbly suggest you take the confessional war to a new thread if you feel the need?

If this thread was generally curious in nature, maybe started by a regular member - a longstanding vet of the PB - then ok, knock yourselves out. In fact, it's good and very healthy to bring these issues up every now and then and work each other out by discussion cross-confessionally. No problem with that in and of itself.

But this thread was started by a new member dealing with a very real-world situation that is still ongoing and fraught with potential dangerous issues.

I would suggest it to be perfectly fine for everyone to answer Samuel's original concerns - and also his ongoing thoughts -according to the convictions of one's confession, of course. (How else could one possibly answer in faithfulness?)

But to refrain from quoting each other in defense of one's position here in this thread. And save the polemics amongst ourselves for other threads. That is all I am suggesting.

God bless you all