Of Baptismal Regeneration, Paedocommunion, and Intinction.

Last night, while reading "Children at the Lord's Table: Assessing the Case for Paedocommunion" by Cornelis P. Venema, a connection between three issues aligned for me for the first time. Venema's book lays out a case against allowing children to partake of the Supper before they have professed faith. Within the PCA [Presbyterian Church in America], three controversies have been raising their head lately, all from the same group of people: agitating for intinction (dipping the bread in the wine to partake, rather than separate actions), paedocommunion (allowing children from birth up to partake of the Supper before making a credible profession of faith), and a variation of baptismal regeneration (saying all baptized children are regenerate/believers by virtue of their baptism). These three items are all foreign to historical Reformed and Biblical Theology, so I wondered why do "Federal Vision" types seem to hold all three?

Venema traces the emergance of the idea of "baptismal regeneration" in the late 300s, and then observed about the emergance of the practice of infant communion this:

"[In ancient eastern churches] the baptized member is immediately given the body and blood of Christ by 'intinction' (dipping of the bread into the wine). Unlike the Roman Catholic church, the Eastern church teaches that the mystery of the Eucharist must be communicated in both elements, is administered by intinction, and is given to infants upon their baptism and chrismation." [pg 19]

It then all made sense. If one believes a baby is always regenerated by baptism, they then are undoubtably a believer. If they are a believer, they take the Lord's Supper, and if they take the Lord's Supper and cannot yet drink from the cup, you need to dip it for them.

Thus is one example of how one error in theology (baptismal regeneration) can distort many other areas, and this without mentioning how it distorts the idea of union with Christ and justification, which then become benefits bestowed without faith - an idea at enmity to the gospel. The more you know, the more clear it is that "Federal Vision" is another system entirely and not merely a variation of Reformed Theology. It is a hop skip and a jump away from Rome, and has no place in evangelical churches, let alone Reformed Churches.

Covenant Infant Baptism

In thinking and reading again on Baptism lately, I remembered one of the better explanations and defenses of the biblical teaching on infant baptism (in a short bite-sized form) was Rev. Matthew Bradley's series on his blog on the "Sign of Baptism." I link below to the relevant blogs:

The Sign of the Covenant OR Why We Baptize Our Covenant Children (Introduction)

The Sign of the Covenant (Part One: One Covenant People of God)

The Sign of the Covenant (Part Two: TheNature of the Community)

The Sign of the Covenant (Part Three:The Sign)

The Sign of the Covenant (Part Four: Our Children in the Covenant)

The Sign of the Covenant (Part Five: The Sign Transformed)

The Sign of the Covenant (Part Six:Some Objections)

Five Smooth Stones: The Historical Case for Infant Baptism

The Preached Word as Means of Grace in Calvin.

(This is a chapter from my master's thesis. If I had it to rework I would make some changes. Also this chapter relies heavily on some groundwork done by Glen Clary. Despite the shortcomings, I thought I would share this work, especially since this work laid the foundation for my doctrine of the Word and why I believe the Reformed Tradition has the correct emphasis on the primacy of the Word and preaching (Contra the Anglo-Catholic Anglicans or some High Church Lutherans)

THE PREACHED WORD IN CALVIN

The concept of the Word of God exercises a high prominence in John Calvin’s Theology. The sacraments have no efficacy, except by the Word of God.¹ The church does not exist, except by the Word of God.² Faith ordinarily is produced by the Word of God.³ All of creation comes to being by the efficacy of the Word.⁴ Calvin’s Ecclesiology, Sacramental theology and Soteriology depend on the concept of the Word of God, and so understanding the Biblical teaching of the Word of God is essential to understanding the Calvin’s summation of the Christian religion.

What is the Word?

Scholarly opinion holds “the primacy of the word of God was fundamental to the doctrine of the Reformation.”⁵ Yet, the contemporary understanding of the meaning of the concept in Scripture of “the Word of God” could cause the contemporary reader to misunderstand Calvin's robust doctrine of the Word. The Westminster Larger Catechism asks “What is the Word of God?” in Question three. The answer states the Word of God is, “The holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God, the only rule of faith and obedience.” To the student of the Westminster Catechism, the first and primary answer for “what is the Word of God?” would be the written Word in Scripture.

Calvin's theology of the Word includes, though not less than this Westminsterian affirmation of Scripture as Word of God, much more teaching on the doctrine of the Word. When Calvin defines the Word, he does not begin with the written form, but insists that “‘Word’ mean the everlasting Wisdom, residing with God, from which both all oracles and all prophecies go forth.”⁶ Such a definition as including “Wisdom” includes Christ as the ultimate Word. “The Word abides everlastingly one and the same with God and is God himself.”⁷ Yet, in identifying the Word with “oracles” Calvin also conceives of the message of the Word. The content of the message is Christ, and the oracles are the communication of God of Himself. When applying the term “Word” to something other than Christ, what is meant is a medium of communication of the Word of God.

Calvin includes with his doctrine of the Word identification of what may be called modes or mediums of communication of the Word of God. Calvin certainly agrees with later theology (including the Westminster Catechism) that the Word of God is communicated in Scripture.⁸ Yet written Scripture is not the only means by which God has communicated to man, which also includes oracles, visions, and the work and ministry of men.⁹ When observing Calvin's use of the term “Word,” we can clearly see it is more expansive than merely “Scripture.” Specifically to the appellation of Word of God being applied to preaching, Calvin writes that God sends “the Word” to Pharaoh which hardens his heart. By Word, Calvin is referring to the message Moses delivered orally. Calvin makes the same identification of Ezekiel’s spoken message to be delivered orally.¹⁰ Thus, for Calvin, not only are the Scriptures the Word of God, but so is preaching. Certainly, the nature of the two is different depending on the time in redemptive history,¹¹ yet both the Scriptures are affirmed, as will be labeled “the written Word,” and preaching is affirmed, as will be labeled “the preached Word.”

Preaching as Word of God

The modern focus on the written Word to the neglect of the spoken or preached Word, has likewise led to a neglect of the preached Word in studying Calvin. Thomas Davis remarked that, “When we speak of Calvin’s preaching, we approach one of the two final frontiers…in studies of Calvin; the other is exegesis.”¹² Any exploration of Calvin's preaching and his doctrine of preaching must deal with Calvin's conception of the Word both in Scripture and preached. Though contemporary evaluations of Calvin’s view of preaching acknowledge it as “the Word” in Calvin understating the doctrine. For instance, T.H.L. Parker asserts, “According to Calvin...preaching so to say 'borrows' its status of 'Word of God' from Scripture.”¹³ This description becomes the often quoted maxim for the relation of Calvin’s idea of the preached Word in regards to the written word, as both Glen Clarey and J. Mark Beach quote Parker.¹⁴ This wording of “status,” gives the wrong impression of Calvin’s estimation of status of the preaching the Word as a medium. According to Calvin, the apostles operated under a different set of rules in their preaching than do their successors and so the apostles are “scribes of the Holy Spirit.” The preaching of the apostles begins as Word of God and lends its status to Scripture. Then, their successors must follow the apostles’ preaching and teaching as recorded in Scripture.¹⁵

Therefore, Calvin's evaluation of preaching, then, does not begin with it borrowing its status from Scripture. After quickly identifying the creed as the message of the church in book four, Calvin identifies the first Word through which this message of the church is conveyed to the congregation. This Word is the preached Word. Calvin uses Scripture to identify the message of God first coming by auditory means to the people. The teaching God wishes to convey to His people is “by the mouth of the priest.”¹⁶ In discussing the message of God, Calvin does not begin with his own time and how his time came to have the content of the message. In his own time and ours, certainly preaching borrows its content, though not its status, from Scripture. Rather, when dealing the relationship, Calvin starts in history where the message of God begins in a form that is heard rather than read, and only after it is heard is it recorded in written form. Historically speaking, for Calvin, especially in those instances where the message begins as the oral word of the prophet, Scripture borrows its content as Word of God from the preached Word. Although in the case of the priest speaking he is likely expounding the Law in written form and the priest's spoken Word would then borrow its content from the written Word. Primacy is not always given to the written Word, but to God's message as He personally encounters His people in a particular time. Authority is derived from God in the mediums of written and spoken message, without one being primary in status, until the written Word gains priority in infallible content at the close of the canon.¹⁷ Therefore, in addressing the concept of the preached Word in Calvin, we are speaking merely of an extension of the doctrine of the written Word.

Characteristics of Preached Word

The concept of the Word of God dominates and then serves as the foundation for a great deal of the content in book four of the Institutes which expound the concept of the means of grace. There, the means of grace are also called, “the external means or aids by which God invites us into the Society of Christ and holds us therein.” The church forms the context of these means, as the deposit of the gospel.¹⁸ The creed of the Church serves as a summary of the message the church has received, and so also within in the Nicene Creed, Calvin understands the exhortation to be to “believe the church.”¹⁹ Calvin here concerns himself with the Word of God as it is before the people through the church. Though Christ as Word is not present immediately before the people, the Word is present in Scripture and preaching.

We can thus conclude that for Calvin the preached Word functions as a means of grace. It does so not merely by borrowing its status from the Scriptures, but from its divinely sanctioned role in the history of redemption. Though God may not currently directly give oral instructions directly to his messengers, He does give such content through the written Word. This does not diminish the place of preaching in the delivery of the gospel to God’s people.²⁰

We may explore in Calvin’s doctrine of the Preached Word as means of grace three main attributes. Calvin articulates the preached word as a peculiar medium, rather than one possible option for dispensing Scripture’s content. Calvin also maintains what Hugh Oliphant Old calls “a Kerygmatic real presence” of Christ in the preached Word.²¹ Finally, Calvin declares that preaching gains its power of efficacy from the working of the Spirit, Who has bound Himself to this instrumental means.

The Peculiar Ordained Medium

Calvin viewed the medium of preaching as a divinely sanctioned medium. Again, the written Word is not lending itself to a lesser medium in preaching. God establishes preaching as a chosen medium of the message of the church.

This conception of preaching as a God-ordained medium displays itself in Calvin’s discussion of the “power of the keys.” When Jesus declares the church has the power of the keys, this refers to the privilege of proclaiming the gospel as “it is dispensed to us through the ministers and pastors of the church, either by the preaching of the gospel or by the administration of the sacraments.”²² The concept of “word and sacrament” for Calvin refers to the preached Word, Baptism and the Supper. The validation of a true church by these marks is not merely whether they have the Scriptures, but whether “the preaching of His word [is] kept pure.”²³

Preaching is a peculiar medium for God’s Word, distinct from reading Scripture. Scripture is printed on the page and read by the eye. For Calvin, it is important that the Word of God be spoken by the mouth and heard by the ear. In hearing the message of the preacher, one does not merely hear teaching on the Word of God, the hearer hears the Word of God. Calvin explores this concept especially in his interaction with the books of the Old Testament prophets. On Isaiah 55:11, which states that God’s Word does not return void, Calvin explains, “The word goeth out of the mouth of God in such a manner that it likewise “goeth out of the mouth” of men; for God does not speak openly from heaven, but employs men as his instruments, that by their agency he may make known his will.”²⁴ When the Word is preached rightly, the hearer hears the voice of God in the mouths of humans. Again, in John 10:4, where the sheep hear Christ’s voice, Calvin insists, “God should be heard speaking by them [ministers].”²⁵ For this reason, Parker’s earlier stated position that for Calvin preaching borrows its status as Word of God from Scripture is insufficient.²⁶ The status of the medium is ordained by God. The content of that message is derived from and regulated by Scripture. Yet especially in a worship context, Calvin prefers that Christ’s voice is heard, rather than Christ’s words merely being read. Scripture then has priority in authority, but preaching has priority in delivery.²⁷

The Kerygmatic Presence

Secondly, Calvin expounds a doctrine of the real presence of Christ in preaching. Old calls this the “kerygmatic real presence” to distinguish it from the spiritual, or pneumatic, presence in Calvin's doctrine of the Eucharist.²⁸ In the preaching of the Word, Calvin declares that “God himself appears in our midst.”²⁹

Calvin’s conception of God’s presence in the Temple supports the kerygmatic presence. “The Temple is called God’s resting place.”³⁰ God does not merely have a preference of location, for God does not dwell in temples made by men, but rather “By his Word, God alone sanctifies temples to himself for lawful use.”³¹ The “place of God’s name” is the place where God’s name is heard. “The Lord nowhere recognizes any temple as his save where his Word is heard.”³² Preaching brings God’s presence among his people. As explored above, God’s voice is heard through the consecrated mouths of men, manifesting a measure of God’s presence by men hearing God’s Word.³³

The implications of Christ’s real presence in preaching consist in union and communion with Christ. Glen Clary clarifies Calvin’s position as stating “The gospel is not merely an invitation to fellowship with Christ; it is a vehicle by which Christ is communicated to us”³⁴ Calvin usually connects the concept of communion with God to the works of the Holy Spirit, and also does so here. The Word is a means of communion with Christ because God joins “his Spirit with it.”³⁵ Calvin so understands the phrase from Galatians 3:2 “received the Spirit…by the hearing of faith,” with faith “here put, by a figure of speech, for the gospel.”³⁶

Since it is by the mouth of the preacher Christ speaks, so preaching is the means by which Christ reigns over His Church. Calvin connects the concept of the kingdom of God with the preaching of the Word especially in the Commissioning passages. In Acts 1:8, Calvin does not interpret Christ to be ignoring the disciple’s question to whether Christ was bringing the kingdom at that time. Instead, Christ is answering by what means the kingdom was advanced. Christ’s “kingdom consisteth in the preaching of the gospel…Christ did then reign when as he subdueth unto himself (all the whole) world by the preaching of the gospel.”³⁷ In Matthew 28:18, Calvin uses kingdom language in stating that Jesus “by constraining men to obey him in the preaching of the gospel, he established his throne on the earth.”³⁸ Calvin gave no other medium or sacrament the high status of preaching by calling it the earthly throne of Christ. Ronald S. Wallace summarizes Calvin’s view of Old Testament prophecies about the “rule of the Messiah amongst the nations” as being fulfilled in the preached Word.³⁹

The Spirit and the Preached Word

The preached Word, in being endowed by God as a divinely sanctioned medium, as an instrument of God’s presence, and as the instrument of God’s rule, carries with it a power to accomplish God’s purposes. The degree to which these three attributes truly describe the preached Word corresponds to the effecting power of preaching. When Romans 10:17 states “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ,” Calvin connects “word of Christ” with preaching as confirming “the efficacy of preaching.”⁴⁰ In such a way, we may understand Calvin to hold preaching as a means of grace.

Preaching, in a certain sense, may effect the faith that it demands.⁴¹ Not that the bare Word effects, for “faith is the proper and entire work of the Holy Spirit.”⁴² The Spirit and the Word accomplish God’s purposes together. These two must not be separated, for “as soon as the Spirit is separated from the word of Christ, the door is open to all kinds of delusions and impostures” like Romanism and Islam.⁴³ The Spirit does not normally work apart from the Word, and the Word always carries the Spirit. If the Spirit chooses to grant faith, then preaching is the means of bestowing and effecting regeneration and sanctification.⁴⁴

The effect of the Word, however, may also be negative. The Word may be the means either of binding or of loosening,⁴⁵ of softening or hardening,⁴⁶ or of effecting salvation for the elect or condemnation on the wicked, depending on how the Spirit effects the recipient.⁴⁷ In addition to being a means of grace, we might also call preaching a means of condemnation or judgment.

When conceiving of the benefits of the means, Calvin has specific metaphysical benefits in mind. Since preaching stands beside the Eucharist and Baptism, as fellow means of grace, preaching is often described as bestowing the same benefits. For Calvin, the Eucharist hosts a communion that causes the soul of the believer to “rise heavenward.”⁴⁸ So too, does the preaching of the Word not only bestow benefits, but proceeds “to bear us up as if in chariots to his heavenly glory.”⁴⁹ The need for this arises from Calvin’s insistence on the reality of a real union with Christ from which springs all the benefits of redemption.⁵⁰ Thus, benefits are not merely delivered, but union between the believer and Christ is experienced in the means of grace.⁵¹ Even when speaking of the nature of the union experienced through other means such as the Supper or baptism, that benefit “requires the Word…there is need of preaching.”⁵² The currency of transfer, as figured in the means, is nothing other than the life of Christ, by way of experiencing union with Christ.⁵³

Conclusion

As we have seen, the concept of the “Word” to Calvin includes much more than the doctrine of the inspiration of the written text of Scripture. Calvin’s theology, especially of God’s use of means may be said develop as working out of the implication of the presupposition that “the gospel is the power of God unto salvation.”⁵⁴ Calvin’s position can briefly be put as, “God as the author of preaching, joining his Spirit with it, promises benefits from it.”⁵⁵ Preaching as a divinely ordained medium works as an instrument of God’s presence, and as the instrument of God’s rule in carrying out God’s purposes.

1 John Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Trans. Ford Lewis Battles. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmanns, 1986), 1278. (4.14.3)

2 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1046 (4.2.4).

3 John Calvin. Commentary on Romans. Trans. John Owen. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 401

4 John Calvin. Commentary on the First Book of Moses called Genesis. Trans. John King. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 75.

5 Jaroslav Pelikan. The Christian Tradition. Volume 4: Reformation of Church and Dogma. (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1984), 187

6 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 129 (1.13.7).

7 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 130 (1.13.7).

8 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 71-73 (1.6.2).

9 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 71 (1.6.2).

10 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 980 (3.24.13).

11 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1157 (4.8.9).

12 Thomas J. Davis, This is My Body: the Presence of Christ in Reformation Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 94.

13 T.H.L. Parker, Calvin’s Preaching. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992), 23.

14 Mark Beach, “The Real Presence of Christ in the Preaching of the Gospel: Luther and Calvin on the Nature of Preaching,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 10 [1999]: 100 / Glen J. Clarey. John Calvin: Servant of the Word of God. (Unpublished paper 2009), 15

15 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1017 (4.1.5).

16 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1157 (4.8.9).

17 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1157 (4.8.9).

18 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1011-1012 (4.1.1).

19 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1012-1013 (4.1.2).

20 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1011-1012 (4.1.1).

21 Hughes Oliphant Old. The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church. Volume 4: The Age of the Reformation. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 133.

22 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1036 (4.1.22).

23 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1024 (4.1.10).

24 John Calvin. Commentary on a the Book of the Prophet Isaiah Volume 4. Trans. William Pringle. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 172.

25 John Calvin. Commentary on the Gospel According to John Volume 2. Trans. William Pringle. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 396.

26 T.H.L. Parker, Calvin’s Preaching. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992), 23.

27 One may conjecture if the lower rate of literacy and availability of printed books influenced this preference for the medium of delivery of preaching. Yet, the contrast remains that where contemporary pastors may push congregants to reading the Word in the Scriptures, Calvin placed an equal emphasis on hearing the Word.

28 Hughes Oliphant Old. The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church. Volume 4: The Age of the Reformation. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 133.

29 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1017 (4.1.5).

30 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1017 (4.1.5).

31 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1019 (4.1.5).

32 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1043 (4.2.3).

33 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1018 (4.1.5).

34 Glen J. Clarey. John Calvin: Servant of the Word of God. (Unpublished paper 2009), 20.

35 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1020 (4.1.6).

36 John Calvin. Commentary on a the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians. Trans. William Pringle. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 81.

37 John Calvin. Commentary upon the Acts of the Apostles Volume 1. Trans. Henry Beveridge. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 47.

38 John Calvin. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke Volume 3. Trans. William Pringle. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 382.

39 Ronald S. Wallace. Calvin’s Doctrine of Word & Sacrament. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 87.

40 John Calvin. Commentary on Romans. Trans. John Owen. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 401

41 “preaching…by it faith is produced.” John Calvin. Commentary on Romans. Trans. John Owen. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 401

42 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1284 (4.14.8).

43 John Calvin. Commentary on the Gospel According to John Volume 2. Trans. William Pringle. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 145.

44 See Mark Beach, “The Real Presence of Christ in the Preaching of the Gospel: Luther and Calvin on the Nature of Preaching,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 10 [1999]: 110

45 John Calvin. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke Volume 2. Trans. William Pringle. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 293.

46 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 980 (3.24.13).

47 John Calvin. Commentary on a the Book of the Prophet Isaiah Volume 4. Trans. William Pringle. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 172.

48 John Calvin. Commentary on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians. Vol 1. Trans. John Pringle. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 378

49 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1020 (4.1.5)

50 “The only way in which [Christ] communicates his blessings to us is by making himself ours.” [Calvin Treatises on the Sacraments 89]

51 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 570 (3.2.24).

52 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1416-7 (4.17.39).

53 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 540 (3.1.3).

54 Romans 1:16 ESV

55 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1020 (4.1.5)

Twin Lakes

I just returned from Twin Lakes Fellowship, a fellowship of pastors dedicated to the ordinary means of grace for the accomplishment of the mission of the church, believing that "the gospel is the power unto salvation." (Romans 1:16) Some highlights:

Derek Thomas - Sermon on Adoption

Ligon Duncan - Case for the Ordinary Means

It also reminded me of my wrestling with the Ordinary Means that I blogged about two years ago here: "The Ordinary Means"

And if you don't know what the ordinary means are, they refer to the way our confession speaks of the work of the church:

Q. 154. What are the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation?

A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to his church the benefits of his mediation, are all his ordinances; especially the word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for their salvation.

Pictures of the Supper: Abraham and Melchizedek

The Lord's Supper is not the only instance of a meal of significance. Throughout Scripture there are pictures of meals of fellowship, covenant renewal and worship. Here, I would merely like to display a few of those pictures as they inform how we look at the Lord's Supper in a Biblical Theological manner.

Picture 1: Abraham and Melchizedek




The first instance in recorded Scripture of a shared meal of bread and wine is Abraham and Melchizedek in Genesis 14:18. Here, Abraham (then Abram) and the king of Sodom share a meal in celebration of a victory and Abraham gives a tenth of his wealth to Melchizedek. This precipitates a remembering of an oath,* perhaps a covenant oath, to God, and the praise of God for Abraham's provision.

Melchizedek is associated with Christ in the New Testament. The author of Hebrews, in chapter 7, cites this encounter (Heb 7:1-2; Gen 14:17-20), as a proof of the superiority of the order of Melchizedek, one whom Abraham paid tithes to as an inferior. Hebrew 7:22 then makes the connection to Christ, a priest after the order of Melchizedek, the guarantor of a better covenant. The parallels between Genesis 14 and Hebrews 7, as the relation between Abraham and Melchizedek in covenant, blessing and paying honor relate to Christ and the church. So also it would imply the communion enjoyed between Abraham and Melchizedek in the meal of wine and bread may also point forward to the communion enjoyed between Christ and the Church in the Supper of bread and wine.


[See Meredith Kline. Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview. (Eugene OR, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2006), 312.)

Bavinck on the Church and the means of grace

In light of my recent post on the strategic plan, I thought I would let Herman Bavinck argue my case, since he does a better job than I in explaining how God intends to accomplish His mission:

"The means of grace, after all, do not stand by themselves but are closely connected with the church and the offices of the church, with Christ's person and work. One might as well ask whether God could not regenerate and save sinners apart from Christ and forgive sins aside from satisfaction. But such questions lead nowhere: we have rest in God's good pleasure, which distributes salvation in no way other than in and through Christ. He is the mediator between God and humanity, the only name given under heaven by which we must be saved [Acts 4:12]. Furthermore, it was equally God's good pleasure to distribute salvation in no other way than through and in the church of Christ...The rule is that God freely binds the distribution of his grace to the church of Christ."

-Herman Bavinck. Reformed Dogmatics Volume 4. pg 446-447

PCA Strategic Plan: Thoughts

[This is an opinion piece about an internal discussion in the PCA. If you are not in the PCA, you are welcome to skip it as it contains matters of an internal debate, which will in no way diminish my appreciation for the PCA and its work]

A few weeks ago, the CMC released the PCA strategic plan. This plan looks into the future and attempts to make changes to plan for the future and how the PCA will see its own role in the future in American Christian mission and religious life. I wanted to take some time to read the plan and reflect on it. I do this not as a voting member of Presbytery, but merely as a person under care of a Presbytery looking toward ordination in the PCA. Thus, my thoughts are tempered and are only suggestive to those who might be voting members.

The plan, spearheaded by President Bryan Chapell of Covenant Seminary, has a few general themes, some BCO change recommendations and some suggestions on changing the affiliations of the denomination. As I comment, I would also like to say I have benefited greatly from Chapell’s work especially on preaching and respect him as a minister in good standing. I would like to briefly comment on the proposed themes and changes.

1. Require contribution to the PCA Administrative Committee for participation in GA.

Many prominent PCA ministers, including Lig Duncan, have supported this part of the plan as a step in the right direction towards a more Presbyterian church government. After all, even the Southern Baptist Convention, a looser confederation than the Presbyterian form of government, requires contribution to vote at their convention. Over half of the churches in the PCA contribute nothing to the PCA and have voting rights.

Generally, I would agree that this perhaps is the historical structure of a Presbyterian governed church. That half of the churches contribute nothing is embarrassing. The requested amount is less than 1% of a church's budget, hardly a bank breaker.

However, we must recognize where the PCA comes from. The PCUSA had a strong denominational structure that still hamstrings some individual churches in regards to property ownership. PCA churches are, and should be, weary of a strong denominational government, not due to the current ethos of the denomination, but the possible future status of the denomination. If a church becomes concerned with the use of its resources in the future, if they protest by withholding contribution that would deny that church a vote at GA. Such a move empowers the denomination over the local church. Although more churches should contribute, and be petitioned to contribute, none should be required to.

That leads to a second objection. Might I quote a Baptist who may have a point where he is more Reformed that the PCA strategic plan: "The local church is the focal point of God's plan for displaying his glory to the nations." This is the motto of 9 Marks, Mark Dever's organization for reforming churches according to Scripture. This perhaps should be the dominant philosophy of the PCA in the future. This leads to our next theme:

2. Redirecting the mission focus of the PCA away from NAPARC

NAPARC is the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council. This Council consists of confessional Reformed and Presbyterian Churches like the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the United Reformed Church. This organization is dedicated to confessional expression of the Reformed tradition and presenting a unified front on in this endeavor of advancing confessional Reformed churches in North America.

Page 26 of the Strategic plan recommends withdraw from this organization. The reasoning is given in Bryan Chapell's video that this organization consists of "micro-denominations" that have fewer members than the PCA but have equal vote. This organization is said to be draining our time and energy since it "shares our doctrinal identity, but not our ministry focus." This statement is never clarified, however, from the rest of the plan this seems to mean a new focus to work with organizations, outside of our confessional identity, that do not share our doctrinal distinctives but give the PCA more "influence," presumably as a Reformed voice among non-Reformed Christians in missions organizations.

This proposal, I believe, is the most telling of the vision of the strategic plan. The plan introduces various "means" towards achieving the goal of a larger "influence" in American Christianity. This is misguided on a number of fronts, but this is chief:

If we do not share the ministry focus of NAPARC, then we are do not truly share their doctrinal identity.

Confessional Reformed doctrine believes the means of achieving the mission of God in the world are the means God has ordained. These are not parachurch organization, though they may have some role, but the "ordinary means" as outlined in the Westminster Larger Catechism Questions 154-160. These means are the Word, read and preached, the sacraments and prayer. In other words, the means of accomplishing the mission of God is the church performing its ordinances given to it by God, by which He has promised to bring fruit. When the Word is preached, that is the means by which people are converted (Romans 10:14-17, 1 Cor 1:21). Baptism and the Lord's Supper are visible words, proclaiming that gospel alongside the Word (Ephesians 5:26; 1 Cor 11:26) and prayer is the means of advancing the kingdom (Mathew 6:9-13, See Matthew 6:10 NET). A focus away from the local church towards the denomination, denominational programs and parachurch organizations due to a leveling off of church membership displays an approach driven by numbers and a desire to manipulate those numbers by means other than the ones we are commanded to be faithful to perform. (Tim 4:13)

The concern of the PCA should be our faithfulness to what God has called us to and leave the numbers to God. If we see numbers declining, our recourse is repentance, and renewed vows to faithful to preach and administer the sacraments, the duty given to us in the Great Commission. (Matt 28:19) The means given was not certain programs and parachurch affiliations but the ordinances of the church. The advancement of the Great Commission then is the duty of the church and that is where the PCA should focus its energies (along with the other denominations in NAPARC)

What has attracted me to the PCA is the churchly spirituality of the Reformed faith as expressed in the PCA. I believe the PCA is well positioned to offer a biblical churchly spirituality to a culture that is greatly lacking true spirituality instead chasing fleeting experience, psychological comfort and charismatic mirages. I would like to see the PCA continue to do so rather than become more generically evangelical.

Alternatively, the PCA as a denomination certainly could establish structures and programs that would help advance the mission of the church, but these must be with a focus to the local church, not programs or parachurch associations.

Here are a few alternative suggestions:

1. Establish an internship fund of the PCA.

The OPC has a general fund to pay those seeking ordination in the OPC to work within a local church for up to a year. This allows a future minister to focus on learning the craft of ministering from a local minister, whose church may not be large enough to support that intern alone. This also allows the ministerial candidate to focus on the craft of ministry solely for the year of preparation rather than also maintain a full time job, thereby shortchanging his internship experience.

2. Fully fund RUF ministers and Missionaries through the PCA.

Either we consider RUF minister to actually be ministers or we do not. Currently, most RUF ministers are only half-supported by the church and half-supported by individuals. A minister is one who is supported by the church, as Paul tells us, "Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer deserves his wages." " (1 Tim 5:17-18) Only half supporting missionaries in MTW and MTNA and RUF ministers, if we truly consider them ministers, reduces them to half a minister and, though popular in American mission structure, a skirting of Scripture's command for the church to support their ministers.

3. Fund Church planting

Most church planters also are forced to raise support from individuals rather than the church. The same applies to these evangelist ministers. Either they are an elder/minister or not. If they are, the church ought to fund them, if not, then do not call them ministers.

If the PCA would take steps towards advancing the gospel and the kingdom to an even greater degree than they thankful have done, in the manner of supporting the local church, the first measure for more funding would meet with a greater welcome by me. However, the lack of faith the strategic plan seems to have for the ordinary means and the local church forces me to recommend to any that are attending GA this year to vote to defeat the strategic plan in regards to changing the BCO to require church funding of the denomination, and to vote against withdraw from NAPARC.

The focus must be brought back to a biblical focus on the local church, the means of grace, and the proclamation of the gospel purely and simply. This is the hope of the world and the future of God's universal invisible church. May the visible church in the PCA align itself as closely and faithfully to the command of God as possible.

Message and Methods

The conventional wisdom today is that the message stays the same but the methods change. But what if God ordained the methods as well? Is He allowed? What would it look like if we followed His methods in ministry?

Ligon Duncan answers these questions masterfully in a talk at Twin Lakes Fellowship:

Ligon Duncan: A Case for the Ordinary Means

What's first, the Baptismal or the Table?

A question that comes up in both credo- and paedo-baptist communities is "Should a person be baptized before taking Communion [the Eucharist]?" This might be represented visually above as: "Does one need to come to the baptismal fount before one comes to the Table?"

This question comes up in both Baptist and paedo-baptist communities when baptism is delayed, for age, Catechesis or a special season of baptism, such as Easter. It comes up in many Episcopal Churches with open communion, where everyone, even unbaptized people are welcomed to take the Eucharist. The situation in all places arises: If a person has faith and seems to understand what the significance of the Supper is, why have them wait or deny them the Supper merely because they are unbaptized?

Many times this is left in the realm of personal conscience, which one can see in places where the question is asked, usually the answer most preferred is "As long as you're doing this from your heart and you love Jesus, you're okay. "

Against such an answer, suggesting a rigid priority may seem "legalistic" or nit-picky. However, I believe there are good Biblical, Confessional, Catechetical and Historical reasons for only allowing baptized Christians to partake of the Eucharist.

Historical/Confessional

Historically, the earliest and consistently repeated answer of the Church throughout history has been to delay partaking the Eucharist until after Baptism. One of the earliest documents of the Church, outside the Bible, was the Didache which was a manual of sorts for accepting new converts into the Church. The instructions make very clear:

Didache 9:5: "Let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptized."

The reasoning may sound rather harsh: "for the Lord has also spoken concerning this: 'Do not give what is holy to dogs.'" (9:5) This merely points out that the Eucharist is considered the meal of the Church, and one was not considered a part of the Church, and so not a Christian, until Baptism. There are no instances in the first millenium of the Church where partaking of the Eucharist was allowed before being baptized.

This is way the major Reformation faiths always place teaching about Baptism before the Lord's Supper. Baptism is seen as initiatory rite, and the Supper as a rite of fellowship. Before one joins the community, one cannot have fellowship with that group. To have fellowship is to be a member, and baptism is the rite of membership for someone to be in that community.

Biblical

The Scriptures display a heavy weight towards Baptism necessarily coming before Communion. Firstly, Baptism precedes the Supper in notable places in Scripture's teaching and narrative. In Acts 2, Peter offers Baptism (2:38) before we have an account of the first Christians breaking bread (2:42). The Gospels record the Baptism of John before the Last Supper. Paul speaks of acknowledging Baptism (1 Cor 10:2) before the Supper (1 Cor 10:3 and following). This is logical, for we must be united to Christ (Rom 6:4) before we can participate in him (1 Cor 10:16).

But why? What's the big deal?

The Scripture's main way of explaining the sacraments is through the story of redemption of Israel. We are told of the baptism Israel experienced in the sea (1 Cor 10:2). We are also told of Israel eating manna in the wilderness, pointing to the Supper (John 6). It is simple observation to observe that Israel experienced baptism in the sea before eating the manna. Israel did not eat manna from God before the sea. And I think this is the most important point for how the sacraments teach us about the reality of the Christian life and salvation.

Catechetical

Israel did not need food from God before the sea, for their slave owners in Egypt gave Israel food. The episode of the baptism in the sea for Israel irrevocably severed the connection between Israel and their slave owners. After the baptism in the sea, although Israel often wanted to go back and were unthankful to their Redeemer God from Egypt, Israel no longer could take food from their former slave owners.

For us to insist on Baptism before the Supper requires a high sense of what Baptism is. Baptism in the early church often included a ritual of exorcism and a question to the person presented for Baptism, "Do you renounce Satan and all his works?" This is because Baptism was an important entry into the church and break from the world of Satan, just as crossing the sea was an important event for Israel as forming of a common people of the baptism and breaking from the world of Egypt.

This is why Baptism ought to proceed the Supper. Baptism should be an instrument of teaching entry into the covenant and community of faith (Acts 2:38-39) and the Supper should be an instrument of teaching the lasting need of continual sustaining by God (Psalm 104:14-15; John 6). To allow eating the Supper before Baptism teaches a dual loyalty and dual mastery the Scriptures do not. One cannot eat the manna from God while under the slavery of Egypt. One also cannot eat the food of Egypt after being redeemed by God. If baptism teaches the need of new birth, and the Supper the need of spiritual feeding, one must be born before one can eat. To allow the Supper before Baptism teaches that one can be enslaved to Satan and receive the saving benefits of God. In other words, it confuses the person who eats while unbaptized for it does not conform to Jesus who taught one must either be for or against him. "No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. " (Luke 16:13) One cannot be identified with Egypt and eat the manna of God. One cannot be slave to Satan, and receive the blessings of God. One must be identified as a slave to God in order to receive His benefits. One must be in covenant with God in order to receive the benefits of that covenant.

That is why I believe, like the picture above, one must go to the baptismal before one can go to the table. It is not a matter of legalism or nit-picking, but a matter of what Scripture teaches and what we teach with the catechetical tools that God gives to us with Baptism and the Supper. Do we teach a dual loyalty to two slave owners? Do we teach service, loyality and identification to Sin, Satan and what Egypt represents can continue at the same time as receiving taking what identification with God, Christ and His Righteousness gives us?

Or, do we teach that God fully redeems us from our former slave owner, though a Stockholm Syndrome may still exist, we identify and receive our sustenance from our Redeemer and new Master, Jesus Christ? The matter should not be too difficult, however, for if we determine that a person is ready for the sacrament of the Eucharist, then they are certainly ready for the sacrament of Baptism. Just let them be born before they eat, and let God be their slave master before they take food from Him.