Pick your own theology of baptism!

If baptism is an "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace" (BCP), then we can ask three questions, from which I think you can identify different theologies of baptism.

Who makes the sign?

• God through the baptiser;
• The baptiser; or
• The baptised.

Is the grace

• already present;
• given by the act; or
• anticipated in the act?

What is the grace signified?

• A new status;
• A new nature; or
• Both.

I think most credo-baptists believe that the baptised makes the sign of an already present new status and new nature. The Reformed essentially believe that God through the baptiser makes the sign of an already present new status (although the sign is also of the new nature that may be either already present, given by the act, or anticipated in the act). The RC and the Lutherans seem to believe that God through the baptiser makes the sign of a new status and new nature which are given by the act.

I think I would say that God through the baptiser makes the sign (because the baptised is always described as passive in the NT), the grace is given in the act (because the NT seems to see baptism as achieving something), the grace signified is the new status (because that seems to fit the NT texts when interpreted in the light of wider theological convictions and experience - namely the once for all nature of the new birth and the reality that many baptised people do not believe). However I'd also say, with the Reformed, that the new nature may be either already present, given by the act, or anticipated in the act.

How would you answer the three questions?

NB I wouldn't usually chose to use the word grace in the way it is used in this standard definition. It makes grace sound like a 'thing'. Maybe we could use the word 'reality'.

Why I am an infant baptist

1. Who is active in baptism? Baptism is primarily an act done to the baptised by God through the minister, not an act done by the baptised. In your baptism you are primarily a receiver and not a giver.
2. What is the act? It is the visible, physical and verbal promise declared to the baptised that Jesus Christ died and rose for the forgiveness of their sins so they now have a new identity in Christ.
3. When should someone be baptised? The promise in baptism must be received by faith to be of any benefit but that faith may come later. Faith is always preceded and created by the declared promise, so it is natural for infants to be baptised even if they do not yet believe. Because the declared promise is the cause of faith, it actually is more logical for baptism to precede first faith.

Q: How does baptism relate to preaching? A: Both are declarations of the word of promise, but baptism has a unique role as the distinctly personalised and embodied promise. We need the concreteness that baptism and the Lord's Supper provide and preaching doesn't.

Q: Why do adults have faith before being baptised? A: Faith may be present in the baptised beforehand, but only because they received the promise in a purely verbal form earlier (e.g. through preaching). Faith is not a prerequisite of baptism so as soon as someone is willing to be baptised then baptise them straight away without question. No need to test their fruits, because the promise is how those fruits are created.

I think, adult-only baptism is a symptom of getting the who? and what? questions wrong. I'm sorry for the lack of proof texts, but a quick look through the NT texts on baptism should make the first two answers clear, and the third then just follows from that.

Wingren and Calvin on the Sacraments

"The question what the sacraments give over and above the Word often springs from a religion of works. The secret presupposition is: if it cannot be shown that there is some special advantage with the sacraments there is no point in making use of them, we should rather content ourselves with the Word. If, however, we start with the conviction that it is hard to believe and easy to fall as we journey, then the means of grace do bring grace, are gifts: then we receive them all with gladness when they all give us the same thing." (p. 158, Gustaf Wingren, The Living Word)

This is similar to Calvin, but I think it is better. Calvin seems to imply that ideally we wouldn't need the sacraments and the word would be enough, because the Word is more spiritual. He also seems to say that we go beyond the sacrament, so that we can leave it behind.

"the sacraments have the same office as the Word of God: to offer and set forth Christ to us" (Institutes, 4.14.17)

"our faith is slight and feeble unless it be propped on all sides and sustained by every means, it trembles, wavers, totters, and at last fives way. Here our merciful Lord, according to his infinite kindness, so tempers himself to our capacity that, since we are creatures who always creep upon the ground, cleave to the flesh, and, do not think about or even conceive of anything spiritual, he condescends to lead us to himself even by these earthly elements, and to set before us in the flesh a mirror of spiritual blessings" (Institutes, 4.14.3)

Who adminsters baptism?

Probably one of the biggest questions to ask about baptism is:

• Is baptism primarily an act of, or upon, the person baptised?

Interesting to hear what a Baptist scholar may say about that based on the evidence...

Some Jewish groups practised 'proselyte baptism', i.e. proselytes were baptized in the process of converting to Judaism. In the monastic community at Qumram, members invoked passages such as Ezekiel 36:25 to justify their daily baptism... But in both instances baptism was self-administered. Candidates baptized themselves... One of the things that characterized the baptism of John the Baptist is that he himself administered it. It may even be that the authority implicit in such an innovative step triggered the assumption in the minds of at least some Pharisees that John's baptism was an end-time rite administered by an end-time figure with great authority.

(italics original, p.145, DA Carson, The Gospel According to John)

Carson notices that if baptism is primarily something done by one with authority to the person baptised there is a secondary question of who has such authority. John Calvin suggests an answer in commenting on John 4:2 where the Evangelist says that Jesus baptised, and yet also clarifies that it was only his disciples who did the action:

He gives the designation of Christ’s Baptism to that which he conferred by the hands of other, in order to inform us that Baptism ought not to be estimated by the person of the minister, but that its power depends entirely on its Author, in whose name, and by whose authority, it is conferred. Hence we derive a remarkable consolation, when we know that our baptism has no less efficacy to wash and renew us, than if it had been given by the hand of the Son of God.

PS I am sorry. I know that Christmas Eve is probably not the time to riding one of my hobby-horses.

Another post on the sacraments

Listening to: Kris Drever: Black Water

[To a friend who asked "Are the sacraments means of grace or signs of grace?" By no means the last word on the subject.]

I think there are two good angles to approach this issue from.

Firstly, the conviction that the sacraments are not primarily something we do but primarily something done to us. More specifically it is not something we offer to God, but something that God offers to us. The direction is down more than it is up. I think that this reflects the language the Bible uses to speak about the sacraments. It also reflects that the Gospel is a Gospel of grace, apart from works. God always takes the initiative. This means that, for example, while baptism is a declaration of our faith to the world, it is more importantly a declaration of God that he promises life in Christ to all those who die with Christ - and particularly to that person being baptised.

Secondly, the comparison of the sacraments with less theologically charged topics, which share similar characteristics. Healing miracles, and the Bible are good examples and I think help to throw light on how we should understand the sacraments.

Coming from these two angles (all at once!) we can then see that the sacraments, in common with healing miracles and the Bible, are signs pointing away from themselves to grace, means by which that grace comes, and even the grace itself.

1. Sign of grace

The healing miracles of Jesus were described by John as signs because they pointed away from themselves. They pointed to Jesus, his authority, and the nature of that authority as life-giving. To neglect this is to make the mistake of the Jews in John 6:26 and love the gift to the neglect of the giver.

The Bible also points away from itself to the acts of God in history, and through them to God himself. To neglect this is to commit bibliolatry which evangelicals are occasionally criticised for.

Similarly, the sacraments point away from themselves. They point firstly to the Holy Spirit's work of new-birth (in Baptism) and nourishment (in the Lord's Supper), but they point through that to Christ's death and resurrection which is the source of both, and the eschaton when both will be consummated. If we neglect this then we think of the sacraments as having some magical power inherent to them, and barriers to real personal relationship with God. We also are in danger of forgetting that we live a life of hope, looking forward to Jesus' second coming.

2. Means of grace

The healing miracles were used by Jesus as means by which people were brought to faith. They were a channel through which God sent his Holy Spirit to bring people to living relationship with Jesus who was behind the miracle. If we neglect this aspect then we can think that they are just signs, and so are unnecessary or even distractions from the reality, or that they are the whole reality and there is nothing more, and we are just left with the physical healing and no spiritual relationship.

The Bible also brings us to faith and is a way in which God strengthens, rebukes and encourages his people. We believe that God speaks through his Word to bring us life (i.e. grace). Again, if we neglect this then the bible could be seen as of no significance to knowing God, or even a hindrance to personal relationship ('the dead letter').

The sacraments also are used by God to bring us life. They speak of Jesus Christ and the promise that he is to us. Therefore, if we believe the promise they speak (of life through death to self in baptism, or life through the death of Christ in the Lord's Supper - among other things) then we will be blessed by God, i.e. through them we will receive grace. If we neglect this, we will have no real understanding of why Jesus instituted these rituals and seek other means by which to be blessed by God (e.g. works).

3. The grace itself

The miracles were actually a gift of Jesus, not just a sign of another gift, or a means to receive it. They were a taste of the complete salvation we wait for in the New Creation, but they were still part of that same dish. If we neglect this we may think that the miracles were not instances where the Kingdom of God was breaking into our present reality, because the Kingdom of God is non-corporeal rather than gloriously physical.

A famine of the Word of God (Amos 8:11) is actually a famine of fellowship with God. God the Father may be speaking about himself in his Son by his Spirit in the Bible, but if he stops speaking to us about himself then we have ceased to have fellowship with him. Speaking to someone over the phone may not be a relationship with that person in all it's fullness, but the speaking is part of the relationship. If we neglect this we may be tempted to think that communication is not what a relationship with our Father is all about, and instead think that some kind of 'mystical union' where words are somehow unnecessary - but that is to loose the personal nature of our relationship.

Finally, and sacraments too are the grace they signify and are means towards. They are not the full enjoyment of the grace, but they are a taste. Jesus is really present in the Lord's Supper (as he is whenever Christian's gather and he is testified too), so we are actually in that life of fellowship with him that the Lord's Supper points us to in its fulfilment in the marriage supper of the Lamb in the New Creation. When received in faith it also really is the life-giving food of Jesus' sacrifice for our sins. Similarly, when received in faith, baptism really does put to death our sinful old nature, and bring to birth new Christ-like life. It is only ever a taste, and the fullness will only be experienced when we fully die and are then raised again on the last day. But it is the same action breaking into our life now, by faith.

The German Mass and Order of Service, 1526

Glen has just posted on the differences between Luther and Cramner on the Lord's Supper. Pete Jackson asked what Luther's liturgy for Communion was. It ran something like this, although these were more guidelines than the equivalent of the BCP:

To begin the service we sing a hymn or a German Psalm...

Then follows the Kyrie eleison...

Thereupon the priest reads a collect...

Thereafter the Epistle...

After the Epistle a German hymn...

Then he reads the Gospel...

After the Gospel the whole congregation sings the Creed in German...

Then follows the sermon on the Gospel...

After the sermon shall follow a public paraphrase of the Lord's Prayer and admonition for those who want to partake of the sacrament...

• I admonish you first of all to lift up your hearts to God to pray with me the Lord's Prayer, as Christ our Lord has taught us and graciously promised to hear us...
• [A expanded Lord's prayer where each of the petitions is explored]
• Secondly I admonish you in Christ that you discern the Testament of Christ in true faith and, above all, take to heart the words wherein Christ imparts to us his body and his blood for the remission of our sins. That you remember and give thanks for his boundless love which he proved to us when he redeemed us from God's wrath, sin, death and hell by his own blood. And that in this faith you externally receive the bread and wine, i.e., his body and his blood, as the pledge and guarantee of this. In his name therefore, and according to the command that he gave, let us use and receive the Testament...

Thereupon the Office and Consecration [i.e. 1 Cor 11:23-25]...

administer the sacrament immediately after the consecration of the bread, before the cup is blessed...Meanwhile, the German Sanctus or the hymn "Let God Be Blest," or the hymn of John Huss, "Jesus Christ, Out god and Savior," could be sung. Then the cup be blessed and administered, while the remainder of these hymns are sung, or the German Agnus Dei....

The collect follows with the benediction.

(pp. 389ff, e.d. Theodore G. Tappert, Selected Writings of Martin Luther vol.3)

Got to love the two 'admonitions'!

I probably also ought to note that the Kyrie, the scripture texts, the Creed and the Office and Consecration are all sung. There is a lot of music.

The unfortunate formula

"The external Word - what is meant in the common but unfortunate formula "Word and sacrament" - should really be identified more appropriately as preached Word as sacrament and sacrament as Word"

(p.250, Oswald Bayer, Martin Luther's Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation)

... I really like Oswald Bayer!

The purposes of sacraments

Philip Melanchthon lists (he is great at lists) the following purposes of the sacraments:

1. 'they are signs of God's will toward us, or testimonies of promised grace'
2. 'confession' of what we believe
3. 'distinction from other groups'
4. 'so that [God's] name might be celebrated and doctrine spread'
5. 'a reminder of many obligations. First of giving thanks to God, then of mutual kindness of members of the church'

However, as I've already quoted:

although many purposes have been ordained for the sacraments, yet far at the head of all of these must be placed this chief purpose, namely that they might be signs of God's will toward us, that is, added testimonies of the promise of grace

(p. 139, Loci Communes (1543))

This is not an example of the Reformers being unable to escape from Catholicism, but of them listening to Scripture:

Jewish baptism was political and ritualistic, whereas John's baptism was ethical and eschatological (similar to Ps 51:7; Is 1:15-16; 4:4; Jer 2:22; 4:14; Ezek 36:25; Zech 13:1). Gramatically there is an important distinction to be observed. The NT uses active and passive (primarily) forms of bapto and baptizo, while texts referring to Jewish proselyte baptism primarily employ middle or reflexive forms (Oepke, 530-35). Thus what was self-administered in Judaism was seen more as an act of God and surrender to him in early Christianity.

(p. 97, G Beasley-Murray, "Baptism I: Gospels" in IVP Dictionary of the NT)

FYI, Calvin isn't quite as good as Melancthon at clearly ordering the purposes although he is better than most Protestants today:

[a sacrament] is an external sign, by which the Lord seals on our consciences his promises of good-will toward us, in order to sustain the weakness of our faith, and we in our turn testify our piety towards him, both before himself, and before angels as well as men. (Insitutes 4.14.1)

The external and the internal

Baptism (the sign) and thing thing signified are inseparable, and must be held closely together in our thought, so closely in fact that we can attribute the effect of one to the other.

'There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.' (The Westminster Confession of Faith 27.2)

This isn't some pseudo-Catholic theology carried over by the writers of the WCF. The NT writers also saw the two as inseparable; consider:

• Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved (Mark 16:16)
• Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38)
• In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead (Colossians 2:11-12)
• let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water (Hebrews 10:22)

Hebrews 10:22 is particularly helpful to think about:

'That phrase, which does not set up an antithesis between the internal and the external bur rather in a positive "rhetorical parallelism" joins the inner and the outer in "one indivisible reality".' (p. 110, G Wainwright, "Baptism III: Acts, Hebrews, General Epistles, Revelation" in IVP Dictionary of the NT)

In the Reformation there was a great conflict in which there was really three parties. The Roman Catholics who held that external actions were all that mattered, the Anabaptists and other radicals who held that the only the internal ('spiritual') things mattered, and finally the Magisterial Reformers who refused to separate the two. The external actions condemned us if they were not mirrored by internal reality. Our internal faith had to rest on external things (the Word and the Sacraments both of which the Radicals rejected) and could not exist apart from them. Luther saw the need for both better than most (Calvin sometimes almost seemed to view the external things as only accommodations to our weakness and not theoretically necessary):

new spirits assert that faith alone saves, and that works and external things avail nothing, we answer: It is true, indeed, that nothing in us is of any avail but faith, as we shall hear still further. But these blind guides are unwilling to see this, namely, that faith must have something which it believes, that is, of which it takes hold, and upon which it stands and rests. Thus faith clings to the water, and believes that it is Baptism, in which there is pure salvation and life; not through the water (as we have sufficiently stated), but through the fact that it is embodied in the Word and institution of God, and the name of God inheres in it. Now, if I believe this, what else is it than believing in God as in Him who has given and planted His Word into this ordinance, and proposes to us this external thing wherein we may apprehend such a treasure?

(Baptism, The Large Catechism)

But, and this is important, Luther recognised that the order of external and internal things was of huge importance, and had to be got right:

Now when God sends forth his holy gospel he deals with us in a twofold manner, first outwardly, then inwardly. Outwardly he deals with us through the oral word of the gospel and through material signs, that is baptism and the sacrament of the altar. Inwardly he deals with us through the Holy Spirit, faith and other gifts. But whatever their measure or order the outward factors should and must precede. The inward experience follow and is effected by the outward. God has determined to give the inward to no one except through the outward. For he wants to give no one the Spirit or faith outside of the outward Word and sign instituted by him [...]

Observe carefully, my brother, this order, for everything depends on it.

(p.224, Martin Luther, Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments (1925), in Selected Writings of Martin Luther ed. T.G. Tappert)

For you, even if you do not know it

These words from the French Reformed Baptisimal liturgy are beautiful:

Little child, for you Jesus Christ has come, he has fought, he has suffered. For you he entered the shadow of Gethsemane and the horror of Calvary. For you he uttered the cry "It is finished!" For you he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven and there intercedes - for you, little child, even though you do not know it. But in this way the word of the Gospel becomes true. "We love him, because he first loved us."

That describes the foundation of my belief that it is right to baptise infants. As James Torrance expands:

The work of salvation is from beginning to end the work of God. Baptism is the sign of what the triune God does. God forgives, God cleanses, God regenerates, God adopts, God sends the Spirit of his Son into our hearts whereby we cry "Abba, Father." Our response to this is to say amen in faith- our passive recipient response. There is nothing more passive than dying, being buried, being baptised.

[...]

Two things are important here: (a) Christ did not die for adults only! He died for adults and children..."Little child for you..." (b) God's grace is not conditioned by anything in us, not even by our faith! Nevertheless, baptism must always be an act of faith in the Christ who died for us and for our children. It is not a sign of our faith, but of the Christ in whom we believe [...] "...for you, little child, even though you do not know it..."

(pp. 76-80, James B Torrance, Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace)

More thoughts on the 'one body'

From an email to the friend I am thinking this through with (see my previous post for less developed thoughts).

On reflection I can think of several inter-related reasons why we are 'one body' in Paul's eyes.

We all share:

• 'one bread' (1 Corinthians 10:17)
• 'one baptism' (Ephesians 4:4-6; 1Corinthians 12:13)
• 'one faith' (Ephesians 4:4-6)
• 'one hope' (Ephesians 4:4-6)
• 'one God and Father' (Ephesians 4:4-6)
• 'one Lord' (Ephesians 4:4-6)
• 'one Spirit' (Ephesians 4:4-6; 1Corinthians 12:13)

So for Paul the ultimate cause of us being 'one body' is the Trinity (isn't great how Paul refers to all 3 persons in Ephesians 4:4-6?). The promise of the Trinity is communicated (not just mentally) to us by the sacraments, and we embrace the promise contained in the sacraments by faith. The sacraments are promises that we can share in the death of Christ (Romans 6; Ephesians 2:16) but then also share in the same Spirit (a Spirit of life, John 6:63, Romans 8) by which he was raised (Romans 8:11; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:44; Mark 1:8; 1 Corinthians 12:13).

I like your observation that 'one body' has a corporal dimension. 'Body' for Paul is closely associated with 'flesh' and death. There is only one death which leads to life and that is Christ's death. His is the only cursed flesh where salvation can still be found. So he is also the 'body' which we need to find ourselves in. However for Paul 'body' is not as negative as 'flesh'/'death' and he is able to talk happily about our 'spiritual body' too (1 Corinthians 15:44).

However returning to our original discussion about where the term originated I think there are only two options:

1. The institution of the Lord's Supper.
2. The OT concept of marriage between God and Israel which Paul picks up and applies to Christ and the Church ('one flesh' is a small step away from 'one body', cf. 1 Corinthians 6:16).

It is interesting how it is difficult to imagine any closer union than either consuming something (food) or sexual union, and this is how the NT so often describes our relationship to Christ. We eat him, and we marry him! Incredible condescension to miserable sinners! He doesn't give gifts from on high, but comes down to us and gives us himself.

1 Corinthians 11:29

Paul writes:

For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

My pastor thinks that 'the body' we have to discern is the church. After all Paul's intention in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 is to dissuade the church from having divisions, particularly between rich and poor. He wants them to realise that they are one body. It is also supported by the wider context, particularly 1 Corinthians 12 where Paul is going.

I think that it is more likely that 'the body' refers to Christ's presence in the elements of the Lord's Supper (the traditional interpretation). The immediate context is that of eating and drinking, and the previous reference to the 'body' is verse 27 is to the body as the bread. This is not in conflict with Paul's main intention in this passage either because it is just because of the one bread that we share that we divisions are inappropriate.

Paul does not just discuss the Lord's Supper as an example of where divisions in the Corinthian church are evident, but because it is also where he can demonstrate how inappropriate this is.

Note There are actually three possible interpretations of 'the body' that I can think of. They are all possible because they are all interrelated:

• The person of Jesus Christ
• Jesus Christ present in the elements of the Lord's Supper
• The church in Christ

The body of Christ

A friend of mine at church today asked a very good question: where does Paul get the concept of the body of Christ from?

It is a very good question because 'the body' is a very 'weird' concept, and secondly, unlike most other concepts in the NT, it does not seem to originate in either the OT or the ancient Mediterranean world.

On reflection there is only one place that it can come from and that is the words of Jesus at the Last Supper. However, it is still quite a leap from the words 'this is my body' to the sophisticated and multi-layered concept that it is so important to Paul and which he assumes the churches he writes to will understand.

I don't know quite how Paul came to add so much colour to the concept but I think he indicates how he made the connection from the Lord's supper to the church in 1 Cor 10:16-17:

The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

For Paul, the reason we are one body is because we all share in one body, and the body in both instances is 'of Christ'. The Lord's Supper forms the community that we are part of.

Of course, it is not the Lord's Supper that is ultimately the cause. It is one of many interconnected causes in different dimensions. We are one body because we have 'one Lord' and 'one God and Father of all', because we share these we have 'one faith' and 'one hope', which are communicated to us by 'one baptism' and 'one bread' (Eph 4:4-6; 1 Cor 10:17; 1 Cor 12:13).

Modern evangelicals tend to be happy to talk about our shared Lord and shared faith which join us together, but are unhappy to talk about the shared sacraments. Ritual is often then shunned as either pointless or even harmful. Others are more than happy to talk about the sacraments but lose sight of the Lord that gave them to us and that there is more come. For them ritual can become all there is and Christ is lost sight of because, for example, the sacrifice is happening 'here and now' which is more important than the 'then'.

Reformers on the frequency of the Lord's Supper

Calvin

'No meeting of the church should take place without the Word, prayers, partaking of the Supper and almsgiving' (Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.44).

'the Lord's Table should have been spread at least once a week for the assembly of Christians' (Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.46)

Luther

'As oft as ye do it, it is nevertheless implied that we should do it often; and it is added for the reason that He wishes to have the Sacrament free, not limited to special times, like the Passover of the Jews, which they were obliged to eat only once a year, and that just upon the fourteenth day of the first full moon in the evening, and which they must not vary a day. As if He would say by these words: I institute a Passover or Supper for you which you shall enjoy not only once a year, just upon this evening, but often, when and where you will, according to every one's opportunity and necessity, bound to no place or appointed time; although the Pope afterwards perverted it, and again made a Jewish feast of it.' (Luther, Large Catechism, The Sacrament of the Altar)

'people should be told in sermons to receive Communion three or four times a year in order that, strengthened by the Word, them may afterward fall asleep' (p.305, Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel ed. and trans. Theodore G. Tappert [1539])

'we should not compel anyone to believe or to receive the Sacrament and should not fix any law or time or place for it. Instead, we should preach in such a way that the people make themselves come without our law and just plain compel us pastors to administer the Sacrament to them....if they believed that they possessed so much evil and needed so much good, they would not neglect the Sacrament...they would come on their own, rushing and running to it; they would compel themselves to come and would insist that you give them the Sacrament' (Luther, Preface to the Small Catechism)

'the whole congregation should come together on Sundays, and mass and Vespers be sung, as has been customary. In both services there should be preaching for the whole congregation, in the morning on the Gospel for the day, in the evening on the Epistle...If anyone desires to receive the sacrament at thhis time, let it be administered at a time convenient to all concerned.

'The daily masses should be completely discontinued; for the Word is important annd not the mass. But if any should desire the sacrament during the week, let mass be held as inclination and time dictate; for in this matter one cannot make hard and fast rules.' (p.377, 'Concerning the Order of Public Worship' in Selected Writings of Martin Luther: 1520-1523, ed. Theodore G. Tappert)

Others

'For among us masses are celebrated every Lord's Day and on the other festivals, in which the Sacrament is offered to those who wish to use it, after they have been examined and absolved.' (Melanchthon, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article 14.1)

'The day when the Lord's Supper is ministered, which commonly is used once a month, or so oft as the congregation shall think expedient' (Knox, Genevan Book of Order (1556))

In Zwingli's Zurich the 'communion service was to be held four times in the year, - at Easter, Whitsunday, autumn, and Christmas' (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume VIII: Modern Christianity. The Swiss Reformation, The Reformation In Zurich. 1519-1526, § 20. The Reformed Celebration of the Lord’s Supper)

Questions to ask about your practice of the Lord's Supper

This is reflection on my previous post.

• Do we 'devote' ourselves to the Lord's supper (cf. Acts 2:42)? How often is it celebrated? How prominant is it in the service structure?
• Do we express the unity of the body in our practice of it? I am not suggesting that we all slavishly ensure that we use one loaf, one cup, or indeed that we eat round one table, but we should be doing all we can to express this. Perhaps all the congregation could eat/drink at once if one cup/loaf is not being used. Perhaps children should participate. Perhaps it should not be tacked on to the end of a service with an oportunity for people to leave in between.
• Do we look backwards at Christ's death? Is this reflected in the actions or just in the words?
• Do we look forward to Christ's second coming? It particularly struck me in reading the passages that all look forward to the coming consumation of the Kingdom of God. It is also interesting that in current discussion the realisation that the Lord's supper looks forward to the Messianic banquet, where as traditionally it has usually been seen to 'remember' what has already happened. We need to do both.
• Do we judge ourselves truly to avoid being judged? Is it something that we approach fearfully in the knowledge that it can bring death as well as life?
• Do we believe that there objective benefits obtained by participating?
• Do we believe that Christ is truly present in/with the bread and wine? I'm not getting into debates about bodily presence etc but all sides should be in agreement that Christ is present in some way. Do we really believe it though?

Notes on NT accounts of the Lord's Supper

Elements of the Lord's Supper according to the four biblical accounts of its institution (Matt 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:15-20; 1 Cor 11:23-26):

• In the context of a meal (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22; 1 Cor 11:23; 33-34)
• Thanksgiving (Luke 22:17; 1 Cor 11:24)
• Blessing of the bread (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22)
• Identification of the wine as the (new) covenant (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25)
• Identification of the wine with Jesus' blood (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25)
• Identification of the bread with Jesus' body (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24)
• Breaking of the bread (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24)
• Done in rememberance of Jesus (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24-25)
• Anticipation of the coming of the Kingdom of God or Jesus' second coming (Matt 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:15, 18; 1 Cor 11:26)
• Immediate context of betrayal (Matt 26:14-16, 21-25; Mark 14:10-11, 18-21; Luke 22:3-6, 21-23; 1 Cor 11:23)
• 'For forgiveness of sins' (Matt 26:28), 'for you' (Luke 22:19, 20; 1 Cor 11:24), 'for many' (Mark 14:24)
• Bread first (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22, 1 Cor 11:24), or wine first (Luke 22:17)
• One loaf eaten (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 10:17)
• One cup drunk from (Matt 26:27; Mark 14:23; Luke 22:17)
• New passover (Matt 26:18; Mark 14:14; Luke 22:15)

Benefits:

• Forgiveness of sins (Matt 26:28)
• Participation in Christ, particularly his body and blood, so particularly his death (1 Cor 10:16)
• Unites the church (1 Cor 10:17)
• Proclaims 'the Lord's death' (1 Cor 11:26)
• Jesus is remembered (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24-25)
• We are covenanted with (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25)
• We are fed (obviously physically but presumably spiritually as well)

Protestants, baptism and the covenants (Part 2)

More sweeping generalisations which may not be true. Perhaps I should call them hypotheses for testing.

• For Lutherans the sacraments are the covenant/promise with the individual ("This cup is the new covenant in my blood").
• For the Reformed the sacraments are the sign of a covenant/promise which existed before hand with the individual ("He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.").
• For Baptists the sacraments are reminders of the covenant/promise that was made before hand and has no necessary connection with the individual ("Do this in remembrance of me").

Please disprove my hypothesis.

Cullmann on Baptism

I have been re-reading Oscar Cullmann's brilliant Baptism in the New Testament again. He concludes his little, but influential, book like this:

In the New Testament it is certainly proved that Baptism is applied to adult Jews and heathen who come over to Christianity. Proof of infant Baptism is at best indirectly demonstrable from observable indications. On the other hand, infant Baptism is in every detail congruous with the doctrine of Baptism, in the following ways:

1. in so far as Christ in his death and resurrection procures for all men and independent of them a general Baptism [i.e. judgment overcome with new life];
2. in so far as God in the entirely sovereign act of grace of Church Baptism permits the person baptised, through an incorporation into the fellowship of the Body of Christ at a specific place, to take part in that once-for-all saving event;
3. in so far as faith as response to this grace is decisive;
4. in so far as Baptism in its nature is the completion of circumcision and of the proselyte baptism connected, with it.

From these final conclusions, both adult and infant Baptism are to be regarded as equally biblical. (p.70)

Wonderfully this book is now on the internet here (pdf). Go read it if you can.

The sacraments as God's arrow down

Glen Scrivener comments that Mike Reeves says that "the sacraments are not our 'arrow up' to God and the world. They’re His 'arrow down'. His promise to us, not our promise to Him." I was reminded of that comment when reading Melanchthon today who writes in his Loci Communes (1543):

Profane people think that the sacraments are signs of profession which distinguish us from other people [...] or are symbols of certain functions regarding other people [...] But although many purposes have been ordained for the sacraments, yet far at the head of all of these must be placed this chief purpose, namely that they might be signs of God's will toward us, that is, added testimonies of the promise of grace [...] These rites are not human spectacles like the tragedies of the Greeks, which were set up so that some kind of commemoration of things done might be handed down to posterity; but they have far higher purposes. (p.139)

A journey with sacraments

I think that I became a paedobaptist for the second time (!) because I decided that every argument against it, if valid would also overturn circumcision, because the differences between the OT and the NT that were relied upon to distinguish the two were shown up to be no difference at all by Romans 9-11.

I think I've now come to a 'high' Lutheranish position for the same reason. Arguments about real presence and effectual rituals rely on seeing God as either free or bound. However the OT sees God as both ultimately free, but graciously choosing to bind himself in covenant to certain signs. In the OT he is seen as both as everywhere and residing in the Temple. It sees sacrifices as themselves effectual, and yet worse than pointless without repentance. How can you reconcile the two? I haven't got a clue. In that I am like Luther who said to Zwingli:

"I do not ask how Christ can be God and man and how His natures could be united. For God is able to act far beyond our imagination. To the Word of God one must yield. It is up to you to prove that the body of Christ is not there when Christ Himself says, 'This is my body.' I do not want to hear what reason says. I completely reject carnal or geometrical arguments..."