# What are the best books on the sacraments?



## DanielC (Mar 7, 2006)

Is there a definitive reformed work on either baptism or the Lord's Supper, or on both sacraments in general? I feel fine about studying Bannerman on the Church or Buchanan on Justification or Witsius on the covenant or Smeaton on the atonement, etc., but what should fill that space on my bookshelf reserved for the sacraments?

With all due respect, no baptist or padeocommunion books please!

Thanks!


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 7, 2006)

Keith Mathison, _Given for you: Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord Supper_. I doubt it is the best, but I like Mathison and have found this very helpful.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 7, 2006)

Indeed, Mathison's work sets out Calvin's view on the Supper in particular, and the nature of its "efficacy" (which is essentially Westminster's view as well).

If you're looking for a book that speaks a good deal on the biblical concept and meaning of sacraments overall - especially as differentiated from the common evangelical view of today - try Michael Horton's _In the Face of God_. It is really about Reformed spirituality as a whole, and thus touches on other relating themes alongside just the sacraments, such as their relationship to the Word, doctrine's role in the everyday believer's relationship with God, the spiritual role of the Church and thus the means of grace it is responsible for dispensing.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 7, 2006)

It's worth reading the Consensus Tigurinus.


----------



## DanielC (Mar 7, 2006)

Thanks! I've read most of Mathison before, and I was just looking at the Consensus a couple days ago - so is our general consensus that Calvin is the best source on the Supper? Has anyone read Ezekiel Hopkins or James Candlish on the sacraments?

What about baptism? John Murray?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by DanielC_
> Thanks! I've read most of Mathison before, and I was just looking at the Consensus a couple days ago - so is our general consensus that Calvin is the best source on the Supper? Has anyone read Ezekiel Hopkins or James Candlish on the sacraments?
> 
> What about baptism? John Murray?



Go ahead and read Murray. It is not long nor complicated.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 8, 2006)

There are tons of books on this subject. Why not go to www.cvbbs.com and search on "sacraments?"


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 8, 2006)

Ronald S. Wallace, _Calvin's Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament,_ 1997 Wipf and Stock reprint of orig. 1982 pub. 253 pp, pb. This would definitely be worth getting, but you'll have to ask elsewhere for a comparison to Matthison. I would buy this one first, rather than Matthison.

_A Sacramental Catechism,_ by John Willison $22.50 | Hardcover | 366 pages | Soli Deo Gloria First published in 1720.

I don't have this resource, but it looks good:
Robert Bruce, _The Mystery ofthe Lord's Supper,_ trans. and ed. by Thomas F. Torrance (Richmond, John Knox Pres, 1958)


----------



## New wine skin (Mar 9, 2006)

Daniel
Since your at WTS Dallas, just ask the dean for the bibliography of "Doctrine of the church", taught by Dr Ferguson. 

blessings


----------



## DanielC (Mar 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by New wine skin_
> Daniel
> Since your at WTS Dallas, just ask the dean for the bibliography of "Doctrine of the church", taught by Dr Ferguson.
> 
> blessings



Thanks! I've taken Doctrine of the Church, but the Sacraments is actually covered in Doctrine of Salvation II - which I'm taking now, and was thinking about writing a paper for it on the Lord's Supper. I have a few lists of "good" books on it, but was just wondering if there was one or two in particular that is considered the "best" - you know, the book one would want to own and reference throughout one's ministry.


----------



## DanielC (Mar 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> _A Sacramental Catechism,_ by John Willison $22.50 | Hardcover | 366 pages | Soli Deo Gloria First published in 1720.



Hmm... I think I like the sound of this one! I love the catechism writing style. Thanks! Do you know if he falls along the lines of Calvin or departs from him (in terms of spiritual presence - concerning which I understand Calvin was quite nuanced, unlike most modern simplifications of presence in Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli)...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 18, 2006)

I just picked up the Mathison book--got a good discount on it b/c it was damaged.

It looks like it will be a good book generally, _however_ (and here I want to make explicit what I was afraid to write about the book sight-unseen, but which I can now confirm):

Near the end of the book, he addresses the issue of paedocommunion. He does not take any clear stand on the issue, which to my mind is suspicious. He does advise proponents of PC to respect the authority of their ecclesiastical overseers. Good.

This is not good:


> [PC] has been the focus of debate within several denominations, including such conservative Reformed denominations as the [CRC], the [OPC], and the [PCA]. All three of these denominations studied the issue in the 1980s and decided against [PC]....
> p. 316
> 
> *Evaluation of the Arguments*
> ...


These brash assertions must be contradicted.

What Mathison is basically saying is that all the recent reports, all the historic confessions, all the practice of the church--none of this amounts to anything like "deep exegetical and theological reflection." What an outrageous claim. What an absurd claim!

There are still people promoting Arianism and Pelagianism today, although perhaps not under those nicknames. Does this mean that "some of the serious questions raised by proponents of *[Arianism or Pelagianism]* have not only not been adequately answered, but have not been dealt with at all" ? Please. For all his talk of submission to the rule of the church, this language style is but _doubt-casting_ on historic creeds and confessions, if not the integrity of those who have sought to address the matter in just the ways demanded.

The fact is that _certain people_ who approve of [PC] haven't been moved from off of their commitment to the practice by past arguments that have been presented against the practice--exegetical, theological, and historical arguments. OK, FINE. For similar *lack of persuasion* there are paedo-baptist churches and credo-baptist churches. And Reformed churches and Arminian churches. And ordinary-means-of-grace churches and charismatic churches. And they are going to stay separate churches too, until disagreement on what the Bible teaches on these matters is resolved.

The fact that some of these disagreements exists within certain denominations is not a sign that that church does not have clearly defined standards about what is acceptable and what is not. Rather it may indicate a clear lack of comprehension of those standards, or will to stand by those standards, or determination to enforce those standards.

The fact that persons keep writing on the subject, promoting the subject, gaining "audience share" in this day of internet blogage and mini-publishing empires, proves absolutely NOTHING about the merits of continued agitation on the issue. How many more responses, studies, and denominational declarations does the author think will be sufficient to provide a "critical mass" of thought upon the matter?

Will it be when _Mr. Mathison_ is finally moved off his position, whichever it may be?


----------

