# I have a question for my Presbyterian PB brothers



## dudley (Apr 16, 2010)

I am a Presbyterian I was reading some A. H. Strong’s his Systematic Theology and he held that the Lord’s Supper and Baptism were the only two ordinances. I agree and although a Presbyterian I prefer to call the Lords Supper at least an ordinance and not a sacrament. By the ordinance he said “we mean those outward rites which Christ has appointed to be administered in his church as visible signs of the saving truth of the gospel. They are signs, in that they vividly express this truth and confirm it to the believer.

As a Presbyterian I believe that Christ becomes present spiritually in communion but To use an old Reformed term, Communion is also a "converting ordinance." Through Word and Sacrament together, the Holy Spirit communicates the gospel, brings us closer to God and one another, disciplines us, and empowers us for faithful living. I prefer the word ordinance because I believe it is basically a symbolic memorial of Christ’s atonement on Calvary for all who place their faith in Him.

The grace which is exhibited in or by the ordinance or sacrament, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them. but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

Perhaps as an ex roman catholic I am prone to think of the sacrament as a means of grace in itself which as a Protestant I reject. Maybe my problem lies there.

Do any of my Presbyterian brothers see any merit in the terminology of ordinance rather than sacrament?


----------



## au5t1n (Apr 16, 2010)

The thing is, there are other ordinances besides just the sacraments. It's kind of like squares and rectangles - all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Sacrament is a subcategory of ordinance. The two sacraments are ordinances, but there are other ordinances in Christ's church that do not meet the definition of a sacrament.

We also are fine with using "means of grace," which you called a Catholic thing. Again we have a case where the sacraments are a subcategory of "means of grace" - there are other means of grace besides the sacraments, such as the reading and preaching of the Word, corporate worship, prayer, etc.


----------



## dudley (Apr 16, 2010)

austinww said:


> The thing is, there are other ordinances besides just the sacraments. It's kind of like squares and rectangles - all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Sacrament is a subcategory of ordinance. The two sacraments are ordinances, but there are other ordinances in Christ's church that do not meet the definition of a sacrament.
> 
> We also are fine with using "means of grace," which you called a Catholic thing. Again we have a case where the sacraments are a subcategory of "means of grace" - there are other means of grace besides the sacraments, such as the reading and preaching of the Word, corporate worship, prayer, etc.



Thank you Austin, I see your point. You helped me have a better understanding.


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 17, 2010)

Yes, an example of an ordinance of worship might be the taking of vows during ordination of officers, that is an ordinance of worship (as I understand it).

One reason to not get hung up on the term sacrament is that part of its definition is something that was instituted by the Lord Himself (e.g. baptism, Lord's Supper). The view of the latter is not implicit in the term.

You are most correct that a reformed "high view" of the sacraments involves both the dispensing of actual grace (unmerited favor) and Christ's spiritual (not physical) presence.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 17, 2010)

Dudley,

You might find this useful: http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/strong-view-baptism-60052/#post776537


----------



## A.J. (Apr 17, 2010)

Hello Dudley, 

Baptism and the Lord's Supper are indeed "means of grace." But we must be wary not to think that since Roman Catholics use the word "sacrament," we Protestants can no longer use the same term for these two ordinances. After all, Roman Catholics (like us Protestants) use the word "Trinity" too to describe the God of Scripture and we don't find any problems using that theological term. 

The Reformed confessions consistenly use the word "sacrament" in referring to baptism and the Lord's Supper. And yet at the same time they faithfully distinguish the Reformed view from that of the Roman Catholic. The word "sacrament" thus is a not only a historic term. The use of the word itself is a matter of confessional importance. 

While the Reformed view baptism and the Lord's Supper as "means of grace," they are *never* separated from the preached Word of God. On this matter alone, the Reformed have set themselves at odds (and rightly so) against the unbiblical "ex opere operato" view taught by Rome. 

Blessings,


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 17, 2010)

I also think it's useful not to think that Reformation="Let's start all over because everything over the last 1500 years is completely wrong."

That's sort of the pedestrian view as if the Reformers held no esteem for Church Fathers and simply struck out on their own and their exegesis and Reforms and ideas were completely devoid of things that came before them.

It was a Reform and not a re-Invention. There are many words and ideas that get muddied by false ideas but, instead of abandoning words that have been in use by the Church for millenia, it's better to reform their use rather than abandon them because of whatever baggage we might have when we once walked in darkness.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 17, 2010)

You may find this definition of "sacrament" by Francis Turretin to be helpful (see here for the article):



> In defining a sacrament, we follow Paul, who, speaking of circumcision, says, it is "a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith" (Rom. 4:11). This is a generic definition and is rightly ascribed to the species. Therefore, this torch throwing its light before us, we say: "The sacraments are the signs and seals of the grace of God in Christ." Or a little more explicitly: "Sacred visible signs and seals divinely instituted to signify and seal to our consciences the promises of saving grace in Christ and in turn to testify our faith and piety and obedience towards God." In this definition, the nature of the sacraments is made clearly known from their causes (concerning which something must be said didactically before we treat them argumentatively).


----------



## larryjf (Apr 17, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> You are most correct that a reformed "high view" of the sacraments involves both the dispensing of actual grace (unmerited favor) and Christ's physical presence.


 
I would say the "spiritual" presence of Christ rather than "physical." Do you have any references to the "physical" presence being promoted in the Reformed Church?


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 17, 2010)

dudley said:


> I am a Presbyterian I was reading some A. H. Strong’s his Systematic Theology and he held that the Lord’s Supper and Baptism were the only two ordinances. I agree and although a Presbyterian I prefer to call the Lords Supper at least an ordinance and not a sacrament. By the ordinance he said “we mean those outward rites which Christ has appointed to be administered in his church as visible signs of the saving truth of the gospel. They are signs, in that they vividly express this truth and confirm it to the believer.
> 
> As a Presbyterian I believe that Christ becomes present spiritually in communion but To use an old Reformed term, Communion is also a "converting ordinance." Through Word and Sacrament together, the Holy Spirit communicates the gospel, brings us closer to God and one another, disciplines us, and empowers us for faithful living. I prefer the word ordinance because I believe it is basically a symbolic memorial of Christ’s atonement on Calvary for all who place their faith in Him.
> 
> ...


 
Ordinance is a fine word, properly understood, as is sacrament. I see no reason to disdain either's usage, and my usual problem is with those who wish to reject 'sacrament' as implying crypto-romanism, or those who reject the word 'ordinance' as implying mere memorialism or symbolism. 

I do have a significant issue, though, with the term "converting ordinance" used of the sacraments (either one, though you only referred to the Lord's Supper in this way). I don't think that has much solid Reformed historical traction. Certainly Baptism is no "converting ordinance", and neither is the Lord's Supper. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are signs and seals of God's grace - the Lord's Supper is not to be given to non-believers. I've only heard the term "converting ordinance" from folks like Norman Shepherd, who argues that baptism is the act that converts a sinner to identity as a Christian. The only other reference to this kind of language is in Solomon Stoddard, who viewed the Lord's Supper as something that could function as a 'converting ordinance' to bring to faith those who had not professed formally (but had, through baptism as infants, been connected visibly to the church). His view was that formal profession of faith was not required for admission to the Table. I would NOT, therefore, take up Stoddard's usage as standing within the mainstream of Reformed orthodoxy. 

In my opinion, the only "converting ordinance", if it may be called this, is the Word of God. 

Perhaps I've misunderstood you, though - what did you mean by "converting ordinance", and to what were you referring when you called that term an "old Reformed term"? Do you have a reference for its usage?


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 17, 2010)

larryjf said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > You are most correct that a reformed "high view" of the sacraments involves both the dispensing of actual grace (unmerited favor) and Christ's physical presence.
> ...


 
or the term "real" presence, which I usually prefer... I don't know of any Reformed writers who would have argued for Christ being "physically" present in the Supper.


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 17, 2010)

larryjf said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > You are most correct that a reformed "high view" of the sacraments involves both the dispensing of actual grace (unmerited favor) and Christ's physical presence.
> ...


 
You're correct- I meant reformed believes in the "spiritual" presence of Christ at the Lord's Supper, not physical presence as does the Roman system. (corrected #4 above)

As Dudley stated.


----------



## dudley (Apr 19, 2010)

*Todd I was reading an article "The Lord's Supper at First Presbyterian Church"*

Originally Posted by toddpedlar


> Perhaps I've misunderstood you, though - what did you mean by "converting ordinance", and to what were you referring when you called that term an "old Reformed term"? Do you have a reference for its usage?



Todd I was reading an article "The Lord's Supper at First Presbyterian Church"

To use an old Reformed term, Communion is also a "converting ordinance." Through Word and Sacrament together, the Holy Spirit communicates the gospel, brings us closer to God and one another, disciplines us, and empowers us for faithful living. By employing all the senses, the Lord's Supper provides means for us to ...The Lord's Supper at First Presbyterian Church[/url] - Cached


---------- Post added at 04:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:42 AM ----------




Scott1 said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > Scott1 said:
> ...


 
Scott, 

As a Reformed Protestant I now believe as Calvin taught concerning the Lords Supper “That the sacred communion of flesh and blood by which Christ transfuses his life into us, just as if it penetrated our bones and marrow, he testifies and seals in the Supper, and that not by presenting a vain or empty sign, but by there exerting an efficacy of the Spirit by which he fulfills what he promises.” 

I am nourished when I commune in the Reformed Protestant fold because I believe as Calvin said, "In his Sacred Supper he bids me take, eat, and drink his body and blood under the symbols of bread and wine. I do not doubt that he himself truly presents them, and that I receive them." (Inst. 4.17.32)

Calvin believed it was not just a "matter of faith" but the grace received in partaking in Christ himself was a fruit of faith (cf. 4.17.5).

The bread and wine or juice remain juice and Christ is not present under the species of the bread and wine as Lutherans believe nor does the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ as Roman Catholics believe. The presence of Christ becomes a nourishing presence to us because of our faith and common fellowship and communion with and in Him and the symbols of bread and wine represent that fellowship which Christ gave us in the ordinance of the Lords Supper as a Passover meal with his apostles.


----------



## dudley (Apr 20, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> You may find this definition of "sacrament" by Francis Turretin to be helpful (see here for the article):
> 
> 
> 
> > In defining a sacrament, we follow Paul, who, speaking of circumcision, says, it is "a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith" (Rom. 4:11). This is a generic definition and is rightly ascribed to the species. Therefore, this torch throwing its light before us, we say: "The sacraments are the signs and seals of the grace of God in Christ." Or a little more explicitly: "Sacred visible signs and seals divinely instituted to signify and seal to our consciences the promises of saving grace in Christ and in turn to testify our faith and piety and obedience towards God." In this definition, the nature of the sacraments is made clearly known from their causes (concerning which something must be said didactically before we treat them argumentatively).


 
Tim thank you for the aricle on sacraments by Turetin it helped to clarify my thinking as a Protestant. A lot of the problems I was having with the word sacrament was the fault of the false and eroneous teachings I was brainwashed with as a roman catholic. The article helped me to undersatnd the notion and thinking of the "sacraments " of the Lords Supper and Baptism , the only two sacraments to begin with in the sense it is meant asa presbyterian Protestant "second, in particular of baptism and the holy Supper, which are the two sacraments of the New Testament instituted by Christ; third, of the five false and spurious ones added by Romanists"


----------

