erickinho1bra
Puritan Board Freshman
Hi yall, just curious what you guys think about this quote from Thomas Watson. Do you agree with him or disagree?
Lord's Supper > The Preached Word?
- Thread starter erickinho1bra
- Start date
- Status
As I read the quote, TW is saying not that the LS is qualitatively more excellent in every way to the preached word. But in a certain way, a significant way, yet it does excel. As a glass, rather than as a trumpet.
And in this way, also the LS takes the participant further than preaching alone. So it excels by, as it were, being icing upon the cake.
One of my favorite lessons of the LS: we do not get a different Christ, preaching or sacrament; but often we get him better by the latter.
And in this way, also the LS takes the participant further than preaching alone. So it excels by, as it were, being icing upon the cake.
One of my favorite lessons of the LS: we do not get a different Christ, preaching or sacrament; but often we get him better by the latter.
erickinho1bra
Puritan Board Freshman
Thank you for the reply, Reverend Bruce.
Regarding your understanding of TW's statement as quoted above, does it seem unreasonable to think that when TW says "The Word brings us to Christ; the sacrament builds us up in Him" that he is, at least, not saying that the LS is inferior to the Word?
| Word | Lord's Supper |
| Audible sermon | Visible sermon |
| Proclaims Christ | Represents Him |
| Engrafting | Confirming our faith |
| Brings us to Christ | Builds us up in Him |
Also, considering the few statements from TW listed in the table above, how would you respond from the Bible and theology to someone who says that other than being visible, the Word can do the same thing as the LS and therefore does not excel the preached Word?
TW is too brief, but Calvin and Robert Bruce explain it in terms of the medium that is more excellent for us because we are so easily led by our senses. The sacraments leave a more direct impression on us. But is is qualified that the "benefit" itself is tied to the Word. There is no benefit apart from the Word.
Like the word "excel," "inferior" has a range of meaning and precisely what is meant depends on intent. I agree TW's language quoted indicates rather the opposite of any hint that the LS is inferior to the word; he expressly says it excels the word. In another context, he might say the LS has some kind of inferior-relationship to the word; for example, if his intent is to say the word has priority with respect to time of delivery or in order.
That which comes second might be viewed as "inferior," just as the icing on the cake is "inferior" to the cake itself, less basic or after in time. But if you were choosing which cake to take, one with icing the other without, you might well prefer the one with the icing for reason of the icing. The icing by itself may be undesirable for some reason: it might make you sick to eat it plain. Superiority and inferiority are not qualities that necessarily inhere in an object or always define the relationship between two objects.
The word is often capable of fulfilling nearly the same general purpose as a sacrament; however the manner of the sacrament is not indifferent. And it is by the manner of the sacrament that its true purpose is fulfilled. For this reason, we make a great deal about delivering the LS to present communicants in the same manner that Jesus instituted the meal with his disciples. The reality is, the word may have one manner of "publicly portraying" Christ crucified for men to perceive, Gal.3:1; and the sacrament a different and possibly superior manner for a particular audience or occasion.
A picture may be worth a thousand words; but that is no truism. What quality is the picture? Is it related to the subject? Can the subject even be presented with a picture, many pictures, or a movie? The words may not be in the least bit dispensable, nor a thousand sufficient; or perhaps a poem can say better in just a few words what a picture cannot capture.
We must consider the design of the LS, not simply its constituent elements; or the presentation considered only in the tableaux. We must consider the commands pertaining and the promises attendant, and how God is pleased to work by the means he himself appointed. We are not wiser than God, to decide for ourselves if the LS is needful or not, or if it will fulfill its design and answer our need better than an alternative that seems sufficiently utilitarian. He has dictated, and we have the duty. He knows us all and individually better than we know ourselves, and he knows the sensible signs he gave are appointed for the good of his church, even the best for his church. Who in his right mind would question the Lord?
We both believe, in order to understand; and we do, in order to profit, despite any limitations we accept in apprehension of how God accomplishes his aim or why he prefers avenue A to avenue B. We know nothing yet as we ought to know, 1Cor.8:2. This fact should make us humble, and compliant. When we know enough as babes to put our own food in our mouths, we proceed to feed our bellies without any fuller comprehension. We do not wait until we have a nutrition degree, a cooking habit, a grocery list, and an alimentary canal flowchart before we agree we have enough trustworthy information finally to eat our daily bread.
God wills for us to use all five senses in worship sometime, though he gives one kind of priority to the preached word. He summons us, with one degree of frequency or another, to sup with him and take the benefit of his presence in that manner. It cannot be otherwise than this is most excellent and will accomplish more than endlessly setting by every opportunity, even if we protest to him that we suppose we are doing as well with just the preaching, thank you. If we do this, how long until the master of the feast takes offense at us? Do we not sound already like the invitees, Lk.14:18ff?
JH
Puritan Board Sophomore
Echo'ing what was stated earlier by Rev. Winzer, the key terms in the quotation are visible and represent[ation]. I would not interpret his statement as the Lord's Supper excels the preached word in an absolute sense, anymore than the statement "The Word brings us to Christ; the sacrament builds us up in Him." would mean that the two are mutually exclusive, as if the word does not also confirm and build a believer up in the faith; they both go hand in hand. One thing we can say for certain however, is that the sacrament is dependent upon the word, but the word is not dependent upon the sacrament.
For example, man was made both body and soul. The soul can live without the body, but the body without the soul is dead. The body is dependent upon the soul, but the soul is not dependent upon the body, so it is with the Word and Supper; this is not to downplay the Supper, but it is to give the Word its proper place.
If the Supper is contingent and dependent upon the Word, it is logically impossible for the Supper to excel the Word in an absolute sense.
For example, man was made both body and soul. The soul can live without the body, but the body without the soul is dead. The body is dependent upon the soul, but the soul is not dependent upon the body, so it is with the Word and Supper; this is not to downplay the Supper, but it is to give the Word its proper place.
If the Supper is contingent and dependent upon the Word, it is logically impossible for the Supper to excel the Word in an absolute sense.
faithandfreedom
Puritan Board Freshman
JH
Puritan Board Sophomore
Though separation of body and soul be a product of the fall, that still wouldn't nullify the point. The fact that the soul is animate (active and alive) apart from the body should suffice to show it isn't dependent upon it. The same cannot be said of the body. This was meant to be an analogy to the Supper and ministered Word. The primacy and contingency of one upon the other, however, is not a result of the Fall, but God's wisdom and goodness.
If it is of any help, there are other things we haven't touched upon as examples. How the the acts of worship preside in the soul, and not the body. How the excellency of Christ lies not in what he looked like, but who he was. How the soul of Christ's sufferings, where primarily the sufferings of his soul; how joy in heaven primarily consist in the joys of the soul, such as the experimental knowledge of God, the beatific vision; how the sufferings of the damned though great in body, nevertheless excel in their souls, goodness spurned, mercy rejected, all hope irrecoverably lost, "Son, Remember.." and on it goes. But I was trying to be as a succinct as possible.
Nevertheless, I do appreciate your input because your angle about to fall was something I honestly never thought of, though it is a plain truth.
faithandfreedom
Puritan Board Freshman
It depends what we mean by “alive”, whilst our soul is separated from the body our persons are in a state of death. I think it is wrong to say that the soul has primacy over the body.
Is this necessarily so? I believe that worship presides in the whole person, body and soul. We sing and pray using our bodies to make a joyful sound and use our brains to come up with intelligible words with which to worship God. The sacraments are physical acts and this is no less important than their “spiritual” aspect.
And he was a human person, body and soul. His body was as important as his soul. The fact that his body was preserved from having legs broken on the cross alludes to this.
How can we be sure of this? Was it not necessary for him to suffer equally in body and soul in order to redeem us?
I’m not sure about this. I believe that our joy will be just as much in the body as in the soul. This is why the whole Earth awaits the return of Christ, so that our bodies will be reunited with our souls. I don’t think “heaven” will be a place where we just float around in ecstasy (not accusing you of saying this), but we will be physically present on the new Earth, active in the body that has been so transformed by Christ
When Christ rose from the dead his soul was reunited with his body - this is the state that we are destined for.
How can you be of sure of this?
As you say, I think these points all have implications for our view of the supper.
JH
Puritan Board Sophomore
From the totality of Scripture's testimony, and the aforementioned principles. Seeing it's rather outside the scope of the Word and Supper, perhaps it's something you could look more into. I still retain the major premise that the Supper is dependent upon the Word, as our forefathers also did. If dependent, then it doesn't excel it.
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
I hear what Watson is saying. I hear what Bruce is saying and Matthew and others. But I'm gonna just come out and say: the sacraments are 100% and completely subordinate to the preached Word. Always. Important, yes... but subordinate. And I think we need to drill down on that. Always. As creatures are want to do, precisely because we are in-fleshed creatures, we gravitate continually towards prioritizing that which can be perceived and experienced with the physical senses. So the recurring danger in any sacramental thinking that must be guarded against is in over-estimating the significance of the sacrament because once given an inch, pretty soon, the sign becomes a stumbling block.
The sacrament is real and meaningful, and it signs and seals grace... but it is entirely and completely subordinate to the Word. Faith comes by hearing, not by getting wet or by eating. All day, every day.
The sacrament is real and meaningful, and it signs and seals grace... but it is entirely and completely subordinate to the Word. Faith comes by hearing, not by getting wet or by eating. All day, every day.
Last edited:
Rom
Puritan Board Junior
Yes. Helpful to just state it that bluntly. The apostle himself said:
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1 Corinthians 1:17–18 KJV
erickinho1bra
Puritan Board Freshman
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Sanctifying, not regenerating grace. Note that sacraments do not create faith, and faith is the essential thing. And faith comes by hearing.
The Word is necessary - and therefore superior - the Sacraments are important - though not ultimately necessary, and therefore subordinate - a point
acknowledged in WCF 28.5.
The Word proclaimed is paramount. 1Cor 1:17-18 makes that clear. Rom 10:9-15 make it abundantly clear.
Last edited:
erickinho1bra
Puritan Board Freshman
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
You are completely off base from get-go. Your use of the word “affect” betrays you.
Have a nice day!
erickinho1bra
Puritan Board Freshman
Reverend, with all due respect, if I am off base please correct me.
You said the sacraments confer sanctifying grace but not regenerative grace. That made me think that you were thinking of the Ordo Salutis. Was I incorrect? Do the sacraments "affect" (please let me know if that is an innacurate word) sanctification per your earlier words? If so, what other areas are influenced or impacted by the sacraments?
We are embodied creatures. The Word itself takes our embodied reality and speaks to us accordingly. It doesn't magically speak to our souls. It addresses us according to our senses. It gives us hope that one day we ourselves are going to experience the things we believe from the Word as full embodied realities. Then it takes two very real and fundamental elements and sets them apart from a common to a sacred use. It gives us an embodied foretaste of those realities. The Word itself does not do this on its own. It does it through the sacrament. The sacrament adds something special you will not find in the Word, although it is based in the Word with its authority and efficacy. It is this "sacramental speciality" that Calvin, Robert Bruce, and Thomas Watson speak to.
faithandfreedom
Puritan Board Freshman
faithandfreedom
Puritan Board Freshman
A couple of thoughts - feel free to take them or leave them.
If anything I think the danger is that we give too little weight to the sacraments and rob them of their power.
Christ instituted the sacraments and hence their efficacy comes directly from the Word of God; that is Christ. I think to set the issue up the word of God (scripture) having primacy is incorrect. The scripture only has any authority because it is the Word of God, likewise the sacraments.
Neither has primacy in my mind. Scripture is the Word of God that is addressed to our mind, which is part of our body and soul. LS is the Word of God that addresses us through a different means, but still conveys saving grace to our body and soul.
When we partake of the Supper, we are feeding on the body and blood of Christ in a “real” sense, thus we are feeding in The Word of God. This is a a gift given to us of God and there appears nothing wrong with fully embracing that.
If anything I think the danger is that we give too little weight to the sacraments and rob them of their power.
Christ instituted the sacraments and hence their efficacy comes directly from the Word of God; that is Christ. I think to set the issue up the word of God (scripture) having primacy is incorrect. The scripture only has any authority because it is the Word of God, likewise the sacraments.
Neither has primacy in my mind. Scripture is the Word of God that is addressed to our mind, which is part of our body and soul. LS is the Word of God that addresses us through a different means, but still conveys saving grace to our body and soul.
When we partake of the Supper, we are feeding on the body and blood of Christ in a “real” sense, thus we are feeding in The Word of God. This is a a gift given to us of God and there appears nothing wrong with fully embracing that.
TheInquirer
Puritan Board Junior
All the appeals I see to the Lord’s Supper being greater come from theologians and not from the Word of God itself. I personally think this is one aspect of Reformed theology that gets very extra biblical.
1 Cor. 10:16-17, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread."
To be clear, the Word makes very bold, clear, and profound statements about the sacrament of the Lord's supper; but I think we were discussing more the theology that is framed around such statements. The Reformed view of spiritual presence means that the body and blood of Christ that we receive in the Lord's supper is real and true. It comes by the Holy Spirit ministering to our faith through the "means" of the sacrament. Our whole understanding of this comes from the Word, but the experience itself is specific to the Lord's supper.
I would also clarify, again, that my understanding is that the "superiority" is only in the means by which we subjectively experience what it fitted to our senses. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God; but that faith is nourished by visible and sensible signs in the sacrament. That gives the sacrament a speciality we do not receive from the Word in and of itself.
TheInquirer
Puritan Board Junior
I think that is moving toward a more balanced view.
Yes, we just tend to get into quote battles (and even worse - conjecture) on the board which doesn't necessarily get us any closer to the truth if we leave out the Word of God itself. Regarding method - Our theology must start with, end with, and be guided by the Word of God throughout the entire process. Not every theologian stays disciplined in their theologizing and sometimes we fail to critique these shortcomings while getting caught up with appeals to authority that are not ultimate or decisive.
In the Reformed tradition we speak of the Word of God in a derivative sense as the substance of what we confess the Word teaches. Many times the "matter" discussed is on that confessional basis because we have "settled" on the meaning of the Word; but certainly when there is a controversy it must be settled by the judgment of the Holy Spirit speaking in the Word itself.
- Status
Similar threads
