Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Are Sacraments Fundamental?
Are Sacraments Fundamental?
I was once talking with a friend of mine from Dublin, who attends Union Theological College in Belfast, about the idea that baptism was a secondary issue. He said that this topic had been discussed among some of his fellow clerical students, and one of them had commented that baptism was a secondary issue and all that mattered was that we were all friends with Jesus. To which my friend replied, "So, baptism is a secondary issue? Ahh, right, so why did Jesus put it in the Great Commission?" He is right. A gospel devoid of the sacraments does not do full justice to the gospel advocated by biblical Christianity.
Absolutely, the sacraments are gospel issues. But after reading the article my reaction is to ask how we determine which aspects of the sacraments are fundamental aspects and which are matters of indifference.
For example, we might decide that whether the Supper elements are passed down the pews or partakers come forward to receive them is a matter where differences in practice are allowed, but intinction and paedo-communion are not. How do we decide where each of these falls? I agree with the positions you take, but wonder how to decribe the criteria used to get there.
I think I might suggest that intinction may be better approached from the issue of Liberty of Conscience and the RPW. Certainly the Gospel comes into play because, as the Father's redeemed children, we would want to obey His command in worship (RPW). Arguing for the historicity of a practice or its pragmatic value are more Anglican than Presbyterian approaches to the question. What disturbs me (and i know disturbs you) is that there is a double problem when we ask both whether God has commanded the Lord's Super in a certain way and then combine that question with the issue of the conscience of the recipient. I, like you, would not be able to participate in the Lord's Supper in a Church that practices intinction. All of the arguments about how this was practiced in the past or whether it might be a better way to express the "common cup" motif of Scripture don't fly. I believe the Lord institued Bread for eating and Wine for drinking. Sacramentally, each sacremantally unite the believer to a distinct spiritual reality and are intended to raise our physical senses toward that end.
It is not "question begging" at all. The issue of the RPW and Liberty of Conscience are mutually reinforcing. On the one hand, the Church is not free to worship the Lord in any way that God has not commanded and, on the other, they are prohibited from requiring worship on the basis that they are the Church and that the worshiper simply has to "get over' the issue.II. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his Word, or beside it in matters of faith on worship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.
Where did I argue for a "naked" liberty of conscience? I argued for liberty of conscience and naturally assumed that my use of the term would be understood to be according to WCF 20. If there was any doubt as to what I meant by the phrase, I responded to your "question begging" charge by quoting the very portion I had in mind when I originally responded in this thread. The point, once again, is that both are mutually reinforcing. Once can neither ignore the RPW on the grounds that one is not free to worship in any way not prescribed by the Word nor can any Church bind a man's conscience to something where the Word has left it free. If one reason is not enough for a minister to think twice before innovating in worship then perhaps a second reason might give him pause. One reason is God-ward (not wanting to offend God) while the other is toward our fellow brothers (not wanting to command a thing not in the Word of God).The WCF qualifies liberty of conscience as leaving the conscience free from "any thing contrary to his Word or beside it." I don't see it as being concerned for a naked liberty of conscience.
I don't know what you mean by recognizing that the sacraments are fundamental as to resolution. I think I've distinguished what I mean by "fundamental" in the sense that some things don't strike at the vitals of religion but merely at a system of doctrine. I don't think Baptists destroy the Sacrament altogether when they have a memorialist view but they impoverish the Sacrament. I don't think intinction completely destroys the Sacrament but abuses "take and eat" and "take and drink" and severely impoverishes the Sacrament and sins against the Lord. I see grape juice vs. wine as a different category. Sacraments are intended to raise our physical senses to something spiritual and the sacramental actions are given toward that end. It's one thing to substitute wine for another form of the "fruit of the vine" and quite another do do away with drinking and eating.If a member abstains from communion because his conscience requires wine and not grape juice, should he be disciplined, or should the church change its practice? It is not enough to ignore the situation, and I'm not sure how recognizing that the sacraments are fundamental resolves the issue.
I find James Bannerman's distinction informative and helpful for recognising first and second class fundamentals. There are things for which the church is instituted and there are things which are instituted for the church. Proclamation of the truth would fall into the first category whilst sacraments and discipline would fall into the second.
I find James Bannerman's distinction informative and helpful for recognising first and second class fundamentals. There are things for which the church is instituted and there are things which are instituted for the church. Proclamation of the truth would fall into the first category whilst sacraments and discipline would fall into the second.
Where can one find Bannerman's distinction?
Secondly, there is a distinction not less important to be borne in mind, in connection with this matter, between the things for which the Church was instituted, and the things that have been instituted for the Church.
we learn that the very object for which the Church of Christ was established on the earth was to declare and uphold the truth, with all its spiritual and saving blessings, among mankind, — that truth which exhibits at once the glory of God, and in harmony and connection with that, the salvation of the sinner. For this thing, then, the Church of Christ was instituted; and this thing, or the declaration of the truth, must therefore be, in its nature and importance, paramount to the Church itself. Again, we read in Scripture that Christ "gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." In other words, we learn that ordinances and office-bearers have been established for the object of promoting the well-being and edification of the Church. These things, then, unlike the former, were instituted for the sake of the Church, and not the Church for the sake of them; and these things, therefore, must be, in their nature and importance, subordinate to the Church.
If the Christian Church has been established and maintained in the world for the sake of this thing, then we cannot err in making it to be fundamental and necessary, not only to the perfection, but to the very existence, of a Church at all. If, on the other hand, this thing falls to be reckoned among those that have been instituted for the sake of the Church, then we may affirm that it is necessary for its well-being and advantage, but we cannot affirm that it is essential to its being.
we learn that the very object for which the Church of Christ was established on the earth was to declare and uphold the truth, with all its spiritual and saving blessings, among mankind, — that truth which exhibits at once the glory of God, and in harmony and connection with that, the salvation of the sinner. For this thing, then, the Church of Christ was instituted; and this thing, or the declaration of the truth, must therefore be, in its nature and importance, paramount to the Church itself.
In other words, we learn that ordinances and office-bearers have been established for the object of promoting the well-being and edification of the Church.
How can the Sacraments not be paramount to the Church itself by its very nature?
Where did I argue for a "naked" liberty of conscience? I argued for liberty of conscience and naturally assumed that my use of the term would be understood to be according to WCF 20. If there was any doubt as to what I meant by the phrase, I responded to your "question begging" charge by quoting the very portion I had in mind when I originally responded in this thread. The point, once again, is that both are mutually reinforcing. Once can neither ignore the RPW on the grounds that one is not free to worship in any way not prescribed by the Word nor can any Church bind a man's conscience to something where the Word has left it free. If one reason is not enough for a minister to think twice before innovating in worship then perhaps a second reason might give him pause. One reason is God-ward (not wanting to offend God) while the other is toward our fellow brothers (not wanting to command a thing not in the Word of God).The WCF qualifies liberty of conscience as leaving the conscience free from "any thing contrary to his Word or beside it." I don't see it as being concerned for a naked liberty of conscience.