10 Commandments, Bible, Christian Living, Westminster Confession of Faith

The Christian and God’s Law

1 Comment

Ten Commandments

“The law sends us to the Gospel that we may be justified; and the Gospel sends us to the law again to inquire what is our duty as those who are justified.”[1]

Recently the topic of the relationship between the Law and the Christian has been occupying a significant amount of my thoughts. That is for two main reasons: 1. I read Charles Leiter’s book The Law of Christ; and, 2. I am preaching through the book of Romans. Why have these things made me consider God’s Law?

First, Charles Leiter’s book is antinomian. That does not mean he is unconcerned with holiness or urging Christians to a righteous life. It is antinomian because Leiter dismisses God’s Law. His basic premise is that the Law (ceremonial, civil, and moral) is abrogated and serves only as an example for the new covenant Christian, unless explicitly repeated in the New Testament. To be renewed by the Holy Spirit, argues Leiter, means the heart is changed and there is a desire to imitate Christ. Therefore the Law is no longer needed. That book forced me to think about the abiding use of the Law from the perspective of someone who would remove it.

Second, preaching through Romans makes me think about the Law, but for a very different reason. Paul is constantly talking about the law. Romans has been divided into 433 verses. 51 of those, or 12% of the verses, mention the word “law”. Sixty-six of those 78 mentions are in the first seven chapters. Of those 51 verses which mention the Law, 41 appear in the first seven chapters. There are 186 verses in those chapters, which means that 22% of the verses in the first seven chapters of Romans use the word “law”. That is a major theme. But in this book, the Law is not being cancelled. Paul is helping the Christian think of the right use of the Law in his life. The Law cannot be used unto salvation, but salvation encourages a right use of the Law.

All of these things have caused me to be refreshed by the Biblical teaching that the free offer of the gospel does not negate the Law’s usefulness for the Christian. There are many Scriptural references to support this way of thinking:

John 14:15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.”

Romans 3:31 “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.”

Romans 8:7 “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.”

1 John 3:4 “Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.”

Texts like these have formed the foundation for the protestant Christian’s belief in the abiding value of God’s Law. The universal nature of this acceptance can be seen in the theological documents that were formulated throughout the Protestant Reformation.

The Sixteenth Century

The Heidelberg Catechism was published in 1563, written primarily by Zacharias Ursinus. It quickly came to be viewed as the best summation of the teachings of reformed Christianity and continues to be used and loved in many Reformed denominations. In Q. 3, the catechism establishes the Law as a convicting agent: “From where do you know your sins and misery? From the law of God.” It is commonly accepted that the Law functions in this way, but the catechism has more to say. It also describes life after the new birth, when man is renewed by the Holy Spirit. This life is the forgiven life, when man is pardoned for sin and declared righteous by faith in Christ. Describing that time, Q. 90 says, “What is the coming to life of the new nature? It is a heartfelt joy in God through Christ, and a love and delight to live according to the will of God in all good works.” And so as to make no mistake about the nature of these good works, the Catechism gives a clarifying definition in Q. 91: “But what are good works? Only those which are done out of true faith, in accordance with the law of God, and to his glory, and not those based on our own opinion or on precepts of men (Italics mine).” In the Heidelberg, the doing of good works which is part of the coming to life of the new nature, is defined by living in obedience to God’s Law.

At about the same time as the Heidelberg Catechism was published, another Confession, the Second Helvetic Confession was published in Zurich. It was authored by Heinrich Bullinger first for his personal use, but then letter as a summary of the teaching of the Reformed Churches in Zurich and beyond in 1566. This confession deals with the law in Chapter XII, “Of the Law of God”. There it says,

“HOW FAR THE LAW IS ABROGATED. The law of God is therefore abrogated to the extent that it no longer condemns us, nor works wrath in us. For we are under grace and not under the law. Moreover, Christ has fulfilled all the figures of the law. Hence, with the coming of the body, the shadows ceased, so that in Christ we now have the truth and all fulness. But yet we do not on that account contemptuously reject the law. For we remember the words of the Lord when he said: “I have not come to abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfil them” (Matt. 5:17). We know that in the law is delivered to us the patterns of virtues and vices. We know that the written law when explained by the Gospel is useful to the Church, and that therefore its reading is not to be banished from the Church. For although Moses’ face was covered with a veil, yet the apostle says that the veil has been taken away and abolished by Christ.”

In other words, the law is not given to justify a man in the sight of God, but rather to show to Him God’s definition of good and evil. The aim is that the man who trusts in Christ alone for salvation rightly understands the law as not causing his salvation, but as an explanation of the good a man should do and the evil he should leave off doing in light of that salvation.

The Seventeenth Century

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), The Savoy Declaration (1658), and the London Baptist Confession of 1689 are all 17th century theological summaries. The Westminster Confession of Faith forms the foundation for the latter two. The reason for including their mention is to show the broad agreement in Reformed churches on the issue of the Law. This agreement can be seen in that the Savoy and London Baptist both leave the language they borrow from the Westminster Confession on this subject unchanged:

“6 Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law; and, not under grace.

7 Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.”

In essence the Confession of Faith mirrors Romans in saying that the Law has no use leading up to man’s justification. To affirm law keeping as part of being pardoned and declared righteous would be to live under a Covenant of Works again. The Confession says that is not possible. Man comes to God by His grace, through faith in Jesus Christ only. However, the freedom Christ purchases for His people is not some moral autonomy. God defines a “rule of life” and defines good and evil. This definition is found in His Law. That is why Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” (Matt. 5:17). Those who are redeemed make it their delight to walk in these unchanged ways.

Conclusions

So is it right to say the Law of God has no further use? Certainly not. And I give the following reasons:

  1. The Bible does not teach such a thing, but rather shows the inadequacy of the Law unto salvation, but the benefit of the Law for the one saved by grace through faith only;
  2. The Reformed churches of many stripes and places all taught that the Law leads a man to Christ for salvation and afterwards is a guide for thankful, holy living;
  3. Though it is right to claim the heart of the Christian is made new and that he desires to live as Jesus did, it is impossible to separate the law out from that way of living. Even if imitation of Christ was the objective, Christ obeyed the Law perfectly. To imitate Christ is to live in obedience to the Law;
  4. A person who lays aside the Law rarely lives a life of greater dedication to Christ. It is usually done to allow a behavior that is prohibited under the law.

The Law of God is man’s friend if he is in Christ. It is not his master, and it cannot condemn him. But it does help as a good friend does. It directs him away from the things of the flesh because when he lives this way he is hostile to God (Romans 8:7). In that state he will not submit to God’s Law. Instead the Law informs him of God’s definitions of what is good and evil. And it helps him to see just how love for God in Christ should be expressed.

Samuel Bolton was right: “The law sends us to the Gospel that we may be justified; and the Gospel sends us to the law again to inquire what is our duty as those who are justified.”

[1] Samuel Bolton, The True Bounds of Christian Freedom (London: Banner of Truth, 1964) 76, 71, quoted in Charles Leiter, The Law of Christ(Hannibal, Missouri: Grand Ministries Press, 2012) 219.

Westminster Confession of Faith

Theological Thought » On Sin and Its Punishment

Leave a comment

“Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner.”
Westminster Confession of Faith 6.6

Chapter six of the Westminster Confession of Faith lays out what man did in God’s perfect creation. It answers the question of how this good world became such an awful place. 

The first thing established in this chapter is that even the fall of man is not outside of God’s control. God permitted Adam to eat the forbidden fruit. In fact it is part of God’s purpose for this world for the sake of His own glory.

The consequence of that sin is tremendous. Man is no longer righteous, but corrupt. He no longer is in communion with God but hostile toward Him. He is no longer alive, but dead in ever part.

What is more, the guilt of Adam’s sin, because he is the representative of the whole of humanity, is charged to every person who conceived in the normal way. This truth is often seen as unfair, and yet 1 Cor. 15:21-22 apply the same principle to man being credited with righteousness because of Christ, his representative.

Because man is no longer righteous, but corrupt, his inclinations are now also different. They are only evil, all the time which can be seen in the sinful acts he commits. This corruption remains also in the Christian and is manifest even in temptations that originate in man’s heart. In other words, the desire to sin is itself sinful.

That sin, whether Adam’s original sin, or man’s sins which flow from it, is enough to condemn man to God’s curse, wrath, and judgment. The good news is that God does not leave His people there. 

Children, Christian Living, Family Worship

Tips for Family Worship

Leave a comment

Christian parents, practice family worship, family devotions, or whatever it is that you would like to call it. There is an urgency to the responsibility of parents. And one of the things parents must take most seriously is the call to teach their children the word of God.

“Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.” (Ephesians 6:4)

I recognize the text says, “Fathers…” but this article is written in the context of the proliferation of divorce and single parent families. And in the homes where the father is not present or is neglecting his duty, the responsibility to fulfill this task falls to the mother or other primary care givers. So, to those who have been given responsibility to raise children, the Biblical mandate is that we are to be actively discipling them. There should be no expectation that you or your methods will be able to awaken the child’s heart, but it is good and right to plead with God that He would use your ministry to them in a saving way. And though this article will try to give some helps in the area of how family worship can be done, it is actually far more important that family worship is done.

Learning the skill of leading family worship is done “on the job.” If I can assume agreement that discipling your children is a worthwhile enterprise and that parents are generally speaking trying to make it happen (albeit imperfectly and maybe inconsistently), let me encourage you. As family worship is practiced, it will become easier and more natural. Personal styles will be developed, children will get used it as a feature of their home, and wonderful conversations about important truths will be had. However, there will be days when efforts to gather the family will seem like they are not helping anyone at all. In that day of discouragement, do not yield to the voice that whispers, “Why bother?” Press on, because God entrusts the responsibility to teach His children to parents. They have the blessing of scattering seed that may not sprout or bear fruit until years after it is sown. Who knows how God waters the seeds parents sow. But there must be a commitment to regular Bible study with the family. What if that commitment is not there? Where it is lacking it should be taken up. And where that discipline is inconsistent, it should be practiced more regularly. It is part of your parental example to your children as you prepare them to leave your home.

Having said all that, the aim of this article is not to make the case for family worship. Rather it is meant to provide encouragement for parents who are in the middle of it. By providing a few helps, parents can be greatly encouraged in their pursuit of teaching and applying God’s word in the lives of their children. So what are some things you can do to help family worship?

Make an appointment. In my experience family worship is most faithfully done when there is a regular set time for it. Most people are not likely to skip appointments. However, it has been my experience that people who set out to do family worship “when they get to it” struggle more with actually doing it. There are lots of opportunities for informal discussions about the things of the Lord throughout the day. And these are wonderful and good. But in these moments, an issue arises, either positive or negative, and parent either praises or corrects. However, the getting together, opening the Bible, and letting God’s word choose the topic happens best by setting aside a regular time. For some that will be waking the family first thing in the morning. For others it makes sense to schedule time right before bedtime. And others still take advantage of the family gathered for a meal. Whatever timing works best for your family, schedule a time.

Open the Bible and read it to your children. A person who trusts his profound lesson or great method will have missed the main reason for family worship: to teach God’s word to his children. The most important part of family worship is the clear, sincere, and eager reading of God’s word. Yes, the Word can and should be explained. Yes, how you engage your children matters. However, the key component to teaching children the Bible is…the Bible.

Consider the age of your children. One of the mistakes I made when I began family worship was expecting too much with my little kids when it came to family worship. Little kids are…little. Their attention spans are usually shorter and they lack the theological vocabulary that may have acquired in years of gradual study. For young children, keep the readings brief and focus on the accounts of Scripture. It is not wise to read devotionally to a three-year old from Calvin’s Institutes, or some other theological work. At the same time, as they mature, it is good and even necessary to have more significant conversations to find out if they have understood. It is important to explain and define significant theological terms. And when there are a variety of ages, these things will have to be held in balance. Do not simply teach to the lowest common denominator. Spend time addressing each group according to their age.

Do not overwhelm yourself with too much preparation. This tip may seem counter-intuitive. But it is a simple call to using time efficiently. There can be tremendous benefit to using what has already been studied. For example, thoughts that arise from personal devotions or rehearsing the message of the sermon preached the previous Lord’s Day are efficient uses of time. Certainly, there are seasons in which personal preparation for a certain study will greatly benefit the family. However, those who seek to reinvent the wheel each family worship lesson will be more prone to becoming wearied in the process. These will be more tempted to abandon the practice because they do not have the emotional energy to continue.

Include the children in the exercise. The goal of family worship is not just to have family worship. Rather it is to instill into children a knowledge of who God is and what duties He requires of His people. To that end, family worship should be highly interactive. Some examples:

    • Have the children read a part of the Scripture if they are able, even if it is just one verse.
    • Have them participate the prayer time, whether it be by asking for specific prayer requests, or if it is by having them offer their own prayer in turn.
    • Include singing if you can. For little ones sing “childish” Bible songs, even if you seem to sing it every night for one month. But also teach the songs most frequently sung in church services. For older ones, reinforce the songs of the saints and speak highly of them. If there are some family favorites that your local church does not sing, integrate them into family worship. If music is a struggle, have some good recorded music and singing available.
    • Ask questions of the children about what was read, and invite their questions. Answer them as you can but if you do not know the answer, admit it and tell them you will find the answer and get back to them. When you say that, you actually have to do it as well.

These suggestions are not the result of some scientific study or a careful survey. They come from about 27 years of practicing family worship in my home and time spent in pastoral ministry. Not all family worship will look the same. There will be variety based on each family’s personality. But family worship should be done as Christian parents seek to fulfill their biblical obligation to raise their children up in the knowledge of the Lord.

Belief about God, theology, Westminster Confession of Faith

Theological Thought » God’s Providence

Leave a comment

Divine providence. Even if it is difficult to define, all people interact with it every day. Chapter 5 of the confession defines some terms to help us understand. The first paragraph describes both the scope and category of the term “providence”. 

Firstly, the term “providence” is firmly in the category of governance. It indicates that God, as the Creator, governs His creation. Secondly, the scope of this governance is “over all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least.” This governance over all things is not dependent on anything, but only God’s will.

In the second paragraph the direct line between God and all events is firmly established.  Yet, though God is directly in control of all things, He makes them happen through “secondary causes”. That means God does not usually intervene in the world through miracles, but works through people and circumstances, though the third paragraph makes it clear He is not obliged to do so.

The fourth paragraph makes it clear that even the fall and man’s sins are subsumed under God’s providence. Without attempting to explain it, the Confession does clarify that God is not the author of sin.

The righteous are under this providence tested and sanctified by God, while the wicked have His grace withheld causing them to harden themselves. And finally God’s providence is over the church in a special way.

Not all of these things are easy to understand, but God’s providence shows His glory.

Uncategorized, Westminster Confession of Faith

Theological Thought » Creation

Leave a comment

the Creator seen in creation

The third chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith, deals with God’s decrees. In the Shorter Catechism (Q&A 8) we are taught that God’s executes His decrees in part through the work of creation, which is the subject of the Confession’s fourth chapter. 

It opens by summarizing the doctrine of creation from Scripture. It affirms God’s unique work of creating out of nothing, that His work of creation includes both the visible and invisible, that it took place in six days and that He created all things good. The goodness of God’s creation is central to what is taught in the next paragraph.

In emphasizing that man was good when he was created, the Confession shows that man was not inclined to evil as he is today, but was created righteous, knowing God and His Moral Law. And yet, God in His wisdom created man able to sin.

This explanation of creation shows man’s happy original state in relation to God. Man is able to satisfy the requirements of his Creator and as long as Adam adheres to these good commandments he is in peaceful communion with God. 

This original condition sets the stage for the wonder of God’s decrees as touching man’s salvation. In creation, man is given this special relationship with God, and also a place of prominence over the rest of creation, and yet is able to fall. 

Creation establishes man’s foundational relationship with  God. No wonder the world seeks to minimize its significance. 

Belief about God, theology, Westminster Confession of Faith

Theological Thought » God’s Decree

Leave a comment

The third chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith addresses the doctrine of God’s decree. Some of these truths are difficult to accept for some Christians, but they make us to dwell on the glory and power of God.

The first thing asserted in chapter 3 is that God ordains “whatsoever comes to pass.” To understand this truth there must be a clear distinction drawn between God making something necessary on the one hand and compulsory on the other.

For something to be necessary means the outcome cannot be avoided. That is what the Confession is saying about God’s decrees. However, that does not make the choice of man compulsory, in the sense that man is forced to do anything against his will.

What follows from that is that God never is responding. He does not make decisions based on gaining new information even through seeing things before they happen. However, the main controversy around this subject comes in its discussion on salvation.

The Confession teaches that God choses the eternal condition of all men and angels, whether it be heaven or hell. This choice is not based on what God knows about people, but according to His own purpose. People have difficulty accepting this truth.

Rather than making anyone boastful about receiving salvation, this doctrine should only serve to exalt the God who chooses and humble the person who receives salvation, because none are worthy of it.

Belief about God, theology, Westminster Confession of Faith

Theological Thought » On God

Leave a comment

The second chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith addresses the doctrine of God. 

The first paragraph deals with God’s attributes, both those which can be seen reflected in man (communicable attributes) and those which are unique only to God (incommunicable). The latter include His unchangeableness, and various aspects of His infinity, such as regarding time and space. These establish God as far greater than His creation and keep man from assuming some kind of peer-relationship with God who is highly exalted.

At the same time, God shows that His own image is placed on man. Man reflects his Creator in many ways, though the attributes of God that we mirror are not held in the same degree. Man may be wise, but God’s wisdom is without limit. Man may be merciful, but not to the same extent that God shows mercy. 

The second paragraph treats God’s independency, also called His aseity. God does not stand in need of anything to complete Him, neither does He gain any knowledge from His creation.

The third paragraph describes the mysterious nature of the Trinity: “three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity.” These are distinguished from each other by their properties.

Much more could be said, however the summary above is sufficient to direct man to worship. God’s greatness demands that His creation yields to Him any worship, service, or obedience He may require of it.

Bible, theology, Westminster Confession of Faith

Theological Thought » The Attributes of Scripture

Leave a comment

Bible Open

There are two basic categories any person needs to live in the presence of the God who created the heavens and the earth. First, he must know what he is to believe about God. Second, he must know how he should live before such a God. These two broad categories cannot be discerned from what is around us, and therefore it is imperative that any man begin with a study of the Bible.

The significance of the Bible is explained by many. Reformed Christians can turn to their confessions for a summary of what Scripture teaches about itself. The Westminster Confession of Faith is one such resource. Its first chapter deals with Scripture. It answers anyone who is asking what they should believe about the Bible.

First, it teaches that the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments are necessary. It explicitly rejects the apocryphal books adopted by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The 66 books of the Old and New Testaments are necessary that man would know God’s plan of salvation. What can be known about God in general revelation (nature, God’s providence in history) is not enough to teach us of Christ, repentance and salvation.

Second, the Bible is authoritative. There are many times when people demand proofs about what is said in God’s word. This demand essentially sets man up as judge over the Bible. However, since God is the Bible’s author, it is to be received, not challenged. In the Bible God sets down all that is necessary for faith and practice. As such the Bible is the final court of appeal for any belief or practice among God’s people.

Third, it is clear. All that is necessary to know God and holy living is clearly taught in the Bible. That does not mean that all parts of the Bible are equally easy to understand. However, the essential message of the is clear to all who would read the Bible. A child who applies themselves to read Scripture will understand that God is Creator, man is sinner, Christ is Redeemer, that holiness is expected, and that glory will be the final outcome for those who trust in God through Christ.

Fourth, it is inspired. Its content is breathed out by God Himself. Meaning that wherever the Bible asserts something as fact it is true. Keeping in mind that poetic sections are not to be read in a wooden, literal fashion, there are no errors in what God says to His people. That is true of all the Scriptures, not just in the concepts that it teaches but in every word that is spoken in it.

Fifth, Scripture in infallible. That means the Bible does not fail to accomplish its purposes. Its study accomplishes the redemption of God’s saints and the hardening of His enemies.

For a Christian, the Bible must be the starting point because it is only in his reading of what God has spoken that he can properly make sense of his life. Not only does he need it for knowing God, but also for how he must serve and worship Him.

church, sacraments, theology

The Second Presburg Colloquy: Radney and Gleason on Intinction and Tiers

4 Comments

On September 21, 2022, Pastor Derek Radney and I engaged in a debate on the subject of intinction, moderated by Brad Isbell of presbycast. You can watch the debate here. Subsequent to the debate there have been additional exchanges in the twitterverse, some of which have brough more heat than light. I am for public discourse, but only as a fair representation of a brother’s position. Since in the debate we were not able to deal with all the issues of intinction, I thought it appropriate to respond to Pastor Radney’s article in which he argues that intinction is legitimate and valid practice. To interact with the article is to interact with Pastor Radney’s stated position, as he has articulated it. As part of that article, he makes six arguments for intinction as allowable.

  1. Jesus did not command that we partake of bread and wine in two separate actions. 

I respond: I do not think the Scriptural data supports Pastor Radney’s claim. On the one hand it is true. Jesus never specifically says, “You must partake of the bread and wine in two separate actions.” However, Jesus does clearly lay out how the Lord’s Supper is to be ordered. Scripture gives the structure of the Supper four times: Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-23; and, 1 Cor. 11:23-29. In each text, eating the bread and drinking the cup are separate actions each with their own meaning. The bread is the body of Christ broken and the cup is the blood poured out. Pastor Radney does not believe Jesus had any mode of distribution in view. However, when He lays out the order of the supper He does so with two separate actions explicitly commanded: eating and drinking. So Pastor Radney’s statement is technically correct, but theologically wrong. Jesus does not command the church must partake of bread and wine in two separate actions. But He does not need to do so, because when He gives the structure of the Lord’s Supper He orders it with two separate actions.

  1. Intinction should not be rejected on the grounds of Regulative Principle of Worship because the words of the Gospels and 1 Cor 11 are not applied consistently.

As part of this larger point, Pastor Radney makes two sub-points. First, he identifies certain inconsistencies between the various accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper. For example, only Matthew’s account directly includes the language “Take, eat.” and “Drink of it.” Only in Luke’s account does Jesus tell the disciples to divide the cup (Luke 22:17). Only in Mark did the disciples drink the cup before Jesus explained its meaning. Second, he criticizes opponents of intinction as being inconsistent in their readings of those texts.

I respond: To his first point, inconsistencies between gospel accounts must be understood by harmonizing them. Absence of information in one gospel does not imply the other is incorrect. If Matthew’s account includes the commands to eat and drink, but Mark leaves it out, that does not mean that Matthew is wrong and Mark is right. The accounts are understood together, each pointing to the truth in a unique way. The gospel accounts of the institution, supplemented by the apostolic explanation in 1 Cor. 11:23ff clearly have agreement and command the following:

      • Eating the bread first;
      • Drinking the cup after supper.

His second sub-point has Pastor Radney question the clarity of the biblical command based on other issues surrounding the supper that are ignored by critics of intinction. He gives several examples: 1) There was likely only one loaf; 2) There was likely a communal cup; 3) The Lord’s Supper as part of the larger Passover communal meal; and, 4) The meal was likelyserved with wine not juice. And here he makes a hermeneutical point for his critics. The commands to eat and drink are clear and cannot be understood to mean something else. However, the argument for the common cup and loaf, wine, and the implications of the Supper coming out of the Passover are likely true. In other words, these issues lack the clarity of the explicit commands of Scripture which are giving regarding eating and drinking. Even if the church must wrestle through the less clear questions as well, it can begin by honoring the clear commands of Scripture regarding the celebration of this sacrament.

  1. There are practical reasons why a session might opt to administer communion by intinction.

I respond: Appealing to the pragmatic is a terrible way to do theology. There are plenty of examples from Scripture that prove this point. What might be some practical reasons that a priest might alter the recipe for the incense to be offered in the tabernacle (Cf. Lev 10:1ff; Ex 30:9)? What might be some practical reasons that the Levites might move the ark on a cart rather than carry it on poles (2 Sam 6:5ff; Ex 25:14)? What might be some practical considerations that would justify Israel’s delay in invading the promised land (Num 13:1ff)? Of course, each example shows that obedience to God’s commands overrides any practical consideration that might be brought to bear. Pragmatism is never praised in Scripture because it tends to place what works over what is commanded.

  1. Nothing is lost in the significance of each element or the meal as a whole by partaking of the elements together.

I respond:  The testimony of all Reformed theologians affirms that the distinct consumption of the elements is necessary to preserve what they symbolize. Many prominent voices have argued for the urgency of the spiritual significance of each element of the meal celebrated distinct from the other. Below are two sample quotes:

“It is to that end that in the Supper the body and blood are depicted separately, each by a sign of its own. To that end Christ expressly states that his body was given and his blood shed for the forgiveness of sins. To that end the significance of the blood is even explained at greater length in the words of institution than that of the body, for it is the blood that makes atonement for sins on the altar. Even though Christ is worshiped, the communion that is realized through faith and is strengthened through the Lord’s Supper is and remains a communion with his crucified body and with his shed blood.” [Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, translated by John Vriend, edited by John Bolt (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 4:579]

“We are not able to take this great mysterious fruit of God’s love in gross, in the lump; and therefore he gives it out, I say, in parcels. We shall have the body broken to be considered; and the blood shed is likewise to be considered.” [John Owen, The Works of John Owen (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1965), 9:527]

Other men like James Bannerman in The Church of Christ, Wilhelmus a Brakel in The Christian’s Reasonable Service, Charles Hodge in his Systematic Theology, have also argued for the importance of bread and wine as separate.

  1. Intinction should not be dismissed because it is practiced by traditions with which we Presbyterians have other disagreements or because of its origins.

I respond: At this point I am in agreement with Pastor Radney. Though the source of certain ideas may give pause because of their origins, truth is truth, no matter who says it. Christians can learn from brothers in other denominations regardless of the points of disagreement.

  1. Intinction should not be dismissed on account of Judas dipping his bread at the Last Supper.

I respond: Again, we are agreed on this point. I have not heard people making this argument, but if they are, at the very least that would not be the place where I would formulate my objections.

From my interactions with Pastor Radney, I believe him to be sincere in his beliefs. And in an attempt to shed light on this subject, and as a follow-up to the debate, I have offered the following responses. The question of intinction is significant because the right administration of the sacraments is one of the three marks of the church of Christ. And this issue must be examined in light of Scripture. Debate and interaction are needed to bring clarity on a subject. It is my hope this article has contributed to that growth in clarity.

10 Commandments, church history, theology

Church History Snippet – Constantine V

Leave a comment

Constantine V was born in the fall of 718 and died in 775. He  assumed formal responsibilities of governing the Byzantine empire as a co-regent of sorts in the 730s. He became the sole ruler of Byzantium in 740 when his father died. Much of Constantine V’s reign is remembered for his involvement in the iconoclastic controversy begun by his father Leo III in 726. The early years of his reign were preoccupied with weathering his brother-in-law Artavasdus’ attempts to dethrone him. However, in 752 that he did pick up where his father left off.  and did so from a more theological and less pragmatic angle.

Constantine approached whether images of Christ are legitimate for the Christian from a Christological perspective. It is ironic in that John of Damascus uses the same doctrine to justify icons and images. However, though they share the same doctrine, their conclusions are far apart. Whereas John argues that because Christ is truly man His human nature may be drawn or sculpted, Constantine argues the opposite. In light of the union of Christ’s human and divine natures in the one person Constantine argues that “the depiction of the prosopon (or hypostasis) which came into existence as the result of the union of the two natures cannot be accomplished, since of necessity this would involve the circumscription of the immaterial, divine nature.”[1] In other words, because of the union between Christ’s human and divine natures you cannot represent one without the other.

Constantine is reaching back to the fourth ecumenical Council of Chalcedon of 451 which declared the human and divine natures of Christ to exist without confusion or separation. At this point Constantine builds on his father’s initial second commandment argument by showing its relation to the orthodox articulation of the definition of Christ at Chalcedon. And with the iconoclast position in the ascendency, Constantine looks to formalize and bolster it with the approval of the church, which he does by calling the Council of Hiereia in 754.

[1] Stephen Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm During the Reign of Constantine V (Louvain: Secretariat du Corpus SCO, 1977), 41.