TeacherŐs Guide
This study guide is intended for small groups and short seminars to introduce the view of sacraments as held by Presbyterians and other branches of the reformed movement. This explains why references are made to the Westminster Confession, not as grounds of authority but for historical reference and clarity.
The texts in red are instruction notes to the teacher and are not found in the studentŐs manual. This is the only difference between the teacherŐs manual and the studentŐs manual.
Lesson One: Rules of interpretation
Lesson Two: The Covenant of Grace
Lesson Three: Baptism, meaning and mode
Lesson Four: The LordŐs Supper
Lesson Five: Secondary Issues
Explain why the study of sacraments is problematic. The Bible
contains no apostolic dissertation on sacraments and therefore comes within the
domain of inferential logic. We infer correct doctrine from a variety of clues
within other subjects.
Certain rules of interpretation become especially important in the study of the sacraments. The reason is the biblical data is often a part of a discourse on other subjects.
Use elements of the first chapter of the Westminster
Confession to establish the following principles of interpretation.
1. Unity of scripture
2. Validity of inferential logic
3. Cross-referencing is necessary
4. The principle of clarity.
5. The singularity of interpretation.
Extracts from Chapter 1- Of the Holy Scriptures
Rules of Interpretation (Hermeneutics)
Contrary to dispensationalism,
reformed theology views the Bible as a unit. Though we are not under the law,
we are heirs of a covenant established in the Old Testament and fulfilled in
the New.
The apostolic practices of sacraments are therefore
fulfillments of Old Testament rites. A full understanding of the sacraments is
impossible without a review of their Old Testament precedents.
ŇThe whole
counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's
salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by
good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture:Ó Chapter 1, Article 6
Explain the difference between direct observation and
inferential logic.
Example: Seeing a man walking down the beach is a direct
observation and counts as eye witness evidence. Seeing the footprints in the
sand of a man is an indirect observation from which we infer that a man was walking on the beach.
In most domains of study, including science and
jurisprudence, most evidence is inferential. It is considered just as valid as
a direct observation.
Both forms of evidence are valid for establishing facts.
So it is in theology. All the evidence for the Trinity is
inferential. Most of the evidence for the deity of Christ is also inferential.
Theologians consider these doctrines more than adequately established by the
inferential evidence.
In the study of sacraments, all of the evidence is
inferential. Examples of the practice of a sacrament are therefore unnecessary
to establish sound doctrine, if the truth is founded on Ňgood and necessaryÓ
deductions.
Example: We do not need an example of women taking
communion. We only need to ask if the whole congregation participates and if
women are members. This establishes the fact, with no need of examples.
ŇAll things in
Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to
be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and
opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the
unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient
understanding of them.Ó Chapter 1, Article 7: Westminster Confession, 1648
No epistle exists to explain the details of baptism or the
LordŐs Supper. All of the evidence is found within the context of other
subjects. Therefore we need to accumulate these bits of data throughout the
whole Bible to get a clearer picture.
ŇThe infallible
rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore,
when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which
is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that
speak more clearly. Chapter 1, Article 10 Westminster Confession, 1648
Even taking into account the need for inferential logic, the Bible is sufficiently clear that the average person can find out the truth on this subject, using the common sense principles of interpretation. In theology, this is called the perspicuity of scripture. [1]
ŇÉfull sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but
one)Ň WCF Chapter 1
Article 11
Our confessional standards assert that there exists only one
correct interpretation of any scripture passage. If two
Christians disagree about the meaning of a text, at least one is wrong,
possibly both. It is inappropriate to and ask each person in a group
what the verse means to them. It doesnŐt matter what it means to them. It
matters only what the writer intended, period. That meaning can be deduced by
applying the above rules of hermeneutics. This view is supported by such texts
as 2Cor.1:12-13 and 2Pet.2:10.
1. When a theology question is not Ňclearly propoundedÓ in the Bible, what recourse do we have for knowing what is the correct doctrine? ________________________________________ [2]
3. What should we do when a biblical text does not seem to deal fully with a doctrinal question? ______________________________ [1]
4. The infallible rule for interpreting the Bible is ______________ [2]
5. What is the view of the Westminster Confession with regard to various interpretations of a text? __________________________ [3]
Gen.17&Gal.3
á Elements of a covenant
Describe here what must be involved in a contract for it to
be rationally legal. These elements are: Identification of the parties;
statement of benefits; statement of responsibilities; how long the contract
lasts; how it can be terminated; how it is ratified. In modern times,
ratification is by signing documents. In AbrahamŐs time, by verbal oaths. You
may elaborate on this point if you wish, by referring to this in the Book of
Hebrews, Chapter 6.
A good exercise is to have the students find these elements
in Gen.17 and after discussing where the verses are that show these, and then
do the same exercise with Gal.3. This powerfully roots in their minds that the
Abrahamic covenant is in fact the Christian covenant.
á
The meaning of Sacraments
From the Latin Sacra=holy and Mentus=mind.
Meaning something holy presented to the mind for contemplation. Reformed
teachers prefer this term to ordinances
or memorial because those terms do
not convey the idea of a communication of grace. In reformed theology, the LordŐs Supper is three things:
Ordinance, memorial and communion. In non-reformed circles, it is only the
first two. We feel the term sacrament
helps us make that distinction.
For teaching this section, you need only follow certain
portions in Smalling's thesis on baptism.
See http://smallings.com/english/Essays/Baptism.html
Three factors must be established in the mind of the students before they can fully grasp the full picture of the meaning and mode of baptism:
1. The continuity of the covenant of Abraham as the Christian covenant.
Compare Gen.17 with Gal.3. Show that the ChristianŐs covenant is the Abrahamic covenant fulfilled.
2. Circumcision as the sign and seal of that covenant. A good text for this is Rom.4:11
3. The replacement of circumcision by baptism. Use Col. 2:11-12 for this.
A very effective way to establish sprinkling or pouring as the biblical mode of baptism is the following group exercise. Let the students come to their own conclusions.
1. ŔWhat does water symbolize in the Bible?
Mt.3:11; Jn.1:13; 7:38-39; Acts 1:5; 11:15-16 _________________ [3]
Ez.36:25;
Mt.27:24; Jn.13:5; Ef.5:26; Heb.10:22 _______________
2. By what mode does God apply the person or thing that the
water symbolizes?
Ez. 36:25-28; Tit.3:5-7; Acts 1:5,8; Acts 10:44,47; Acts 11:15-16
______________________________________ [4]
After establishing the point, mention that immersion is not
sinful, just unnecessary. It is a valid baptism. However, show the students
that immersion is a reflection of how some people think about salvation.
If salvation were the product of human action, it would seem
logical to go to a baptistery and offer oneself to be applied to the water.
If we believe salvation is sovereignly applied through an
outpouring of the Holy Spirit while we were dead in sin, then sprinkling or
pouring is an appropriate celebration of that.
Therefore, the mode of baptism has a certain importance
because it reflects what we really believe about salvation. See Titus 3:4-8 for
a presentation as to which is correct.
Some claim Catholic baptism is valid and that converts from
Catholicism must not be baptized again.
They base this view on the doctrine of the Trinity. The
Catholic Church indeed holds to a correct doctrine of God. So if the church
baptizes in the name of the biblical God, then the baptism must be valid.
Others deny the validity of Catholic baptism. Though they
agree the Trinity is a necessary doctrine, they contend it is not the only one.
They insist baptism must also represent the biblical gospel, justification by
faith alone in Christ alone. Rome openly rejects justification by faith alone.
Those who reject Catholic baptism base their thinking largely
on Gal.1: 8-9 in which Paul argues that any who teach another gospel than that
which he proclaims, is cursed of God. Such a person or entity must not be
viewed as Christian. Those who invalidate Catholic baptism, argue it is
inconceivable a baptism could be valid if performed by an entity cursed of God
and cannot be recognized as Christian.
They also argue that the Larger Catechism says only duly
ordained ministers of the gospel may administer the sacraments. [5] They question if a Catholic priest can be called a minister
of the gospel.
The issue revolves around whether
the Catholic Church should be considered Christian. The validity of Catholic
baptism continues to be debated in reformed circles.
Two questions to answer in the LordŐs Supper
á
Where is Christ in it? The doctrine of the Real Presence.
á How is grace communicated through it, if at all?
CATHOLIC
The grace operating in the LordŐs Supper is saving grace. The rite operates by its own power. Christ is present because the elements are changed into the very flesh and blood of Christ. This doctrine is called Transubstantiation. It means the elements are transformed into the substance of Christ.
Ex opera operato: Operates by its own power. Once the prayer of institution
takes place, grace is inherent in the elements themselves so that any who
partake, receive grace by the mere act of swallowing, whether they have faith
or not.
ZWINGLIAN VIEW (Held by Baptists and many other evangelicals) [6]
No grace is operating at all. It is a symbolic and instructive rite oily. It is just an ordinance and memorial. Christ is not present in any sense whatsoever.
LUTHERAN
Grace is in Christ, who is in, around and through the
elements. Grace is automatically operative in believers who do not resist it.
PRESBITERIAN AND REFORMED
An encouraging and preserving grace is operative but not a saving grace in the sense of provoking regeneration. It operates through the faith of the believer by the Holy Spirit. No power or grace is found in the elements themselves. Christ is present in the believer, not in the elements presented. It is three things: An ordinance, a memorial and communion. By communion it is meant that there is a real spiritual connection with the spirit of Christ through act of believing participation.
Paul is bringing out his strongest argument as to why
Christians should not partake of food offered to idols.
The argument is based on these premises:
á
A connection exists
between idolatry and demonic spirits.
á
Participation in pagan
festivals, where food is offered to idols, is to enter into spiritual communion
with demons.
á
It is impossible to be
in communion with Christ and communion with demons at the same time.
From these premises we draw the inference that Paul
considered the LordŐs Supper to be a communion with the spirit of Christ.
This term means fellowship
(gr.- koinonia). It is a relational word and refers to
something shared between persons. Therefore, reformed theologians say the
Zwinglian view is correct to assert the LordŐs Supper is an ordinance and
memorial. This, however, does not go far enough. We affirm it is three things,
not just two: An ordinance, a memorial and a communion with Christ. If this is
not correct, then it leaves the question as to why three words are used to
describe it and not just two.
This is why reformed theologians call the LordŐs Supper a
means of grace because Christ communicates grace when we are in fellowship with
him, just as he does through the Word of God and prayer.
Every view of the LordŐs Supper, except the Zwinglian, argues
it is inconceivable that God would threaten his own people with sickness or
death for misuse of the rite if it were nothing more than a symbol. It would
seem there must be a connection between the symbol and the thing symbolized for
a desecration of the rite to be taken that seriously.
Some hold that small children should be allowed to participate in the LordŐs Supper. They base this view on the old Passover feast in which the whole family participated, children included.
The historical reformed view rejects paedo-communion on the grounds of 1Cor. 11:29. What in this text would suggest that small children should not partake? _______________ [7]
Some people think it is permissible to serve themselves the LordŐs Supper in the privacy of their own home. What in 1Cor.11:17-22 suggests this to be inappropriate? See also 1Cor.10:17 ___________________________ [8]
This delicate question is not clearly addressed in scripture.
Traditionally, an ordained elder may go to the house of a shut-in and hold a
communion service. This is not the same as taking the bread and wine previously
consecrated in a worship service and distributing them privately. The minister
performs a separate and distinct consecration of elements at that location.
Based on the Westminster Confession, Chapter 27, answer the following questions:
1. Of what are the sacraments the sign and seals? ______________________________________ [9]
2. Who instituted the sacraments?
________________________________________________ [10]
3. Who or what do the sacraments represent?
_______________________________________ [11]
4. On what does the efficacy of the sacraments depend?
_____________________________________ [12]
5. Who has the authority to administer the sacraments?
_____________________________ [13]
6. What relationship do the Old Testament sacraments have with those of the New Testament? ________________________ [14]
Those who liked this
study may also like other works by Smalling.
[1] Take into account the totality of biblical teaching as it may relate to the subject at hand.
[2] The Bible itself.
[3] There is only one correct interpretation of any verse. It can be deduced from the ordinary rules of interpretation.
[1] The reformers, especially Luther, elaborated this doctrine because the Catholic Church forbade laymen to possess the scriptures on the grounds that the word of God was too obscure for them to interpret. All interpretations, they said, must therefore be through the priest alone.
[2] Find other texts in scripture that are clearer.
[3]
The
Holy Spirit and cleansing.
[4] Outpouring
[5] Westminster Larger Catechism, Q:179.
[6] Zwingli was a Swiss reformer during the time of Luther. He and Luther had a dispute this point.
[7]
The person partaking
must be able to discern the LordŐs body in it. This means able to understand
what the elements represent, namely the sacrifice of Christ and his atonement
for sin. This requires a degree of mental conceptions beyond the level of small
children. Furthermore, the old Passover was celebrated in private homes, not in
congregational worship as in the New Testament. Therefore, that argument is
invalid.
[8]
The LordŐs Supper is
also a celebration of the unity we have among believers in Christ, as one body.
In this we see a play on the word Ňbody.Ó The bread not only represents the
physical body of Christ, it also represents the corpus of believers in him.
Therefore it is illogical, indeed contradictory, to partake of the LordŐs
Supper alone.
[9]
The covenant of grace
[10] Jesus
[11] Christ and his benefits
[12] The Holy Spirit
[13]
Ministers of the
gospel duly ordained.
[14] The same thing, in that it represents the same spiritual aspects.