Sacraments

Whether its leaders see it or not, Federal Vision has always been a pilgrimage to Rome. Objectivity of the covenant, covenant succession, paedocommunion, celebrations of the Lord's Supper without preaching of the Word, patriarchal fathers communing their wives and children; taken together, we have a path of greased lightning to Rome's sacramentalism, but you'll never get Federal Vision leaders to admit it.

What is Federal Vision? Murkiness and imprecision.

Over a decade ago, I asked my friend Vern Poythress what he thought of Federal Vision and he responded, "You know, I don't think I understand it."

If you know anything about Vern, the one thing certain is that...

We've been saying that a father does nothing more important for his children than choosing a church. But our culture presses us into the mold of individualism, so Christians have come to think of religion as "just me and Jesus" with the church a sort of religious social club. But get this: across history, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Protestants have all been in agreement that the Church is essential for salvation.

This is typical of what Roman Catholics say. It's from their 1997 Catechism:

All salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body.

Reformed baptists and presbyterians say the same. This is from our most loved doctrinal standard... 

The last thing you think about when your first child is born is your church. Rather, your mind is focussed on the hospital (or midwife) bill, whether you have enough diapers, how long your mother-in-law will stay, which car seat to buy, whether you and your mother-in-law will get along, whether your mother-in-law and your wife will get along, when your baby's conehead will go away... But the church?

Isn't the church like a sound system; if you have to think about it, it's failed? Your wife has just given birth to your first child and the church should stay in the background. Yeah, the first day or so it would be nice if the pastor and his wife visit, hold the baby, read Psalm 139 (except those crazy verses near the end), pray, and leave. Also, it would be nice if the church women helped with food. They can fill your refrigerator with...

(This is the fifth in a series opposing paedocommunion, a practice started by some Reformed parents a few years ago in which parents require their infants and toddlers to participate in the Lord's Supper. Here are the first, second, third, and fourth in this series. For more on this subject, see the "Paedocommunion" tag.) 

Editor's note: Some have been convinced by Jeff Meyers' simplistic and novel exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11 in which he concludes that the only sin that text warns us against is the sin of disunity by not having absolutely everybody in the church partake of the Lord's Supper. His position can be summed up by his astounding statement:

I don’t believe that this passage requires an inward act of contemplating and evaluating one’s sins.

The violence this does to the text should be obvious to any man who honors Scripture and fears God. The Apostle Paul gives several examples of ways to disqualify yourself and destroy the unity of the body in his first letter to the Corinthians, including just in chapter 10 grumbling, fornication, and idolatry. Each of these sins God judged and punished with the death of his people "as an example" to us. The Apostle Paul then warns us, in verse 21, "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons."

Chapter 11 contains yet another warning against partaking while in serious sin—this time the sin of disunity. Where most paedocommunionists err is in their astounding assumption that "unity" is determined purely by the physical external sign of participation in the meal. Such a shallow understanding of unity dismisses as inconsequential the selfishness and jealousy that caused the incomplete participation in the first place. In other words, paedocommunionists who follow Jeff Meyers raise the importance of external conformity so high that one is forced to dismiss as unimportant the inward reality, what Scripture refers to as the circumcision of the heart.

At some point, we hope to address Meyers' treatment of 1Corinthians 11 ourselves. In the meantime, we hope that those who found Meyers' paper compelling will read this in-depth exegetical treatment of the passage in question by the respected exegete George W. Knight III, our Reformed friend and father.

* * *

1 Corinthians 11:17-34: The Lord’s Supper: Abuses, Words of Institution and Warnings

by George W. Knight III

Introduction

1 Corinthians 11:17-34 is an important section in the letter to the Corinthians and therefore also an important section in the life and teaching of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and its Confessional Standards and Book of Church Order, as well as that of other Presbyterian and Reformed Churches.1 The Confessional Standards refer to these verses more than fifty times and especially to the warning verses over twenty times.2 It, therefore, demands our most careful attention...

(This is the third in a series opposing paedocommunion, a practice started by some Reformed parents a few years ago in which parents require their infants and toddlers to participate in the Lord's Supper. Here are the first and second in this series.) 

As stated in the previous post in this series, Jeff Meyers's novel exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11 subscribed to by paedocommunionists leaves them convinced that, when the rest of the Covenant community is partaking of the Lord's Supper, regardless of age, for a member of the Covenant community to abstain is sin. Those who refuse to commune with the rest of the covenant community have failed to discern the body. In fact, Meyers demands that orthodox Presbyterians examine themselves by this rule coming out of his exegesis. As he sees it, the historic Presbyterian and Reformed church's requirement that all who partake of the Lord’s Supper must be able to discern the body is proof the historic Presbyterian and Reformed church has failed to discern the body, and thus they are guilty of breaking apart the Church's unity—the sin of schism.

Yet, when we examine the range of practices among paedocommunionists, particularly with regard to “discerning the body" around the Lord's Table, it is clear this is no united group holding to the same doctrine and practice. Rather, paedocommunionists are split into two camps: first, there are those who require no discernment at all from the Covenant child; and second, there are those who demand the Covenant child has enough discernment to recognize he is part of the body. Even within these two camps, though, there is inconsistency of belief and practice.

In this post, we'll focus on the first of the two groups—those who require no discernment at all from the Covenant child...

[The sacraments] are no means of grace except through the faith of the recipient, and in consequence of his own spiritual state and act. There is no inherent power in the ordinance itself to confer blessing, apart from the faith of the participator, and except through the channel of that faith. There is no deposit of power—whether, with the Church of Rome, we deem it physical and ex opere operato, or whether, with Tractarians and High Churchmen, we call it spiritual—in the Sacraments themselves to influence the mind of him who receives them. They have no virtue of themselves, apart from the work of Christ through His Spirit on the one side, and the spiritual act of the recipient through his faith on the other side. - James Bannerman, The Church of Christ

This is an introduction to a series of posts on paedocommunion, the practice of communing at the Lord's Table children who have not yet confessed their faith and been examined by their pastor or the elders of their church. This practice is most common today within the broad Evangelical church where parents simply commune their own children. When the bread and wine are passed, the children whisper to their father or mother that they "want some, too," and the parents see no reason to say "no."

What we are going to examine, though, is a much less common version of paedocommunion found in a small number of congregations in the Protestant and Reformed tradition. Their practice differs from that of the broader Evangelical church in three ways: first, those young children in mainstream Evangelical congregations who commune have not yet been baptized while the children communed by their parents in Protestant and Reformed congregations have been baptized. Second, children communing in mainstream Evangelical congregations don't normally do so because their fathers and mothers believe paedocommunion is Biblical and have developed a system of doctrine to defend their practice. It's really only an ad hoc practice which exists because no one's thought about it and parents aren't inclined to tell their children "no" when they want to do something that seems good, spiritually. On the other hand, parents who commune their children in the small group of paedocommunion Protestant and Reformed congregations believe Scripture requires their children...

Here is a taste of the abuse Zwingli suffers at the keyboards of the Covenant Renewal Worship, Federal Vision men, these excerpts from that self-styled "Reformed theologian," Peter Leithart:

...the most obvious sleight of hand here is to make Zwingli stand in for the Reformers as a whole. How many readers will realize that Luther vociferously battled Zwingli (and hence stood on the side of “sacramentality”), and that Calvin was equally opposed to Zwinglianism? Gregory makes it sound as if Zwingli’s admittedly dualist eucharistic theology was the most logical outcome of Protestant metaphysics. In fact, many of the Reformers rejected Zwingli.

And...

Responding to the post titled, "Worship wars: Jeff Meyers and Peter Leithart have won...", one brother comments:

Surely the issue is not how often, but simply "how"? Weekly communion is Reformed (Calvin). Communion without a sermon, communion which is somehow emphasized at the expense of the sermon, communion in which there is any adoration of the elements, any concern that "Jesus is being spilled," etc., communion which is understood and presented as repetition of the sacrifice of Christ—or anything approaching that—is not.

I respond: Most of the things you highlight have been Reformed commitments from the beginning. The pairing of weekly communion and paedocommunion have not. Each without the other would have less of an implication for Reformed worship than both together. And make no mistake about it: both together are a confessional issue to the Covenant Renewal Worship, Federal Vision crowd. Yet there's no precedent for it in Reformed sacramentology or worship.

Everyone likes to say Calvin was for weekly worship, acting as if that supports what the Covenant Renewal Worship, Federal Vision men have done to Reformed sacramentology and worship, but they miss the larger picture. Calvin was for weekly communion, yes; but Geneva's observance of the Lord's Supper was quarterly and Calvin didn't leave Geneva over it. In other words, for Calvin and the Geneva reformers, frequency of communion was adiaphora.

You'll never get the Covenant Renewal Worship, Federal Vision crowd to agree with Calvin on this. For them, weekly communion is anything but adiaphora. To them, weekly communion is a confessional issue and you'll know it because you'll watch as they drive from Geneva to Strasbourg every single Lord's Day to get their family...

The teaching of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) holds that the Pope is the Successor of Peter and therefore an Apostle. Looking at the recent visit of Pope Francis, let's ask whether his preaching was Apostolic? Did his preaching and the results his preaching had in our national life bear the marks of the Apostles' preaching recorded in the New Testament? And in particular, was it like the Apostle Peter's preaching?

To answer that question, let's look at the Apostle Peter's sermon on the Day of Pentecost...