THIS BLOG IS MOVING…

“Williams St. Reflections” has moved to “Reflections on Upchurch” (upchurch.wordpress.com) for the simple fact that the address of our church (not our physical location) has been changed to 401 Upchurch St. 

Different by design

Yesterday, Brent Detwiler preached at our church on the subject of biblical manhood and womanhood (listen to the sermon). Here are some resources for digging deeper into this topic:

1. In 2004, Wayne Grudem spoke on “Men & Women: Similarities and Differences” at the New Attitude conference. The MP3 of this message is available for free download at the Sovereign Grace Store.
2. The evangelical Council For Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has a wealth of resources available at their website. These include articles, sermons, and even full-length books available for free online. The book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is perhaps their most well-known work.
3. John Piper has a number of sermons and articles on this subject available at Desiring God.
4. Ligon Duncan’s church also has a number of sermons and other resources available.

Our church’s position on gender roles — complementarianism — is unpopular in some parts of today’s evangelical church. We are convinced it is biblical, but we must always be striving to move from conviction to application, and to do so carefully. There is such a thing as an ungodly leadership and an ungodly submission. If you have any questions or concerns, your home group leader and pastors are happy to speak with you.

Lastly, a fitting poem, “Comparisons”:

If I set the sun beside the moon,
And if I set the land beside the sea,
And if I set the town beside the country,
And if I set the man beside the woman,
I suppose some fool would talk about one being better.

— G. K. Chesterton

Scott

Can you be biblical and charismatic?

In our church we have a shorthand expression that helps communicate our theology: “We are essentially Reformed with a significant charismatic dimension.”  Once we explain what we mean by this those who are traditionally Reformed head for the doors, and those who are traditionally Charismatic follow right behind them.  Surprisingly, once this exodus has occurred, a few remain. 

For most evangelicals,

Does the Bible Contradict Itself? Part 3

We concluded our last post by saying that,

Our goal as Christian readers of the Bible is to use the God-revealed unity of the Bible as the lens through which we see the drama of the diversity of the Bible all in order that we might respond properly to the Bible.

As we begin this discussion about reading the Bible properly, it is essential that

Have mercy on me

By sovereign coincidence, Phil preached yesterday on Mark 10:13-52, the same Sunday that our church practiced both baptism and the Lord’s Supper. This passage is book ended by key statements that describe or demonstrate the kind of faith that God requires of us, and this relates closely to our baptism:

“A desolate place…” Part 1: Our Need

There are seasons of life where 2 minutes without an appointment, an email, a phone call, or some other responsibility seems like yelling “Time out!” in the middle of a Civil War battle.  How do we respond in the rough and tumble of life, when our schedules and relationships come like wave upon wave upon the shore of our soul?  While the differences between Jesus and us are crucial ones, there is surely something to be brought into our own life that Jesus does at an early point in his ministry:

The Lord’s Supper as a Seal – Calvin and the Lord’s Supper Part 8

We’ve all had the experience of looking at a new pair of pants, or a new mattress, or a new mp3 player, and seen somewhere in the packaging, “Inspected by #403,” or something comparable.  This “seal” means that someone has examined the product and seen that it meets the standards for quality established by the company.  This product has been “sealed” by the company as a statement to say, “This is legitimate.”

Likewise, when Christ gave us the Lord’s Supper to be done “as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me” (1 Cor 11:25), it is also meant to be a “seal.”  We get this kind of understanding from Rom 4:11, “[Abraham] received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.”  Because of this statement, theologians have seen that a sacrament (ordinance) has an important function as a “seal.”  Circumcision did not give Abraham his faith; his faith preceded circumcision.  The sacrament was added merely as a “seal” of something already present.  It was like that seal of inspection we mentioned above, affirming that Abraham was “legitimate.”  It did not make him a legitimate believer, but merely recognized him as a believer.  So Calvin says, “Abraham’s circumcision was not for his justification but for the seal of that covenant by faith in which he had already been justified” (Institutes, Book IV, chp 14:5). 

This concept of the sacrament as a seal Calvin likens to government seals on documents:

“the seals which are attached to government documents and other public acts are nothing taken by themselves, for they would be attached in vain if the parchment had nothing written on it. Yet, when added to the writing, they do not on that account fail to confirm and seal what is written” (ibid.)

In other words a piece of paper with a government seal on it is meaningless, even though officially “sealed.”  And yet, with a pronouncement, law, or record on the paper, suddenly the seal on that paper makes these words official and binding. 

The analogy isn’t perfect, as sacraments do not “make official” something that has happened in our hearts but isn’t binding without the seal.  That is why I feel the inspection seal is a more accurate picture of the kind of “seal” that a sacrament represents.  It recognizes something that has happened, recognizes a work as legitimate, recognizes a person as legal, but doesn’t make them such.  Yet, Calvin does preserve a place of importance for the sacrament even as it remains a seal.  The government seal analogy gives the sacrament an important role in the life of the believer, validating the faith in their hearts.

So when we gather every three weeks in our church to celebrate the Lord’s Supper we are corporately recognizing a work that God has done in each of our hearts.  We are taking God’s seal of approval and placing it on the faith within our hearts and the justification we’ve experienced.  It is meant to be a visible recognition of an invisible work in our hearts, and yet different from the work itself.  This, of course, is why we reserve this sacrament for believers alone.  For an unbeliever the sacrament could be a vivid proclamation of the gospel, but could not be a recognition of the work of the gospel in their heart.

We praise God for his gracious work in our hearts, and for this gracious means of recognizing that work: the Lord’s Supper.

DJB

What do we “proclaim” in the Lord’s Supper? Calvin and the Lord’s Supper (part 7)

Paul explained to the Corinthians that, “as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor 11:26).  This famous statement is really a famous understatement.  “Proclaiming the Lord’s death” means so much to us who have died with Christ and now live with him in his resurrection life! (cp. Rom 6:1-11).  Yet, John Calvin highlights two areas that are communicated in the Lord’s Supper as we celebrate this sacred feast (The Institutes, Book IV, chapter 17, sections 37-38).

The Lord’s Supper and How We Partake of Christ – Calvin and the Lord’s Supper (part 6)

One of the ancient controversies of the church has been how exactly a believer partakes of Christ in the Lord’s Supper.  The Catholic Church has embraced the doctrine of transubstantiation, which is the affirmation that the elements themselves are changed in their substance to become the actual body and blood of Christ.  In this way we partake of the actual body and blood of Christ.  The Lutheran Church defined the sacrament differently, seeing that the body of Christ was everywhere present in and around the elements (ubiquitous), but the elements themselves remained unchanged in their substance.  We partake of him spiritually as he is spiritually present. 

John Calvin rejected both options.  To him, both are a violation of the human nature of Christ. 

One of the miracles of the incarnation (God becoming man in Jesus Christ) is that even after his resurrection and ascension, Jesus remains both God and man, yet now man as glorified.  He retains all of his divine attributes, and yet also retains his humanity.  Thus, whatever we say about the Lord’s Supper cannot contradict either the divine or the human nature of Christ.  Calvin says it this way:

“(1) Let nothing be withdrawn from Christ’s heavenly glory–as happens when he is brought under the corruptible elements of this world, or bound to any earthly creatures.
(2) Let nothing inappropriate to human nature be ascribed to his body, as happens when it is said either to be infinite or to be put in a number of places at once.”

The first statement means that transubstantiation–which joins the heavenly body of Christ with earthly bread–cannot be correct.  The second statement means that consubstantiation cannot be correct–which forces the human body of Christ to do what human bodies cannot do, occupy a multitude of places simultaneously.

For me, this reasoning of Calvin was new and exciting, an application of the two natures of Christ that I had not considered before.  For Calvin, this means that our sense of the connection between the elements and Christ has to be consistent with the two natures of Christ.  His solution to this was to say that by the Holy Spirit, our eating of the elements becomes an eating of the body and blood of Christ that remains exalted in heaven.  This preserves the two natures of Christ while also preserving a controlling passage for John Calvin, namely, John 6, the “bread of life discourse.”  In that gospel passage, Jesus tells his hearers, “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (6:54).  This passage is fulfilled when by the Holy Spirit we eat and drink the elements (the symbol) which enables us to eat and drink of the body and blood of Christ (the reality).  The result is that we “not receive [the body and blood of Christ] solely by imagination or understanding of mind, but…enjoy the thing itself as nourishment of eternal life” (Institutes, IV:19).  As we would expect, Calvin’s reasoning is consistent and biblically motivated.  It is, however, not our understanding of this issue.

In our mind, Calvin uses an overly literal approach to this issue.  It makes John 6 a controlling passage for the Lord’s Supper, a passage that never mentions the Lord’s Supper.  It is the manna of the Exodus and not the bread of the Lord’s Supper that are in view in that passage (cf. 6:22-35).  On such a controversial and important subject, it seems best to take the explicit statements of Scripture as our guide before we turn to the implicit ones.  So, while the gospels record the words of Jesus, “This is my body” (Luk 22:19), and “this cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Luk 22:20), Jesus also says, “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24).  In eating and drinking we “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor 11:26).  It is an act of “remembrance” and a “proclamation,” rather than an actual “eating” and “drinking” of the body and blood of Christ.

To some this appears to so reduce this sacrament that these signs become “empty signs” or “naked symbols,” and to somehow no longer be conduits of grace.  For them the best parallel to the sacraments is a meal that is actually eaten and ingested.  To us, the better symbol is the preaching of the word of God.  In preaching the word of God, a “means of grace” is employed that God can ignite within our hearts and minds and so edify and nourish us.  The grace that is conveyed is from God (thus objective) and yet received by us and communicated by a sinful preacher (thus subjective).  Christ is conveyed in the preached word, but though he is “the Word” (John 1:1), his human nature is not somehow communicated from heaven to our bodies and souls.  Rather, spiritually we are affected by the preached word and are taught, rebuked, corrected, edified, comforted, encouraged (2 Tim 3:16-17 etc.).  This is a product of the words of the preacher impacting our thinking and thus impacting our hearts.  It is not a grace that goes directly from the preacher to our souls, bypassing our ears and minds in the process. 

As Herman Bavinck has argued:

“Those two sacraments have the whole covenant of grace with all of its benefits, in other words, they have Christ Himself as their content, and accordingly they cannot convey those benefits except by the way of faith.  They were, accordingly, instituted for the believers and assure these believers of their portion in Christ.  They do not precede the Word but follow it; they have not the power to grant a particular grace which cannot be given by the Word nor be accepted by faith; rather, they are based on the institution of the covenant of grace on God’s part and the confirmation of that covenant on man’s part” (Our Reasonable Faith, 541).

And as our own statement of faith reads:

“As we partake of the Lord’s Supper with an attitude of faith and self-examination, we remember and proclaim the death of Christ, receive spiritual nourishment for our souls, and signify our unity with other members of Christ’s body” (Sovereign Grace Ministries Statement of Faith).

Thus, we see the Lord’s Supper as a divinely prescribed means of grace, a simple act that can be used by God to convey profound grace.  It can comfort the afflicted, challenge the proud, inspire the lethargic, humble the conceited, and teach the ignorant.  It feeds our souls because it ministers to us divine grace as it ignites the truth of God’s word within our hearts and minds.  May there be nothing empty or routine about this sacrament.

DJB

The Lord’s Supper a Picture of the Gospel – Calvin and the Lord’s Supper (part 4)

In the Institutes (IV:17:3) John Calvin calls the Lord’s Supper a “full witness” of the gospel.  That is his descrption of the words of Jesus cited by Matthew: “Take, eat; this is my body….Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt 26:26-28).  In concise and wonderful language, Calvin helps us unpack the implications of these brief words of Jesus:

“By bidding us take, he indicates that it is ours; by bidding us eat, that it is made one substance with us; be declaring that his body is given for us and his blood shed for us, he teaches that both are not so much his as ours.  For he took up and laid down both, not for his own advantage but for our salvation.”

Firstly, Jesus would not say to us, “Take, eat…” unless we were his own, and thus, “it is ours.”  We don’t come to the table as uninvited guests, intruders at someone else’s banquet.  We come to this table as invited sons and daughters, in a beautiful fulfillment of Psalm 23:5, “You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies; you anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows.”  “It is ours” helps us to see that we can confidently and joyfully partake of the body and blood of Christ as our own possession.

Secondly, we are also “bidden to eat,” a process that internalizes food and unites it fully with our bodies.  Here our union with Christ is brought out, that truth that throughout the New Testament reminds us that we are now “in Christ” (Rom 6:1-11).  The simple elements of the Lord’s Supper present the completeness of our union with Christ, one that inspires our hearts to burst out in song:

“His forever, only His;
Who the Lord and me shall part?
Ah, with what a rest of bliss
Christ can fill the loving heart!
Heav’n and earth may fade and flee,
Firstborn light in gloom decline;
But while God and I shall be,
I am His, and He is mine.
But while God and I shall be,
I am His, and He is mine.”

Thirdly, Calvin says that Jesus’ offered body and blood are “not so much his as ours.”  His sacrifice was for the Father, in obedience to him and to accomplish his glory.  And yet, it was also “given for you” (Matt 26:28).  There was a personal aspect of Christ’s sacrifice that made it more than a general offering for the vast and great family of the elect, but which also made it an offering for you individually.  Only God can operate on the level of the vast and sovereign, and also in personal and affectionate relationship. 

Fourthly, he continues in this section by speaking of the appropriateness of these elements of bread and wine.  Each of these affects our bodies in a way that is akin to how Christ himself affects our souls.  So, “as bread nourishes, sustains, and keeps the life of our body, so Christ’s body is the only food to invigorate and enliven our soul.”  And then, as wine’s benefits are “to nourish, refresh, strengthen, and gladden,” so these are “spiritually imparted to us by Christ’s blood.”  The wisdom and condescension are perfectly united in the Lord’s Supper, as our heavenly Father wants to regularly and often remind us of his feeding of our souls by the offering of his Son.  He will truly “nourish, sustain…refresh, strengthen, and gladden” us. 

So, let this “full witness” be a sermon to your soul as you partake of the Lord’s Supper.  And let it “strengthen and gladden” you each and every time.

DJB