Mr. (Rev.) Roger Salter: Salvation and the Sacraments

SALVATION AND THE SACRAMENTS
By Roger Salter
Special to Virtueonline
www.virtueonline.org
March 16, 2014

It is almost true to say that within the Christian Church serious confusion arises through the competing proclamation of three pathways to salvation, namely 1) the way of personal merit, 2) the sacraments as indispensable means of salvation, and 3) trust in Jesus Christ and his righteousness imputed to the believer immediately upon the exercise of sincere faith.

The least plausible of these alternatives, of course, is the way of works. St. Paul demolishes this fatal fiction with one succinct statement (backed up by a multiplicity of others): So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace (Romans 11:6). Legalism prevails enormously in the church under many guises that mix works, human attitude and action, with inadequate conceptions of grace in varying proportions, from outright Pelagianism to devilishly subtle forms of Semi-Pelagianism, but in each version of a polluted gospel a contribution from the sinner (inevitably small given our condition) is required for their salvation. Salvation is not cheap (a minimum contribution) but free (at great cost to the One who stood as Victim in our stead).

Human effort is regarded as necessary preparation for saving help from God. Man strives and grace supplies the deficiency. The sheer odiousness of this notion is to some extent mitigated in classic Romanism by the shrewd qualification that good works are enabled, even prompted perhaps, by divine influence. The disqualification, that mars even the testimony of the Thomists and Dominicans as the best advocates of gratuitous redemption within the Roman Tradition, is the combination of merit i.e. the sinner’s contrition, rectitude and moral/spiritual attainment with the Saviour’s hard won achievement on our behalf.

The First Prayer of Thanksgiving (BCP1662) clearly excludes the weighing of our merits in any possible sense, and especially in placing them in the same scales with those of the Lord Jesus, but forthrightly acknowledges that we are saved by his merits alone, which makes our deliverance from sin and condemnation to forgiveness and divine fellowship pure gift to be received by faith alone. “Most humbly beseeching thee to grant, that by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, we and all thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of his passion. . . . yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service; not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offences, through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

The prayer frankly recognizes both our unworthiness and helplessness to proffer any merits at all to God for our commendation, that our duty and service are not meritorious, and that all the benefits of the redeemed are procured by their Redeemer. What other benefits are there to secure by any other means than those purchased for us by his passion? All is of Messiah’s grace. The amalgam of works and grace proposed by Rome and those of similar sentiment is distasteful to the palate of the new man.

Every aspect of DIY is excluded from the gospel to make our rescue in Christ sure. Good works, right living in every sense (not merely the projects about which churches may tend to boast), are the effects of salvation. But they are still tainted and not worthy to be taken into consideration with the perfection of Christ’s person and performance. We are indebted to him alone. The Scriptures, like the road signs at the point where traffic lane repairs cease, declare the message, “END OF WORKS!”. “By his merit, we who once had demerits now are made creditors” (Peter Martyr).

The more knotty problem for believers to untie is the matter of the sacraments, their nature, necessity, and efficacy. It is not unusual for human religiosity to place supreme importance upon rites and acts that are external, formal, observable, and dateable without an accurate appreciation of their true purpose and meaning. Sacraments are given to represent and seal the interior work of divine grace within the human heart, and they address the understanding, confirming and strengthening the faith necessary to the reception of these sacred ordinances. This is the nature of the grace they truly convey. Sacramental language is specific and sure in what it pledges to the believer, but it is generously suppositional toward those presented for participation in sacramental administration. Human discernment as to worthiness is fallible and a credible profession is normally accepted. The promises contained within the sacraments are certainly effectual for the elect. The judgment of the Lord is effectual in the merely nominal believer or the hypocritical.

Grace may precede, coincide with, or follow the external rite. The efficacy is not in the elements employed or the action of the ministrant but in the electing grace of God and the operation of the Holy Spirit. The view to be deplored is that of baptismal regeneration. For the sake of brevity, the decision of the Court of Appeal in the Gorham versus the Bishop of Exeter Case (19thC) is sufficient to show that baptismal regeneration is not consistent with classic Anglican doctrine.

The freeness and liberality of saving grace instantly available to faith has to be stoutly defended. Earnest longing for God, evinced in true repentance and unfeigned faith, is the mark of one already regenerate and in union with the Son of God. That union is not deferred until nor dependent upon the administration of the sacrament. Would Jesus Christ suspend or annul that union through lack of water, bread, or wine? These are the material signs and pledges of a spiritual and heartfelt connection with the Saviour, which in the normal course of discipleship connect the believer to sacramental observance through which profound awareness of his divinely given privileges becomes impressively vivid and incalculably precious. This is not to devalue the sacraments nor to degrade them. The absolute emphasis of Holy Scripture is on the openness and instantaneousness of access to God. It is the movement of the heart that matters principally and that movement, unless impeded by necessity or misunderstanding, will inevitably find its way to sacramental obedience through the tokens of God’s immeasurable saving love.

Is the regenerate condition of the individual, which makes possible any, even the slightest, sign of the life of God within not counted, or even cancelled, by any length of sacramental delay? Faith, faith, faith cements us to communion with the Holy Three. God gave the faith that arises within the human heart, the Crucified One is the object of that faith, the Spirit has sweetly initiated and enabled that faith. The sacraments are not the cause of faith. They confirm and concretize faith to the believer’s senses and are a witness to surrounding spectators of a shared faith.

Doctrinal language and sacramental vocabulary are crafted for different purposes. The former is descriptive and the latter affirmative of relationship. The distinction isn’t hard and fast, but it is there in terms of objectivity and subjectivity, confession concerning God and communion with him. The former may be mere intellectual belief, the latter personal trust.

Our faith is not founded simply on a string of textual quotations, but upon the whole tenor of Scripture, the linkage of propositions in the “analogy of faith” approach to interpretation. The overall and complete revelation is ascertained in its essence, and every part is examined in its appropriate context. What kind of God do we have, and what is our plight, and is not our deliverance, once the peril is recognized, immediate the moment that the divine Spirit and the human spirit come together in assent to the divine word and confidence in it? Sacraments are necessary to our growth in grace, not our entrance into grace. God may use his ordinances as he chooses, but we are to use his ordinances as he advises - in faith, which makes them means of grace to us as effectual signs, addressing our comprehension of what has occurred for our rescue from sin and its consequences.

It is commonly conceded that the sign/symbol/seal and that reality which is signified are referred to interchangeably e.g. in religious parlance “with this ring I thee wed” or “receive the right hand of fellowship” but the reality is in the intent of the heart of all involved. Through faith (the grace-wrought intent of the heart) the soul of the believer is married to God and in fellowship with him.

The weight of the biblical message veers to the emphasis upon the negotiations of the divine heart with the human. Here regeneration, faith, and repentance occur through sovereign grace. The sacramental seals of the wondrous relationship established within providentially follow the purpose of predestination. In infant baptism faith looks toward to the fulfillment of covenant promise to the little one presented to the Saviour who received such as heirs of the kingdom; in adult baptism faith rejoices in salvation received; in the Lord’s Supper faith is nourished in the once for all sacrifice of the Lord Jesus and our future celebration of salvation completed in heaven.

The sacraments enable us to view every facet of Jesus’ accomplishment on our behalf. This fact is demonstrated in Peter’s words found in Acts 2:38, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins”. Repentance is the disposition of the regenerate. The glory and potency of the name is recognized by faith, the aliveness of the regenerate. The word “for” is equivalent to “unto” and in this setting is accurately rendered as “with a view to” forgiveness, a benefit which is discerned in the bloodshedding. The view facilitated by baptism is the view of the cross which cancels the sins of the penitent. Is this not sacramental grace in abundance? Is not the cross the efficient instrument of the Lord’s compassion from which flow all the benefits of his passion?

What a danger there is in the possibility of the sacraments, in some estimations (sacramentalism), serving to eclipse the view, validity, and value of the cross.

“Forgiveness of sins is grounded in Christ alone. Peter commanded them to be baptized ‘so that your sins may be forgiven.’ Christ has once for all reconciled us to himself in Christ, ‘not counting men’s sins against them’ (2 Corinthians 5:19), and now plants in our hearts the faith of his Spirit. However, baptism is the seal by which he confirms this benefit to us. As baptism is the down payment and pledge of our adoption, it is correctly said to be given to us for the forgiveness of our sins. Because we receive Christ’s gifts by faith, and baptism confirms and increases our faith, forgiveness of sins, which is the result of faith, is linked to it, as a superior to an inferior. In addition to this we must not derive our doctrine of baptism from here, as Peter is just touching on it at this point. Our old nature is crucified by baptism, as Paul teaches, so that we may live a new life (Romans 6:4,6). Scripture teaches everywhere that baptism is a sign and token of repentance. In this passage in Acts Peter is not teaching about baptism but the forgiveness of sins. He says incidentally that baptism is the confirmation of the forgiveness of sins” (John Calvin, Acts 3:38).


The Rev. Roger Salter is an ordained Church of England minister where he had parishes in the dioceses of Bristol and Portsmouth before coming to Birmingham, Alabama to serve as Rector of St. Matthew's Anglican Church

(Anglicans Ablaze): Roger Beckwith: The Sacraments in the Thirty-nine Articles

Anglicans Ablaze: Roger Beckwith: The Doctrine of the Sacraments in ...:


For those who may be unfamiliar with the sacramental doctrine of Anglicanism's confession of faith, the Articles of Religion of 1571, also known as the Thirty-Nine Articles, I am posting this article from the Churchman, the quarterly journal of the Church Society. As can be seen from this article, the Thirty-Nine Articles do not recognize the rites of confirmation, penance, ordination, marriage, and extreme unction as sacraments, noting that "they have in part developed from a false understanding of apostolic practice and in part represent states of life allowed in the Scripture." The new ACNA catechism, however, describes them as "sacraments of the church," and goes on to describe the sacramental grace that it claims each rite confers. In doing so the new ACNA catechism departs from the sacramental doctrine not only of the Articles but also of the 1662 Prayer Book and the Homilies. The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion are a basic statement of Anglican theology. They were first drawn up by Archbishop Cranmer as Forty-two Articles in Edward VI’s reign (1553), and after being suppressed (with the rest of the reforming programme for the church) in Mary’s reign, were revived by act of Convocation in Elizabeth’s reign (1563). A modest revision took place (1563 and 1571), reducing them to Thirty-nine Articles, and in 1571 the English clergy were required, by act of Parliament, to give their assent to them, as a condition of being instituted to a cure of souls. Though forms of subscription have changed over the years, this is still a requirement in the Church of England and in many other Churches of the Anglican Communion, at ordination or institution or both.

The sacraments were one of the main topics of controversy at the Reformation, and it was chiefly for their teaching on the Lord’s Supper that the martyred Anglican bishops (Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper and Ferrar) were put to death. We have in Oxford a great stone cross in the surface of the road, marking the spot where Ridley and Latimer, and afterwards Cranmer, were burned to death; and one hundred yards away stands an elegant memorial erected in the nineteenth century, which those who have visited Oxford will have seen, from which the figures of Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley look out northward, westward and eastward across the university city.

Latimer was the great preacher among the Reformers, but Ridley was an able theologian, who led the way for his companions in his reformed eucharistic beliefs; while Cranmer was the great man of learning, slow in reaching conclusions but establishing them with great care, and it is to him that we owe not only very extensive theological writings on the Lord’s Supper, but also most of the brief summary statements on the sacraments which are included in the Thirty-nine Articles. As commentary on these Articles we have not only Cranmer’s own writings, but the Latin text of the Articles, which is of equal authority with the English; the Book of Homilies (of which two homilies in particular are concerned with the sacraments); the sacramental services of Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer; and the Prayer Book Catechism, of which the part on the sacraments was added by Bishop Overall slightly later, in 1604, though drawing to some extent on the Elizabethan catechism of Alexander Nowell.

The sacraments are the last main doctrinal topic in the Articles, occupying the six articles 25, 27-31 and being touched on in five others (16, 19, 23, 24 and 26). Keep reading

Heidelberg Catechism, 76-80: Lord's Supper & Popish Mass

The Heidelberg Catechism

As one Dutch Elder once said, “This Catechism is the heart cry from the pew!”Question 76. What is it then to eat the crucified body, and drink the shed blood of Christ?

Answer: It is not only to embrace with believing heart all the sufferings and death of Christ and thereby to obtain the pardon of sin, and life eternal; (a) but also, besides that, to become more and more united to his sacred body, (b) by the Holy Ghost, who dwells both in Christ and in us; so that we, though Christ is in heaven (c) and we on earth, are notwithstanding "flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone" (d) and that we live, and are governed forever by one spirit, (e) as members of the same body are by one soul.

(a) John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. John 6:48 I am that bread of life. John 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. John 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. John 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. (b) John 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. John 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. (c) Col.3:1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Acts 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. 1 Cor.11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. (d) Eph.3:16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; Eph.5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: Eph.5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. Eph.5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 1 Cor.6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. 1 Cor.6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. 1 Cor.6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 1 John 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. 1 John 4:13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. (e) John 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. John 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. John 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. John 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. John 15:2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. John 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. John 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. John 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. Eph.4:15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: Eph.4:16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

Question 77.  Where has Christ promised that he will as certainly feed and nourish believers with his body and bleed, as they eat of this broken bread, and drink of this cup?

Answer: In the institution of the supper, which is thus expressed: (a) "The Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and: said: eat, this is my body, which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying: this cup is the new testament in my blood; this do ye, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For, as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." 1 Cor.11:23-26. This promise is repeated by the holy apostle Paul, where he says "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." 1 Cor.10:16,17.

(a) 1 Cor.11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 1 Cor.11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 1 Cor.11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. Matt.26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. Matt.26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; Matt.26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Mark 14:22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. Mark 14:23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. Mark 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. 1 Cor.10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 1 Cor.10:17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

29. Lord's Day

Question 78.  Do then the bread and wine become the very body and blood of Christ?

Answer: Not at all: (a) but as the water in baptism is not changed into the blood of Christ, neither is the washing away of sin itself, being only the sign and confirmation thereof appointed of God; (b) so the bread in the Lord's supper is not changed into the very body of Christ; (c) though agreeably to the nature and properties of sacraments, (d) it is called the body of Christ Jesus.

(a) Matt.26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. (b) Eph.5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, Tit.3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; (c) Mark 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. 1 Cor.10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 1 Cor.10:17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. 1 Cor.11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 1 Cor.11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 1 Cor.11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. (d) Gen.17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. Gen.17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. Gen.17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. Gen.17:19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. Exod.12:11 And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the LORD'S passover. Exod.12:13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. Exod.12:27 That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the LORD'S passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped. Exod.12:43 And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof: Exod.12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. Exod.13:9 And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the LORD'S law may be in thy mouth: for with a strong hand hath the LORD brought thee out of Egypt. 1 Pet.3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 1 Cor.10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 1 Cor.10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 1 Cor.10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 1 Cor.10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Question 79.  Why then doth Christ call the bread "his body", and the cup "his blood", or "the new covenant in his blood"; and Paul the "communion of body and blood of Christ"?

Answer: Christ speaks thus, not without great reason, namely, not only thereby to teach us, that as bread and wine support this temporal life, so his crucified body and shed blood are the true meat and drink, whereby our souls are fed to eternal life; (a) but more especially by these visible signs and pledges to assure us, that we are as really partakers of his true body and blood by the operation of the Holy Ghost as we receive by the mouths of our bodies these holy signs in remembrance of him; (b) and that all his sufferings and obedience are as certainly ours, as if we had in our own persons suffered and made satisfaction for our sins to God.

(a) John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. John 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. (b) 1 Cor.10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 1 Cor.10:17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

30. Lord's Day

Question 80.  What difference is there between the Lord's supper and the popish mass?

Answer: The Lord's supper testifies to us, that we have a full pardon of all sin by the only sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which he himself has once accomplished on the cross; (a) and, that we by the Holy Ghost are ingrafted into Christ, (b) who, according to his human nature is now not on earth, but in heaven, at the right hand of God his Father, (c) and will there be worshipped by us. (d) But the mass teaches, that the living and dead have not the pardon of sins through the sufferings of Christ, unless Christ is also daily offered for them by the priests; and further, that Christ is bodily under the form of bread and wine, and therefore is to be worshipped in them; so that the mass, at bottom, is nothing else than a denial of the one sacrifice and sufferings of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry. (e)

(a) Heb.7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. Heb.9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. Heb.9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; Heb.9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Heb.9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: Heb.9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. Heb.10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Heb.10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; Heb.10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. Heb.10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. Matt.26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. (b) 1 Cor.6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. 1 Cor.10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? (c) Heb.1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Heb.8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; Heb.8:2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (d) Matt.6:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: Matt.6:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. John 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. John 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. Luke 24:52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy: Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, Acts 7:56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. Col.3:1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Philip.3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Philip.3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. 1 Thess.1:10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come. Heb.9:6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. Heb.9:7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: Heb.9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Heb.9:9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Heb.9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (e) Heb.9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Heb.10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; Heb.10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Heb.10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, Heb.10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; Heb.10:21 And having an high priest over the house of God; Heb.10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Heb.10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) Heb.10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Heb.10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. Heb.10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, Heb.10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. Heb.10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Heb.10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? Heb.10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. Heb.10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

"Auricular Confession," an Insider's View as a Romanist

This is an excellent “insider article” on auricular confession, a sacrament, ordered up for Romanists. As Anglicans (like Lutherans), we have a general confession and absolution based upon the teachings, promises and assurances from God's Word.  While we are not Romanists, far worse is the American evangelical worship service that has "nothing" other than a "sinner's prayer"--prayed once for a conversion experience.  Confessional Anglicans and Lutherans did not toss confession, but placed it back on a biblical footing.  Revivalist Anabaptists like Al Mohler, Mark Dever, John Piper, C.J. Mahaney, Matt Chandler, Mark Driscoll and John MacArthur know nothing of these biblical pieties or orders of divine worship.  As Confessional Protestants, we are closer to the Romanists without the sacerdotalism of course, yet are farther away--by conviction, thought, choice and prayer--from the enthusiast Anabaptists. But, back to point, here is a clear "insider's look" at auricular confession by a Romanist apologist.  On its own, it is informative.

http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-to-describe-confession-to.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+taylormarshall+%28Canterbury+Tales+by+Taylor+Marshall%29

Wednesday, May 09, 2012

How to Describe Confession to Protestants (Part 5 of Becoming Catholic)

Posted by Dr. Taylor Marshall 

For Protestants, the most unknown aspect of Catholic devotional life is confession. Unless you’re Catholic, you cannot experience it. A Protestant can attend a Catholic baptism, confirmation, wedding, ordination, and Holy Mass; however, he cannot attend a confession or know what it’s like until he actually makes one for the first time. 

Now most Protestants have seen it in movies. You go into the wooden box, a door slides behind a screen, and the Catholic says, “Bless me Father for I have sinned, etc.” 

Okay, that’s pretty much how it begins, but let’s look at it from a devotional point of view – how it really goes for a Catholic. 

Ideally, a Catholic makes a nightly examination of conscience every evening. This means that he prays to the Holy Spirit in order to remember his faults during the past day. He then prays an act of contrition at this moment with the intent of confessing these faults in confession. 

Before entering the confessional (that is, the box), he prays to the Holy Spirit (and to Mary and other saints) that he might make a good confession and be given the gift of true repentance and contrition. My practice is to ask the Holy Spirit for the light to see all my sins. Then I ask the Blessed Virgin Mary to obtain for me the grace to be truly sorry for my sins. You see, confession isn’t just about forgiveness of sins, it’s also about growing in sacramental grace. 

In the confessional, there is sometimes the option to go behind the screen or face to face (I always choose the screen). The priest will recite a prayer and then you say, “Bless me Father for I have sinned, it has been # weeks since my last confession and I accuse myself of the following sins.” 

Next you list all your sins in kind and number. If the priest cannot hear you or understand you, he’ll stop and ask questions. When you get to the end, you say, “For these sins and all those that I cannot remember, I humbly repent and ask for absolution, counsel, and penance.” 

The priest will then give you some advice or encouragement. He may make a general judgment that your struggles are related to a common vice. If you cry, he will comfort you. If you are scared to confess a sin, you say, “Father, I’m afraid to confess something.” He’ll walk you through it. If you are unsure if something was a sin or not, you ask him and talk it out. It’s very pastoral and safe. Then the priest gives you your penance. The penance is the sign that you wish to start a new life in Christ – that you’re going to make a change. The penance also shows a willingness to make reparation for the harm you’ve caused (for example, to return stolen money or apologize to a wounded spouse). A common penance is “Three Hail Mary’s” or “a decade of the Rosary” or “Three Our Fathers so that you’ll grow in the virtue of temperance.” 

Then the priest says, “Now please make an Act of Contrition.” This is a prayer you say to God out loud and the priest listens to you say it. It’s proof to him that you really are sorry for your sins and not just playing “pinball Catholicism” (click here to see what I mean by that). 

The Act of Contrition goes like this:

"O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins, because I dread the loss of heaven, and the pains of hell; but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, Who are all good and deserving of all my love.
I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to sin no more and avoid the near occasions of sin. Amen."

Then the priest gives you absolution: “I absolve you of your sins in the name of the Father and of Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

The priest then tells you to go in peace and usually asks you to say a prayer for him.

After that, you leave the confessional and go into the church where you pray your penance quietly and pray about anything else that is on your heart.

That’s confession. It is certainly one of my top three favorite things about Catholicism.

Godspeed,

Taylor Marshall, Ph.D.

CALVIN ON BAPTISM, PENANCE, AND ABSOLUTION

CALVIN ON BAPTISM, PENANCE, AND ABSOLUTION

By Rich Lusk

(Version 1.7)

Copyright © 2002

This paper is something of a follow-up to my earlier study, “Baptismal Efficacy and the Reformed Tradition: Past, Present, and Future.” One of the more controversial aspects of that paper was my claim that Calvin held to a very high view of baptismal efficacy. Indeed, he was a baptismal regenerationist, of sorts. This supplemental postscript will not resolve once and for all the question of Calvin’s views on baptismal efficacy, but I do hope it will further the discussion and make my claims in the earlier paper more plausible. I also take some sideways glances at Luther to show how close his views were to those of Calvin.

CALVIN ON THE SACRAMENTS: MEANS OF ASSURANCE OR MEANS OF SALVATION?

Calvin was a highly nuanced theologian. Sometimes, though, these nuances have been lost on his theological descendants. For example, Calvin’s discussion of predestination includes numerous careful qualifications that are intended to short cut philosophical speculation and prevent the doctrine from appearing arbitrary or tyrannical. But many modern followers of Calvin, especially his numerous popularizers, often truncate, and therefore distort, his pastoral, Christ-centered view of election, turning Calvinism into a caricature of its real self. Nowhere is the loss of nuance more evident than in contemporary views of Calvin’s teaching on the sacraments.

Two strands continually emerge in Calvin’s sacramental theology. On the one hand, Calvin views the sacraments as signs of assurance that serve to confirm and strengthen our faith. Through the sacraments, God grants certainty to believers. On the other hand, Calvin speaks of the sacraments as genuine instruments of salvation. As means of grace, the sacraments are said to effect what they represent and perform what they picture [1]. In the sacraments, God creates, as well as nourishes, faith. While latter day Calvinists have often felt the need to choose one of these two strands at the expense of the other (and have all too often chosen the first), Calvin himself felt no tension. The two strands were not in a tug-of-war, pulling against each other, but woven together into a beautiful sacramental tapestry [2].

How are these two strands harmonized in Calvin’s mind? Certainly Calvin’s systematic intellect would not allow his sacramental theology to contain a blatant contradiction on so crucial an issue. One possible approach to relating the two strands would be to offer a diachronic analysis of Calvin’s sacramental theology. At different points in his career, he emphasized different aspects of the sacraments’ usefulness. Often Calvin seemed to modify his sacramental theology, or at least its emphases, depending on his opponents at the time, his desire for a Reformed ecumenism, his pastoral concerns, and so forth, all the while attempting to build a Protestant consensus. He had quite a gauntlet to run, as he sought to avoid the errors of the Romanists, Zwinglians, Anabaptists, and so forth. For example, during his time in Strassbourg, he worked closely alongside Martin Bucer. No doubt, Bucer’s own high view of sacramental instrumentality and his ambitious ecumenical projects exercised decisive influence on Calvin. After Calvin returned to Geneva, his attempts to build a coalition with Ulrich Zwingli’s successor Heinrich Bullinger led him to tone down, or at least de-emphasize, sacramental efficacy. The result was the less than satisfactory Consensus Tigurerinus of 1549. Towards the end of his career, debates with pesky Lutherans such as Joachim Westphal led Calvin to re-emphasize God’s powerful, saving action in the sacraments. Because the Institutes went through several drafts, it is to be expected that bits and pieces reflect the various emphases of the various phases of Calvin’s turbulent career. But this in itself cannot account completely for the nuance found in the final 1559 version of the Institutes. There is no question Calvin himself considered the final product to be a coherent, consistent manual of theology.

Another method of resolution is to take into account Calvin’s definition of faith. In Book three, he writes, “Now we shall possess a right definition of faith if we call it a firm and certain knowledge of God’s benevolence toward us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit.” In other words, faith = assurance. We can then bridge the gap between sacraments as assuring pledges that fortify pre-existing faith and sacraments as salvific, faith-giving instruments by simply pointing out that faith and assurance are two sides of a single coin. To say the sacraments give assurance is to say they give saving faith, and vice versa [3].

I think the most satisfactory answer is simply to leave the strands side by side. Calvin does not seem to think they need harmonizing, so why should we? The salvific and assuring functions of the sacraments can simply be combined into an organic whole. Calvin himself does this repeatedly and effortlessly in his baptismal theology, as a brief examination of Book 4, chapter 15 in the Institutes shows.

For Calvin, baptism has a God-manward meaning and a man-Godward meaning. Of course, God’s action towards man has primacy: “Now baptism was given to us by God for these ends (which I have taught to be common to all sacraments): first to serve our faith before him; secondly, to serve our confession before men…Accordingly, they [e.g., the Zwinglians and Anabaptists] who regarded baptism as nothing but a token and mark by which we confess our religion before men, as soldiers bear the insignia of their commander as a mark of their profession, have not weighed what was the chief point of baptism” [4]. Baptism, in reality, is God’s work: “For inasmuch as [baptism] is given for the arousing, nourishing, and confirming of our faith, it is to be received as from the hand of the Author himself. We ought to deem it certain and proved that it is he who speaks to us through the sign; that it is he who purifies and washes away sins, and wipes out the remembrance of them; that it is he who make us sharers in his death, who deprives Satan of his rule, who weakens the power of our lust; indeed, that it is he who comes into a unity with us so that, having put on Christ, we may be acknowledged God’s children. These things, I say, he performs for our soul within as truly and surely as we see our body outwardly cleansed, submerged, and surrounded with water [5]…And he does not feed our eyes with a mere appearance only, but leads us to the present reality and effectively performs what he symbolizes” [6].

The God-towards-man action of baptism is then unpacked in three dimensions [7]. “The first thing that the Lord sets out for us is that baptism should be a token and proof of our cleansing; or (the better to explain what I mean) it is like a sealed document to confirm to us that all our sins are so abolished, remitted, and effaced that they can never come to his sight, be recalled, or charged against us.” Calvin begins (in a very pastoral way) with baptism as an assuring pledge. All who believe may know they are washed in Christ’s blood just as surely as the waters of baptism have come upon them. As he goes on to explain, the water does not cause salvation by itself; rather “in this sacrament are received the knowledge and certainty of such gifts” [8]. However, this does make the significance of baptism merely cognitive, as the next two points demonstrate. Baptism’s assuring function does not exhaust its usefulness.

For Calvin, baptism means union with Christ: “Baptism also brings another benefit, for it shows us our mortification in Christ, and new life in him…[T]hrough baptism Christ makes us sharers in his death, that we may be engrafted in it” [9]. Calvin then turns to a brief exposition of Romans 6. It is this baptismal union with the crucified and risen Christ that gives the Christian life its basic pattern of mortification and vivification [10]. Calvin, following Paul exhorts the baptized to live out their union with Christ, dead to sin and alive to righteousness. According to Calvin, Christ himself was baptized in order to include us in his work: “For he dedicated and sanctified baptism in his own body [Mt. 3:13] in order that he might have it in common with us as the firmest bond of the union and fellowship which he has deigned to form with us…Thus we see that the fulfillment of baptism is in Christ, whom also for this reason we call the proper object of baptism…For all the gifts proffered in baptism are found in Christ alone” [11]. Our baptisms unite us to The Baptized One, Christ himself in whom all blessings are found.

The third benefit received in baptism is adoption: “Lastly, our faith receives from baptism the advantage of its sure testimony to us that we are not only engrafted into the death and life of Christ, but so united to Christ himself that we become sharers in all his blessings…Hence, Paul proves that we are children of God from the fact that we are put on Christ in baptism [Gal. 3:26-27].” Baptism is not only a kind of marriage, uniting us to Christ, but also an adoption ceremony, placing us in God’s family. As adopted sons, we are co-heirs of God together with Christ.

As Calvin expounds this threefold grace of baptism, he continually mixes in the two strands: baptism as assuring pledge and baptism as efficacious instrument. Sometimes these two angles on baptism appear side by side on the same page! Consider his words on 1304-5: “For Paul [in Eph. 5:26 and Tit. 3:5] did not mean to signify that our cleansing and salvation are accomplished by water, or that water contains in itself the power to cleanse, regenerate, and renew; nor that here is the cause of salvation, but only that in this sacrament are received the knowledge and certainty of such gifts…[The water of baptism] attests with certainty that Christ’s blood is our only laver.” It seems Calvin has limited baptism to giving assurance, taking away any salvific efficacy. However in the very next section, he states, “But we must realize that at whatever time we are baptized, we are once for all washed and purged for our whole life” [12]. Thus, the salvific, instrumental power of baptism is preserved.

The same combination shows up on 1315. In expounding Acts 22:16, Calvin focuses on the assuring function of baptism: “Ananias meant only this: ‘To be assured, Paul, that your sins are forgiven, be baptized. For the Lord promises forgiveness of sins in baptism: receive it and be secure.” However, Calvin immediately corrects the impression of those who would view the sacraments as merely assuring seals: “Yet it is not my intention to weaken the force of baptism by not joining reality and truth to the sign, in so far as God works through outward means.”


For more, see:
Theologia » Calvin on Baptism, Penance, & Absolution

26 November 1559: Bishop John Jewel Preaches at St. Paul’s, London

26 November 1559: Bishop John Jewel Preaches at St. Paul’s, London

A few discursive and unscientific thoughts about Jewel's sermon.

Luther is dead, 1546. Calvin is about to publish his magnum opus, The Institutes of Christian Religion. Cranmer and others have perished in the flames. Elizabeth is on the throne. Spaniards, France and Rome want England. Danger is everywhere in 1559.

Bishop John Jewel preaches at St. Paul’s on 26 November 1559.

A few observations on Anglicanism drawn from Horton Davies’ Worship and Theology in the Church of England: From Cranmer to Baxter and Fox, 1545-1690, Five Volumes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996).

Romanists had seven sacraments. Blue-suede-shoe and lime-green gabardine types, like the APA, Walter Grunsdorf and other Romewardizing Anglicans, have seven. Holy Orders was a Roman sacrament, but Ordination was not a sacrament, but a ceremony for the authorizing of Anglican ministry. Confirmation was important, but was never a sacrament; the same went for marriage. For Penance there was no equivalent at all, unless one points to the Declaration of the Remission of Sins by a minister in Christ’s name. Continental Reformers had the equivalent services, including confirmation. It was termed differently, but there is a service of recognition for becoming adult communicant in the Reformed and Presbyterian traditions, as well as Lutheran. Lutherans like Anglicans retained the service. There was no paedo-communion as theonomists like Ray Sutton have introduced. The Articles taught two sacraments.

The two major Gospel sacraments were retained—Baptism, as the sacrament of initiation to the visible Church and Holy Communion, the sacrament of spiritual nourishment.

According to Horton:

The Anglican objections to the Roman Mass were comprehensively and tersely listed by John Jewel in his notable "Challenge Sermon," preached at St. Paul's Cross November 26, 1559 and again on March 31, 1560, which had been repeated at Court exactly a fortnight earlier.

Jewel criticised these points: using Latin and not the vernacular, Communion in one kind, the teaching in the Canon on sacrifice, the adoration of the Sacrament, and private celebration.[i]

It is worth noting by way of practice: no elevation, no kissing of tables, no parading around, etc.

Jewel followed Cranmer on the Lord’s Supper. Three distinctions were made between Rome and early English Reformed theology: (1) There was a difference between the sign and the thing signified. (2) Christ is in heaven, not bodily on earth. Ubiquitarianism or Eutychianism was insurmountable for Cranmer, Jewel, as well as Continental, Swiss reformers. (3) The body of Christ was “eaten by faith only and none otherwise.” (Jewels’ Works, 1, 449 as cited by Davies, op.cit., 121.

Archbishop Grindal wryly observed:

Christ did eat the sacrament with the apostles: ergo, the sacrament is not Christ.” (The Remains of Edmund Grindal, D.D., ed. William Nicholson, p.43, cited by Davies, 121)

At one place, Hooker--he appears to be indifferent. This scribe has not been highly impressed with Hooker by comparison with Luther or Calvin. "Who cares about transubstantiation or consubstantiation?" asks Hooker.

“…why do we vainly trouble ourselves with so fierce contentions, whether by consubstantiation or else by transubstantiation the sacrament be first possessed with Christ or no? –a thing which no way can either further nor hinders us however it stand, because our participation with Christ in this sacrament dependeth on the co-operation of His omnipotent power which maketh it His body and blood to us, whether with change or without alteration of the elements such as they imagine, we need to not greatly to care of inquire.”[ii]

What are we to make of this? How does this comport with the Thirty-nine Articles?

At another point, it was said of Hooker: “…he too moved in the tracks laid down by Thomas Cranmer.”[iii] “The real presence is to be sought, according to Hooker, not in things but in person, not in consecrated elements but in consecrated persons receiving grace through faith.”[iv]

Back to Jewel and the sermon at St. Pauls on 26 November 1559. The sense of Jewel appears to follow Cranmer straight back to Calvin and Bucer rather than Zwingli. One must read Wallace's Calvin: The Word and Sacrament, which sounds very Cranmerian.

Beyond Jewel and a few years later, a scurrilous attack was given by a Rev. Bridges in a Sermon at St. Paul’s Cathedral in 1571. Lutherans would be affronted by this. Rev Bridges affirms that the Catholics had:

"…turned Chryst out of his owne likenesse, and made him looke lyke a rounde cake, nothyng lyke to Iesus Christe, no more than an apple is lyke an oyster, nor so mutche, for there appereth neyther armes nor handes, feete nor legges, back nor belly, heade nor body of Chryst: but all is visoured and disguysed under the fourme of a wafer, as lyghte as a feather, as thinne as a paper, as whyte as a kerchiefe, as round as a trenchour, as flat as a pancake, as smal as a shilling, as tender as the Priestes lemman that made it, as muche taste as a stycke, and as deade as a dore nayle to looke upon. O blessed God, dare they `thus disfigure our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ?"[v]

Lutheran brethren will confessionally affirm that Anglicans did not get it correct, e.g. the "Black Rubric." Hooker’s view of indifference (?) will be unsatisfying to them. I think Calvin had a higher sacramental view than is current among Presbyterians. Baptists and enthusiasts are excluded. We know where the Papists are. Ridley was comfortable with Ratramnus's views, to wit, that in the 9th century he spoke without official rebuke.

Kissing tables, monstrances with the little glass holes in the boxes to “see an impanated Jesus” as bread worshippers, Holy Roods, choking incense, Marian invocations and all were affronts, except for the blue-suede-shoe types. We are reminded of Archbishop Grindal's question, to wit, "If Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper and celebrated it the last night before His death, did He eat Himself?"

________________________________________
[i] Horton Davies’ Worship and Theology in the Church of England: From Cranmer to Baxter and Fox, 1545-1690, Five Volumes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 122.
[ii] Richard Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, ed. by Keble, V, lxvii, 12, 359. Davies’, op.cit., footnote 79, 33. Hooker is some of the most wearying reading one can do.
[iii] Horton Davies’ Worship and Theology in the Church of England: From Cranmer to Baxter and Fox, 1545-1690, Five Volumes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 122.
[iv] Richard Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, ed. by Keble, V, lxvii, 12, 359. Davies’, op.cit., footnote 170, 122.
[v] Horton Davies’ Worship and Theology in the Church of England: From Cranmer to Baxter and Fox, 1545-1690, Five Volumes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 33.

Cranmer Quotes: Bible, Faith, Justification, Christ, Lord's Supper, Pope

www.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_033_Cranmer.pdf

Article reprinted from Cross†Way Issue Summer 1989 No. 33 (C)opyright Church Society; material may be used for non-profit purposes provided that the source is acknowledged and the text is not altered.

CRANMER SPEAKS TODAY

On this quincentenary of Cranmer’s birth it is good to be reminded of how relevant are many of the things which Cranmer said and wrote to the present times. Here are some extracts from his works and two pieces of poetry which his death inspired.

The Sufficiency of Holy Scripture

Whatsoever the church teacheth you out of the Canonical books of the Bible, believe that; but if
they teach you anything beside (I mean, which is not agreeable with the same) believe neither that nor them...cleave ye fast to the sound and certain doctrine of God’s infallible word, written in the Canonical books of the New and Old Testament. (Comfutation of Unwritten Verities)

Lively Faith

As he that readeth Cesar’s Commentaries, believing the same to be true, hath thereby a knowledge of Cesar’s life and notable acts, because he believeth the history of Cesar, yet it is not properly said that he believeth in Cesar, of whom he looketh for no help nor benefit; even so he that believeth that all that is spoken of God in the Bible is true, and yet liveth so ungodly that he cannot look to enjoy the promises and benefits of God, although it may be said that such a man hath faith and belief in the words of God, yet it is not properly said that he believeth in God, or hath such faith and trust in God whereby he may surely look for grace, mercy and everlasting life at God’s hand. (Homily of The True, Lively and Christian Faith)

Scripture – The Food of the Soul

Let us reverently hear and read Holy Scripture, which is the Food of the soul. Let us diligently
search for the well of life in the books of the New and Old Testament, and not run to the stinking puddles of men’s traditions, devised by men’s imaginations, for our justification and salvation. (Homily on Scripture).

The Lord’s Supper

The true eating and drinking of the said body and blood of Christ is, with a constant and lively faith to believe, that Christ gave his body, and shed his blood upon the cross for us, and that he doth so join and incorporate himself to us, that he is our head, and we his members, and flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, having him dwelling in us, and we in him. And herein standeth the whole effect and strength of this sacrament. And this faith God worketh inwardly in our hearts by his holy Spirit, and confirmeth the same outwardly to our ears by hearing of his word, and to our other senses by eating and drinking of the sacramental bread and wine in his holy supper. For figuratively he is in the bread and wine, and spiritually he is in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine; but really, carnally, and corporally, he is only in heaven, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and dead.

Christ’s Sacrifice

Christ never gave this honour to any creature, that he should make a sacrifice of him, nor did not ordain the sacrament of his holy supper, to the intent that either the priest or the people should sacrifice Christ again, or that the priests should make a sacrifice of him for the people: but his holy supper was ordained for this purpose, that every man, eating and drinking thereof, should remember that Christ died for him, and so should exercise his faith, and comfort himself by the remembrance of Christ’s benefits, and so give unto Christ most hearty thanks, and give himself also clearly unto him.

Worthy Reception of the Sacraments

As in baptism those that come feignedly, and those that come unfeignedly, both be washed with the sacramental water, but both be not washed with the Holy Ghost, and clothed with Christ: so in the Lord’s supper both eat and drink the sacramental bread and wine, but both eat not Christ himself, and be fed with his flesh and blood, but those only which worthily receive the sacrament. (The True and Catholick Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper)

Justification

Justification is not the office of man, but of God: for man cannot justify himself by his own good works, neither in part, nor in whole ... So the true understanding of this doctrine, we be justified freely by faith without works, or that we be justified by faith in Christ only, is not, that this our own act to believe in Christ, or this our own faith in Christ, which is within us, doth justify us ... but the true understanding and meaning thereof is, that although we hear God’s word and believe it; although we have faith, hope, charity ... we must renounce the merit of all our said virtues....and good deeds which we either have done, shall do, or can do ... and therefore we must trust only in God’s mercy, and in that sacrifice which our High Priest and Saviour Christ Jesus, the Son of God, once offered for us upon the cross... (Homily of Salvation)

The Mass

But what availeth it to take away beads, pardons, pilgrimages, and such other like popery, so long as the two chief roots remain unpulled up? whereof, so long as they remain, will spring up again all former impediments of the Lord’s harvest, and corruption of his flock. The rest is but branches and leaves, the cutting away whereof is but like topping and lopping of a tree, or cutting down of weeds, leaving the body standing and the roots in the ground; but the very body of the tree, or rather the roots of the weeds, is the popish doctrine of transubstantiation, of the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament of the altar (as they call it), and of the sacrifice and oblation of Christ made by the priest, for the salvation of the quick and the dead. Which roots if they be suffered to grow in the Lord’s vineyard, they will overspread all the ground again with the old errors and superstitions. (The True and Catholick Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper)

The Pope

Alas! what hath the pope to do in England? whose jurisdiction is so far different from the
jurisdiction of this realm, that it is impossible to be true to the one and true to the other...I will never give my consent to the receiving of him into this Church of England. (Examination before Brokes)

The Martyrdom

‘Make short! make short!’ and so they lit the wood.
Then Cranmer lifted his left hand to heaven,
And thrust his right into the bitter flame;
And crying, in his deep voice, more than once,
‘This hand offended - this unworthy hand!’
So held it till it all was burn’d, before
The flame had reach’d his body; I stood near –
Mark’d him - he never uttered moan of pain:
He never stirr’d or writhed, but, like a statue,
Unmoving in the greatness of the flame,
Gave up the ghost; and so past martyr-like.
Tennyson

Sonnet on Cranmer

Outstretching flame-ward his upbraided hand
(O God of mercy, may no earthly seat
Of judgement such presumptuous doom repeat!)
Amid the shuddering throng doth Cranmer stand;
Firm as the stake to which with iron band
His frame is tied; firm from the naked feet
To the bare head, the victory complete;
The shrouded body, to the soul’s command,
Answering with more than Indian fortitude,
Through all her nerves with finer sense endued,
Till death departs in blissful aspiration:
Then ‘mid the ghastly ruin of the fire,
Behold the unalterable heart entire,
Emblem of faith untouched, miraculous attestation!

Wordsworth

Romanist Confession Box Encounters by Rev. Richard Bennett

Nicholas Ridley, "England's Calvin" on the Lord's Supper

Panofré, Charlotte Anne. "From Latimer's Fellow-martyr to the 'English Calvin': Nicholas Ridley's Reputation and the Circulation of A brief declaration of the Lordes Supper, 1555-1570." Reformation & Renaissance Review: Journal of the Society for Reformation Studies 10.2 (2008): 175-193. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 7 Nov. 2010.

A most commendable article. In summary,

Nicholas Ridley, the Edwardian Bishop of London, was executed in October, 1555, during Mary Tudor's reign. An active publicist, he composed in prison a treatise that promoted the Reformed view of Holy Communion. If Latimer was the "Apostle to England," a preacher, Ridley was significantly more erudite, "moderate" and "sharp" of mind. Ridley's work was published in Emden (1555) and in Strasbourg (1556). In 1556, A brief declaracion found its way to Geneva where a community of English exiles had it translated into Latin (Conrad Badius then issued a version in French). Not only did the translation acquire a polemical edge, but certain allusions, scattered in the preface and in the margins of the text, turned Ridley's treatise into a `Calvinist' manifesto with a trans-national readership. This came at a time when Calvin was defending his views against the Lutheran polemicist, Joachim Westphal. Ex-patriate English Reformers driven from their homes and families during the Marian period, Edmund Grindal (Frankfurt) and Whittingham (Geneva), both had access to Ridley's work. The former would be Elizabeth's second Protestant and Reformed Archbishop of Canterbury. The latter would become the influential Professor of Divinity, Cambridge, who would lock horns with Cardinal Bellarmine. Whittingham made Ridley's work known to Jean Calvin. Whittingham would also accuse Westphal of "impanation," a view close to transubstantiation. Meanwhile, Jean Crespin made use of Badius's version in his martyrologies and reprinted Ridley's treatise in his 1570 edition. Whereas in England, Ridley's works began to be perceived as controversial after Mary's death. Crespin and Beza (Icones, 1580) put Ridley in the Reformation pantheon, kept his treatise alive and heralded him as the 'English Calvin' in French Reformed circles. Also, Beza likens Latimer and Ridley, in their martyrdoms, to Polycarp and Igatius. This is not something that John Henry Newman would like hearing, but these are the facts.

Ps. 38.1 and the Prayer of Humble Access

Ps.38.1:

O LORD, rebuke me not in Your wrath,
And chasten me not in Your burning anger.

κύριε μὴ τῷ θυμῷ σου ἐλέγξῃς με μηδὲ τῇ ὀργῇ σου παιδεύσῃς με

יְהוָה אַל־בְּקֶצְפְּךָ תֹוכִיחֵנִי וּבַחֲמָתְךָ תְיַסְּרֵנִי׃

Domine, ne in furore tuo arguas me, neque in ira tua corripias me.

Why can't the modern, folk-religionists, sing and say this? Or, why "won't" they?

There are answers to that. Any takers?

One hint: the doctrine of God.

It's an extremely serious question. Time for some Rectors and Pastors to take a one-year Sabbatical. Read the Scriptures and books on the doctrine of God. Put em' in a local monastery near their homes. And good liturgical worship in the morning and evening. It's that serious.

Of course, read 38.1 in context...context, context, context. And analogia fidei, hermeneutically.

It's assumed in the Prayer of Humble Access, 1662 BCP.

We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.

R.C. Sproul, Roman Catholic, Seven Sacraments--Part Two

http://www.ligonier.org/rym/broadcasts/audio/sacraments-pt-2/

R.C. Sproul, Roman Catholic, Seven Sacraments--Part Two

R.C. Sproul, Roman Catholicism, and Seven Sacraments, Part One

http://www.ligonier.org/rym/broadcasts/audio/sacraments-pt-1/

R.C. Sproul, Roman Catholicism, and Seven Sacraments, Part One

Shepherd, Justification, Covenant, Baptism

http://www.misterrichardson.com/fergusonbr.html

Sinclair Ferguson's Critique of Norman Shepherd's The Covenant Context for Evangelism
by Sinclair Ferguson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reproduced with permission from the Banner of Truth Magazine, July-August, 1977.

This was originally part of a book review of The New Testament Student and Theology. After commenting on other articles contained in the book, this review follows.
--------------------------------------------------------

Of the hitherto unpublished articles, the one most likely to attract attention and provoke comment comes from the pen of Norman Shepherd, Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Seminary and John Murray's successor as the chairman of the department. He gives us a twenty-five page paper on "The Covenant Context for Evangelism", and his thesis merits more prolonged description and discussion. He has in view the much-discussed notion that reformed evangelism appears to be so much less successful than its Arminian counterpart.

Professor Shepherd proposes, as the solvent of this shameful situation, that "The Covenant affords the perspective from which the evangelistic task of the church ought to be approached"(p 53). There follow from this three basic theses which ought to provide some kind of truly biblical solution to this problem.

1. The Great Commission arises out of and is patterned after the Covenant with Abraham.
2. Reformed evangelistic methodology must be consciously oriented to the covenant of grace rather than to the doctrine of election.
3. Baptism, rather than regeneration is the point of transition from lostness in death to salvation in life.

In the exposition of these three theses, Shepherd offers a great deal to challenge and stimulate thought and reaction, and this must be regarded as one of the primary functions of the paper in view of the original context at which it was given, in a conference of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. But there are a number of criticisms of his position which must be mentioned.

Dr. Shepherd makes no attempt to define his concept of covenant, and yet it is imperative, in view of its centrality to scripture, theology , and history, that this term should be defined, and used with the utmost precision.

Furthermore, it will be readily recognized that the reformed constituency is very conscious, indeed self-conscious, of the criticisms which are leveled at its apparent lack of evangelistic thrust and success. We need to examine ourselves, but there is a very important difference between self-examination and self-consciousness and introversion. We need to remember, when comparisons are drawn between reformed evangelism and that of other Christians, that the statistics of evangelical religion indicate that the reformed constituency is numerically swamped by the multitudes of other persuasions. It is inevitable that the evangelism of Arminianism appears to be more frequent and more successful. Any comparison is faulty, because it is between things that differ to considerably statistically to be properly correlated.

Turning more closely to the thesis which Professor Shepherd enunciates, some further comment is necessary. He assumes that passages like Ephesians 1:1-14 are "suffused with covenantal language". The present reviewer agrees with this contention, and regards it as important. But Shepherd does not sustain his case by demonstration. He gives no indication as to what covenantal language is, and this is a great deficiency. It might be thought that this would belong to the essence of his task in view of the all-pervasiveness of covenant for which he is arguing.

This brings us to one of his major points. He writes that "The prophets and apostles viewed election from the perspective of the covenant of grace, whereas Reformed theologians of a later day have tended to view the covenant of grace from the perspective of election"(p 60). The result of this, it is argued, is that the reformed preacher no longer says "Christ died for you" - but, when these words are construed, not from the point of view of election, but of the covenant, then "The Reformed evangelist can and must say on the basis of John 3:16, Christ died for you."

This demands comment. First, Shepherd appears to adopt the view of the prevailing academic critique of the covenant theology of the seventeenth century (forcefully presented decades ago by Perry Miller), which suggests that the doctrine of covenant somehow makes God's secret counsels less harsh. We ought therefore to look at covenant, and not at election. This analysis, both historically and biblically we reject. It is clear that, in fact, covenant theology arose in a variety of circumstances - sacramental, in the case of Zwingli, biblical and theological, in the case of Calvin, expository and pastoral, in the case of the Puritans. Doubtless, in the case of some writers, Shepherd may be right. But it is an extreme view to charge all reformed writers with this confusion of thought, and to suggest that they have turned the order of scripture on its head. To use Shepherd's own citation - the fact is that some passages, e.g. Ephesians 1:1-14, do employ the mode of looking at covenant from the viewpoint of election. Indeed, in that passage it is necessary for the reader to look for covenant in the context of election. From a more practical point of view - was it because Whitefield and Edwards, Spurgeon and M'Cheyne managed to escape the old reformed straitjacket and discover election it its covenant perspective that they were such great evangelists? It seems highly doubtful. And therefore we are justified in wondering whether this is really the true solution at all.

Shepherd has had the courage to state to the reformed reader that a question mark hangs over the commonly accepted notion that the preacher cannot say: "Christ died for you." In fact Shepherd goes so far as to say that, from this covenantal perspective, the reformed preacher is under obligation to say "Christ died to save you." But that cannot possibly be a proper assessment, for no evangelist in the New Testament shows himself to have been under an inescapable burden to say that. In fact Shepherd is surely confusing two things in John 3:16, to which he refers - the truth that it was the loved world to which God gave his Son (which is affirmed), and the statement, "Christ died to save you" (which is not confirmed). Not only does the reformed evangelist not say this, the apostle John does not say it either.

But most eyebrows will be raised by Professor Shepherd's comment that "Baptism rather than regeneration is the point of transition from lostness in death to salvation in life" (p 66) - to which, it must be added, he provides a note to the effect that "The position here advocated should not be confused with the sacramentalist doctrine of baptismal regeneration" (ibid). His point is that when evangelism is election-oriented, it is also regeneration-oriented, so that the whole thing is viewed from the standpoint of the secret work of God. The problem with this approach is that, "Judgments have to be made which belong properly and exclusively in the hands of God." Just because such judgment belongs to God, the evangelist should not attempt even an approximation" (p 67). This whole view, according to the author, leads to the tension in reformed evangelism of works of preparation for grace, to which he objects: "Even the exhortation to ask for a new heart does not square with insistence on total inability. There is nothing the unregenerate man can do or will do in the direction of his conversion" (p 69). "In contrast to this regeneration - evangelism a methodology oriented to the covenant structure of Scripture and to the Great Commission presents baptism as the point of transition from death to life" (p 71). This, he argues, is demonstrated by the emphasis in the New Testament, not on people being converted, but on their being baptized, and he cites Acts 2:41 and Acts 16:33 as illustrative of this very principle.

There are a number of strands here, and each must be criticised separately. First of all, Professor Shepherd does not seem to give due allowance to the fact that regeneration is not the only work of God. It may have precursors. Jesus said that men, unregenerate as they were, should strive to enter in by the narrow gate that leads to life. Then, in the second place, Shepherd is somewhat guilty of mishandling the tests he quotes in favour of the priority of baptism over conversion. On the one hand the verses do say what he states; but he fails to remind us of other things they state. Thus, for example, that the 3000 who were baptized were those who "gladly received the word", and that Paul and Silas baptized the jailer because he believed in God. They must have borne the distinguishing marks of a work of the Spirit of God. The apostles must have judged these men to be truly regenerate. Rather than draw attention away from conversion, these instances simply highlight that, for the adult, a profession of faith in Christ, and of conversation was a prerequisite for baptism.

Thirdly, Shepherd is guilty at least of confusion of expression, if not more. It is true that baptism is what "should mark the passage from death to life"(p 72), but it is another thing to suggest that it actually constitutes "the point of transition from lostness in death to salvation in life"(p 66). This is to confuse the sign and the thing signified, and to be guilty of an offence against reformed teaching. Surely Professor Shepherd means something different from what he says? It is perhaps not surprising that, while critical of the current expressions that a man is "truly converted" or "really born again", and emphatic that in the New Testament the phraseology was that he was "baptised", and that these other expressions were redundant, he does not himself manage to escape an addition to baptism as the expression of fruitful evangelism, when he says that "All who have been baptized and are seeking to do the will of God are to be regarded as Christian brothers"(p 74, emphasis mine).

These expressions of Professor Shepherd may be seen by Baptist brethren as playing into their hands. The current baptist polemic has made much capital out of the differences and disagreements among paedobaptists over the meaning and place of baptism. The fact that the baptist position is equally out of sorts with itself and that its apologetes present diverse views of the nature of baptism and its relationship, or otherwise, to both covenant and church, is beside the point! Shepherd's position does not clarify matters. Perhaps, in view of the originality which the author is obviously seeking to inject into an important area of discussion, it is inevitable that he has not, apparently, thought through some of the implications of his teaching. For this reason it would be a pity if baptist brethren were to employ his case as typical of the position which aped Baptists are now adopting! In any event, the article leaves us somewhere in the air, and does not convey to this reviewer that the answer to a pressing predicament has been made clear, and that the gospel may now be carried by reformed men to a lost world with a freedom and power that is sadly lacking.

It would be our hope that, for the welfare of the reformed churches, Professor Shepherd would return to the drawing board, and come again, so that we may hear him further on these matters.