Tuesday, May 29, 2007

The Lord's Supper Part II - Calvin's View

Good Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.

The Reformed church of yesteryear had a more biblically rich, complex and theologically accurate view of the Lord’s Supper than 99% of those claiming the Reformed banner today. Not only did the magisterial Reformers take time in sermons, tracts, commentaries and writings on the subject of the Lord’s Supper, but because of their break with Roman Catholicism’s doctrine of transubstantiation, they had to biblically and solidly prove that their position was not only superior, but more biblically accurate. They did this easily, but extensively.

Most of the 21st century church does not adhere to Calvin’s view, or the Reformed view, of the Lord’s Supper. Instead, they have adopted the counter Reformation view of Ulrich Zwingli, who was not only opposed by Luther and Melancthon, but also Calvin and those that followed Reformed Doctrine in Geneva.

Later, we will discuss Zwingli’s view, here, we look at Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper which was highly influenced by Augustine.

Here is what Calvin taught about the Lord’s Supper –

Calvin said that a sacrament is an outward sign that seals on our consciences the promise of God and His good will to us in the Gospel. It is a visible sign of a sacred thing, and a form of invisible grace. It is the visible words of God. The sacraments bring the clearest promises; and they have this characteristic over and above the word because they represent them for us as painted in a picture from life.

Sacraments are signs of God’s covenants. They are tokens of the covenant. They are exercises which make us more certain of the trustworthiness of God’s word.

They are only positively efficacious for us when we partake of them by regenerating grace. They are negatively efficacious for those who partake unworthily, calling down the curses of the covenant for covenant breakers. They are instruments of God and are only useful insofar as God uses them as instruments.

The sacraments, in and of themselves, do not impart grace. Instead, like the word of God, they present Christ to us. In the elect alone the sacraments effect what they represent. We receive their reception of God’s grace as we partake of them in faith. If one receives the sacrament carnally, the sacrament does not cease to be spiritual, but it is not so for them. God truly executes whatever He promises and represents in signs.

The Supper, then, extends to us the body of Christ which is in heaven. Union with Christ is crucial to Calvin’s understanding of the Supper. Christ is the life-giving bread that has come down from heaven and upon which our souls feed unto true blessedness (John 6:55). Christ is invisible food and invisible drink for us to feed upon. We are members of His flesh and bones, and the bond of this union is the Spirit of Christ.

Christ is present in the Supper by way of the sign of the bread and wine. The name of the thing, that is the body and blood of Christ, is transferred to the thing signified. These signs presuppose the presence of Christ and manifests that presence via those signs. They are real grace signified and sealing real things exemplified in their signs of grace. Christ said, “This is my body…” Calvin concurs. But he asks, “In what sense?” The expression is figurative. The bread is Christ’s body, and the wine is His blood. But these elements hold forth Christ to us, which demonstrate the truth of the reality for those who partake by faith. The reality is conjoined with the sign. Calvin rightly says that we do not less truly become participants in Christ’s body in respect of spiritual efficacy, than we partake of the bread. Calvin says, “In His sacred Supper he bids me take, eat, and drink His body and blood under the symbols of bread and wine. I do not doubt that he himself truly presents them, and that I receive them.” (Institutes 4:17.10)

What is Calvin saying in all this? Simply, let us use a modern marvel of technological wonder to explain what Calvin is saying about the Supper. It is as simple as a cell phone. When you call someone, you enter into your contacts list that list the person’s name and number. There you have a visible representation of ideas formed in your mind about that person. When I see the name “Mr. Black”, I have all sorts of information running in my mind about who “Mr. Black” is. I can tell you that I have never met Mr. Black face to face. I have never sat with him at dinner. But I have, countless times, emailed Mr. Black about all sorts of things concerning theological issues and publishing books. But I have never met Mr. Black. I am sure that if I sat down with Mr. Black and talked with him face to face, the experience of that would be far more satisfying than simply seeing him in my cell phone, or emailing him, or even talking with him by phone. My experience with him is limited to WORDS. In the same way, the cell phone is much like the sacrament that demonstrates to us the visibility of the Word of God, and Christ. Christ, though, is in heaven. However, through the cell phone of the sacrament the conduit, which is the Spirit, unites us with Jesus Christ, really and truly, but not as fully as “face to face.” For now, we will have to be satisfied with a cell phone conversation of His real presence with us, in this case through the bread and wine that truly connect us to Him, and we will long for the day that those spiritual sacraments, those spiritual cell phones are done away with, and we will sit down with the Lord in the fullness of His glory.

Is this not better and more theologically rich than just thinking of the Lord’s Supper as some memorial service with no connection to Christ? Truly, Calvin’s doctrine, the Reformed Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper was exceedingly rich, and more importantly, biblically consistent with the Bible’s means of grace for us. More later…

This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.

Keep checking back at A Puritan’s Mind – currently in the works is an MP3 series on the Covenant of Grace, and another MP3 series on Election and Predestination. Puritan Publications is almost ready to release its latest book, “A Heart for Reformation” which covers how every Christian should desire true biblical reformation. For more on Reformed and Puritan Theology, visit www.apuritansmind.com.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

The Lord's Supper Part I

Good Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.

Through the history of the church, one of the most written about topics is the Lord’s Supper. In today’s church, one of the least written about or preached about topics is the Lord’s Supper. No doubt, as a result, there is a huge amount of misinformation that rests on the shoulders of ignorance. It is my intention over the next few podcasts to give you, the listener, some theological sound-bytes to think about concerning the Lord’s Supper.

The event that sparked this series was the blatant disregard of a church that I visited for following God’s prescription of the Supper and instead, followed a Romanist interpretation of its practical mode. It was not that this church changed the meaning behind the Supper, although one wonders what exactly they teach concerning it, but rather, that the manner in which they distributed the elements was not only wrong, but followed the Romanist view of dipping the bread into the wine and eating it, which is called intinction. Seeing a professing Christian church follow the Romanist intinction for the sake of expediency was disheartening to the say the least. In other words, it was simply quicker and easier to have people come up and take the bread and dip it in the grape juice (not the wine) was quicker than having to pass it out. On the same note, knowing that most of the Christian church today has a poor or theologically bankrupt view of the Supper, pressed me to consider certain aspects of the Lord’s Institution that no Christian should be without.

First, we look at Old Testament Shadows of the Lord’s Supper. In order to really understand the New Testament witness of the Supper, one must look to the Old Testament to gain a full theological understanding of what the Supper means. Remember, the Bible of the Lord Jesus Himself, and the Bible of the Apostles, was the Hebrew Scriptures. There is a definitive and glaring example of the commonness and communion of our father Abraham with the High Priest, Melchizedek in Genesis 14:18, “And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.)” It is not a mistake that bread and wine were brought. Not bread and grape juice, but bread and wine. From the very beginning, God sets the standard, and the use of wine through the Bible as a gift of God to His people is consistent. We’ll get into the “grape juice” change that the church has placed on the sacrament at a later time. Then we have the Passover lamb as the sacrifice given in Exodus 12:27 and 34:25. Christ, our Passover, is seen in the light of the Lord’s Supper as a result of fully analogizing the Passover Lamb of the Old Testament. Such a sacrifice was given as a memorial, Exodus 12:14. “This day shall be for you a memorial day…” Not a memorial meal, but a memorial day. “…and you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD; throughout your generations, as a statute forever, you shall keep it as a feast.” Passover was a communal act of worship. The blood of the Passover lamb demonstrates those in covenant with God in contrast to those outside God’s covenant. The Passover involves sacrifice.

Redemption is remembered. But it is not only a past act of God that is remembered, but a future one as well. There is also the manna from heaven; the bread of God, as seen in Exodus 16. God gives His people the bread that sustains them.

There is also the blood of the covenant. In Exodus 24:1-11 the ratification of the covenant between God and the Israelites was the blood of the sacrifice meal, the blood of a sacrifice, which was eaten in the presence of God. Moses declared that blood to be the blood of the covenant. The sacrifices of the old covenant were shadows that demonstrated the sanctification of the people. Without the proper sacrifice, the people would be left under their sin. In Malachi 1:10 God tells the people that it would be better for the church to close down, than to offer sacrifices that were not pure.

In the same way, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ demonstrates a fulfillment of covenant promises in the shadows of the temple and sacrificial system God endured until the proper time. The Lord’s Supper, like the Passover, is a sacrificial meal. The blood distinguished in the Lord’s Supper, is that of Christ for His people and distinguishes those in covenant with God with those outside His covenant. Like the manna which provided for the needs of the people, the Supper demonstrates that God has provided everything needful in Jesus Christ as the bread of heaven. Jesus is the true bread. The Lord’s Supper is a ceremonial meal that seals and ratifies the covenant Christ made for His people. We eat of His flesh and drink of His blood. He is our peace offering, our offering of thanks that demonstrates the fulfillment of all things needful for salvation for all those for whom Christ died.

Without understanding the Old Covenant and the shadows that throughout the Scriptures, running into the New Testament to have a comprehensive view of the Supper will be in vain. Paul says Christ is our Passover. Jesus says He is the manna from heaven. Hebrews says Christ fulfilled everything that needed to in the line of Melchizedek – that Melchizedek of Genesis 14 offering up a communion, a fellowship, of bread and wine. More later…

This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.

Keep checking back at A Puritan’s Mind – currently in the works is an MP3 series on the Covenant of Grace, and another MP3 series on Election and Predestination. Puritan Publications is almost ready to release its latest book, “A Heart for Reformation” which covers how every Christian should desire true biblical reformation. For more on Reformed and Puritan Theology, visit www.apuritansmind.com.

Monday, May 07, 2007

Hearing the Shepherd's Voice

Good Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.

It’s not enough to simply hear God’s voice, but action must follow. Do you hear God’s voice? Now, I don’t mean the absurd antics of the charismatic movement with their heretical and unbiblical “God told me to tell you this today” paranoia. We are not talking about the deviant theology built upon the ridiculous notion that God is NOT done speaking, and that more revelation comes to each individual day by day. Funny, the Bible doesn’t seem to be growing into new chapters or books. Rather, the 66 books are sufficient, and those lunatics need to wake up to the fact that God HAS SPOKEN.

However, in the Word of God once delivered to the saints, we find Jesus saying in John 10:25-27, “Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.”

Jesus says His sheep hear Him. One would call into question the validity of a true shepherd who spoke to his sheep, or signaled his sheep and found them simply standing there as the shepherd walked off. If the shepherd called his sheep, and those sheep know that shepherd, the end result would not simply be that the sheep heard the shepherd, but that as a result of hearing, they followed him. Jesus says that His sheep know His voice – which is the Word of God – that HE knows them – which is their utter salvation (that God knows them intimately)– and that as a result of hearing His voice in the Word, and being regenerated or known by Him savingly, that they follow Him. In other words, sheep that are saved who hear the voice of the Shepherd will follow the Shepherd every time His voice is heard. They hear and follow. They do not hear, and ponder and stand docile.

So what is wrong with the professing Christian church today? Theology is more colored in today’s church than the finest rainbow after a spring shower. There is as much ecleticity in theology today as it was in the fullness of time when the Shepherd actually came. Why is it that the 21st century church seems to go on its merry way without really hearing the voice of the Shepherd, or simply ignoring His voice. Can God’s sheep really hear the Shepherd’s voice and ignore it?

Let me give you a hypothetical for-instance. Let us imagine that the Bible said all Bibles should have a puce colored leather cover on them. I know it’s a stretch, but stay with me for a moment. Let’s say that God’s word, His voice, the voice of Shepherd, said, that all Bibles should have a puce colored leather cover on them. Let’s say that the church, for 1800 years since Christ’s ascension into heaven followed that command, and heard the Shepherd’s voice, and acted on it. In other words, the regular course of action that the church has always taken collectively throughout the ages is that they had puce colored leather covers on their bibles. Then let’s say that you walk into any professing Christian church today and found a host of various colored bibles because, as the logic would go, sheep need to be happy, and color makes them happy. They have, for all intents and purposes claimed to hear the Shepherd’s voice, but are ignorant concerning God’s prescription, His Voice, concerning colored covers. Are they, then, really hearing the Shepherd’s voice? Or are they simply deceiving themselves?

It would seem strange to have a group of sheep simply stand docile as the Shepherd called them, commanded them to follow Him and His will, and yet, they stood ignorantly there with cotton in their ears. Are they really the Shepherd’s sheep?

This last century has been the most tumultuous century of theological change ever in the history of the church. In other words, this century has demonstrated the most widespread disease of lethargy concerning being given a command by the voice of the Shepherd, and having the church simply ignore it. It has ranged from everything from God’s prescription of worship, to what to sing, to whether or not musical instruments should or should not be used, to preaching the Word exegetically or not, to the validity of the Word of God itself as being infallible and inerrant, to ecclesiastical issues concerning members of churches or to have membership at all, to the ordination of women in offices, to various forms of government, to everything under the theological sun.

How is it in 400 years that the church could have gone from listening to the Shepherd’s voice in coming together to support documents like the Westminster Confession, to the barrage of various denominations or lack thereof in the scourge of independency in the church today and the dissolution of unity in the most important theological matters in the church? How is that possible?

I’ll tell you how – people who call themselves Christians are simply professing that they are and do not hear the Shepherd’s voice. For if they did hear the Shepherd’s voice, they would heed God’s Word in following, at least, the very basics of what the Shepherd desires. They would, as God said in Jeremiah 6:16, “Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls.” They would ask for the ancient paths – the old news that is good news. They would not be looking for something new or novel. They would not be basing their entire church around what is new or novel. And yet, they thrive on that which is new or novel because they do not even know what the old paths look like, much less desire them. This shows the continual regression of heeding the truth, as God also said, in that same passage - “But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'”

Take up the Westminster Confession, read through it, see if you agree or disagree with its basic nature. See if you are a “new fangled” Christian or you desire the old paths.

Do you really hear the Shepherd’s voice? Or are you more concerned with the status quo? Does your church pastor heed the Shepherd’s voice or is he compromising in the truth? Look around professing Christian. Are you standing still with a bunch of other docile sheep? If you are, then the Shepherd who has already called is long since gone. You are all left to yourselves because you have not heard His voice, and you are not following Him.

This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.

Keep checking back at A Puritan’s Mind – currently in the works is an MP3 series on the Covenant of Grace, and another MP3 series on Election and Predestination. Puritan Publications is almost ready to release its latest book, “A Heart for Reformation” which covers how every Christian should desire true biblical reformation. For more on Reformed and Puritan Theology, visit www.apuritansmind.com.