Sacraments. . . Help me understand

[mannysee]

As part of my ongoing search for a church to attend regularly, I am thinking about the presbyterian teaching on sacraments i.e. bread and wine.

I have heard Mr Riddlebarger speak of "the means of grace".

Presently, my understanding of the account of Jesus and the bread and wine is that it is solely a memorial ("Do this in remembrance of me") and an OT Passover? shadow/type which pointed to Christ's giving himself for us.
I realise that in the NT, the church takes part in breaking bread etc., but I still feel that this was simply a memorial.

From what I understand, the presbyterian church sees this as a "sacrament", and that Christ is received in the bread and wine in some way? by faith.

Please help me get my mind around this presbyterian (reformed?) idea, because I feel that my brain is exploding, trying to understand their position.

Can anyone direct me to a plain-language well written explanation on the web, of this position.

If I can understand it using my own intellect by looking at the scriptures, then I will come around to accepting it.

I feel that this is one of the minor? presbyterian teachings which I still have to come to accept/understand (the other one is getting a grasp on child ("padeo") baptism, which is practiced at the wpc)

If I end up attending the westminster presbyterian church here, then I would like to be in complete agreement with their position.

thankyou.

 

[hedrick]

Don't get too tied up with the term "sacrament." A traditional definition of a sacrament is an outward and visible sign of a spiritual grace. In Protestant terms it's a visible form of the Word. We reserve it for acts that Christ specifically instituted, and which point beyond themselves to something happening on the level of the Spirit. I have always liked Luther's description of baptism: "water joined to the Word."

Taken by itself, Christ's words of institution can be understood in a range of ways, some wholly symbolic. I think the clearest sign that something more is going on is 1 Cor 11:27 ff. Whatever "discerning the body" means, 11:27 suggests that this a bit more than just reminding us of Christ's death.

Calvin's position is based on two considerations: (1) there's some connection between the bread / wine and Christ's body / blood, as suggested by 1 Cor 11, (2) the connection isn't exactly physical. Calvin's reason for saying it isn't physical may or may not be definitive for you: there was a discussion among the Reformers about Christ's mode of presence with the Church. Luther believed that Christ's body could be present in some fairly literal mode everywhere. Calvin believed that Christ's body was a normal human body, and so could only be in one place at a time. Certainly the resurrection appearances make Christ's resurrected body look like it's localized, but this is kind of an argument from silence, so there's room for disagreement.

If you believe that there's enough connection between the elements and Christ's body that how we treat the body in some sense reflects treatment of Christ (1 Cor 11 again), but that Christ is only in one place, then Calvin's idea that the Spirit is mediating our connection with Christ seems a reasonable one. After all, we have other Biblical reasons (e.g. Christ's monologue at the Last Supper in John) to think that the Spirit connects us with Christ.

 

[hedrick]

Now for baptism. I've said at times that the question is whether baptism shows us our decision for Christ or Christ's decision for us. The NT says a number of things about baptism. it is connected with repentance, although many of those references are to John's baptism. It is connected with circumcision. The most explicit description is probably in Col 2, where it says that in baptism we are buried with Christ, so that we can be raised with him. (Also Rom 6:4 ff) Baptism is our entrance into the Church.

The Reformed tradition believes that God's call and the start of the process of regenerating us precedes our response, indeed our ability to respond. For us, baptism is a sign of our entry into the covenant community, as circumcision clearly was. As with being members of a nation (which Israel was), there are two ways into a covenant community: being born and joining as an adult (in US law, being naturalized).

Some people think there's nothing other than our decision, so there's no meaning to an infant being part of the covenant community. This Baptist position seems peculiarly attractive to Americans, because it's consistent with our tradition of individualism. But both the Biblical concept of covenant and 1 Cor 7:14 suggests that things are more complex. I do not claim that all children of Christians are automatically saved. That's not what being a member of the covenant community means. But it does mean that God has already staked a claim on us, in a more visible way than someone who is outside the Church. Children are real members of the Church. Of course we expect them to make a profession of faith of their own at an appropriate time, and we recognize that some may not remain in the community.

For me, the root meaning of Baptism is not my choice for Christ, but that Christ died for me, as in Rom 6:4. Reformed Christians believe that Christ died for us before we were any position to respond. Thus in infant baptism, Christ visibly claims the child by identifying the child with Christ's death for him or her.

For adults, of course we demand repentance and a profession of faith, just as when we naturalize an adult as a citizen, we expect more than we do of a child who is born as one.

 

[mannysee]

hedrick,

Thankyou for replying.

Though my opening question is only a few days ago, I have since listened to a couple of audio files on infant baptism from the presbyterian position (Bill Shishko).
Same with the sacraments issue.

When I heard Shishko explaining infant baptism in relation to becoming joined to the covenant, I think I understood him.
I had not thought of this before, and a light came on in my mind.

I will be ordering a couple of books on infant baptism as well.

I feel that I am being swayed to the presbyterian position, but I would first like to have a basic acceptance of these issues.

To me, the wpc holds much weight to these ideas, in addition to a strong dependency on the scriptures and reformed teachings, which were lacking in my pentecostal background.

 

[heymikey80]

http://www.the-highway.com/supper1_Calvin.html

The basic thrust is that God makes a vow in the rite of communion, that that vow makes some hefty claims for God's grace on His children. Things are really happening there because Jesus said them, and meant them, and they're not just pictures.

It's important to realize though that Presbyterians rarely if ever see much of anything conferred by the elements in use in the sacrament. The elements retain imagery -- but the elements are not the sacrament. The whole idea is bound up in that the elements continue to be imagery, but the sacrament is the elements, the word, and the parties involved -- the recipient and the Giver. They're all present.

That's what the concept comes down to: that Christ is specially present in a spiritual sense, through the Spirit of Christ, because the sacrament is a covenantal operation.

The elements can be viewed roughly like a signature on a contract, or a wedding ring. But the sacrament would be roughly like a "contract signing" event or a wedding in this analogy. Things really happen at these events. They're not just memorial or show.