We should always be thankful to God that He has given us the sacraments, and they should be considered two of our greatest treasures on earth. Benedict Pictet (1655-1724), a Genevan theologian and nephew of Francis Turretin wrote:
Such is the goodness of God towards the church, that not content with entering into a covenant of grace with it, he has condescended to confirm the covenant by sacraments, as seals, for the greater faith of the church. (Christian Theology, 399)
This is indeed a good gift from God, but there is often confusion on the nature of the sacraments that inhibits their usefulness to the Church. I would like to point out some of what Pictet had to say on the sacraments to try and make this clear.
To put it simply, sacraments are given to confirm faith where it already exists. Moreover, they offer further grace to those who receive them in faith. Consequently, “They have no efficacy except towards believers, for whose benefit they were appointed” (404). Further, they cannot confer regeneration (the new birth) or justification, since they presuppose the existence of faith and thus also regeneration and justification. The sacraments are confirming not converting ordinances.
Thus, the sacraments are means of salvation and grace. Grace is not all given at once. There is an initial grace of effectual calling in which someone is regenerated and justified, but there is also the continual work of saving us from sin and misery by the grace of God. The sacraments play a part in the latter but not the former. This, of course, is not done by the mere sign itself but by the power of the Holy Spirit working these things in them that by faith receive them. Pictet describes this beautifully when he says:
The moment we receive the sacramental symbols in faith, the Holy Spirit, operating in an indescribable manner, strengthens faith; diffuses joy over the soul; gives the sense of sin forgiven, communion with God, adoption, and eternal life; increases hope, and adds a new degree of holiness. The sacraments, therefore, do not increase and confirm faith by merely setting before us the objects of which we are bound to believe; nor, love, by merely showing how great is God’s love toward us; but because the Holy spirit accompanies them by his grace in all who rightly use them; hence the sacraments are said to save us; and hence baptism is called “the washing of regeneration.” (405)
The sacraments are such a blessing to us not merely because they are tokens and seals given by God Himself but because the Holy Spirit works with them the effects described above.
In order to try to make this even more clear, let me rehearse the way Pictet explains the difference between the Word and the sacraments:
- The word is absolutely necessary for salvation, the sacraments only hypothetically (that is, they are necessary on account of our infirmity [p. 402]).
- The word is heard, the sacraments are seen.
- The word produces faith, the sacraments confirm it.
- The word is promiscuously extended to all, the sacraments to believers only.
- The word profits without the sacraments, the sacraments do not profit without the word (403).
I would encourage you to read this entire section of Pictet’s book, and, indeed, the entire book is useful.
As we go to the Table on the Lord’s Day, I hope that you as a believer in Christ will go expecting that God will work the things that He has promised, strengthen your faith, increase His work of grace in your heart, and enable you to be assured in His love.
Tags: Benedict Pictet, Lord's Supper, Sacraments
The Reformed community is not 100% agreed on this. The more I read Calvin, the Puritans, the princetonians, the Dutch, the Orthodox, the New Engaland Congregationalists, etc… the more I am convinced that the exact role of the sacraments and the nature of the grace therein is really a hot topic of debate in the Reformed community, but a concise summarizing statement that I think all reformed persons ought to agree on is that the sacraments are special means of grace not means of special grace.
Loved it!
Absolutely precious and dear. Perfect. Thanks so much, Wes.
Grigs, there is significant and general agreement on the sacraments. You can read about that at this post:
http://www.weswhite.net/2010/03/baptism-in-westminster-standards-vs.html
In general, the sacraments are for confirming faith not for conversion. They do confirm and strengthen grace by the power of the Holy Spirit working in believers. Finally, they do these things for the elect who are the only people who are ever converted. They only bring judgment on unbelievers.
Of course there is basic agreement, but some reformed folk (David Dickson and his Sum of Saving knowledge) talked about the sacraments being means in justification and all of that for the elect. And I have heard Michael Horton talk about how Baptism is a means of justification only for the covenant children who are baptized and that God uses increases that grace at the time of regeneration. When I read Edwards, Hodge, and Berkhof the grace in the sacraments seem to be more of a sanctifying element than a justifying one that we can find hints of in Calvin. But Read the sum of saving knowledge (Head III and IV) seems to me to borderline baptismal regeneration and roman catholicism but still remains in within the standards.
Grigs, I would argue that no Reformed theologian would teach that they are means of justification in the following sense: that someone is not justified and then he is baptized and is justified.
Rather, they are useful in relation to justification in that they increase our sense and assurance of it.
I just read Dickson this week. He says specifically that the sacraments are confirming not converting ordinances.
I looked at the sum of saving knowledge, and I didn't see anything there that would indicate baptismal regeneration. Perhaps you could kindly direct me to the quotations that you have in mind.
Thanks for your interaction. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these points.
Blessings, Wes
Thank you so much for tollerating my questions Rev. White! Let me give you my exact quotation:
«HEAD III.
The outward means appointed to make the elect partakers of this covenant, and all the rest that are called, to be inexcusable. Matt. 22:14. Many are called.
I. *THE outward means and ordinances, for making men partakers of the covenant of grace, are so wisely dispensed, as that the elect shall be infallibly converted and saved by them*; and the reprobate, among whom they are, not to be justly stumbled: The means are especially these four. 1. The word of God. 2. The sacraments. 3. Kirk-government. 4. Prayer. In the word of God preached by sent messengers, the Lord makes offer of grace to all sinners, upon condition of faith in Jesus Christ; and whosoever do confess their sin, accept of Christ offered, *and submit themselves to his ordinances*, he will have both them and their children received into the honour and privileges of the covenant of grace. By the sacraments, God will have the covenant sealed for confirming the bargain on the foresaid condition. By kirk-government, he will have them hedged in, and helped forward unto the keeping of the covenant. And by prayer, he will have his own glorious grace, promised in the covenant, to be daily drawn forth, acknowledged, and employed. All which means are followed either really, or in profession only, according to the quality of the covenanters, as they are true or counterfeit believers.
II. The covenant of grace, set down in the Old Testament before Christ came, and in the New since he came, is one and the same in substance, albeit different in outward administration: For the covenant in the Old Testament, being sealed with the sacraments of circumcision and the paschal lamb, did set forth Christ's death to come, and the benefits purchased thereby, under the shadow of bloody sacrifices, and sundry ceremonies: but since Christ came, the covenant being sealed by the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper, doth clearly hold forth Christ already crucified before our eyes, victorious over death and the grave, and gloriously ruling heaven and earth, for the good of his own people. [return to CONTENTS]
HEAD IV.
The blessings which are effectually conveyed by these means to the Lord's elect, or chosen ones. Matt. 22:14. Many are called, but few are chosen.
I. BY these outward ordinances, as our Lord makes the reprobate inexcusable,* so, by the power of his Spirit, he applies unto the elect, effectually, all saving graces purchased to them in the covenant of redemption, and maketh a change in their persons. In particular, 1. He doth convert or regenerate them, by giving spiritual life to them, in opening their understandings, renewing their wills, affections, and faculties, for giving spiritual obedience to his commands. 2. He gives them saving faith, by making them, in the sense of deserved condemnation, to give their consent heartily to the covenant of grace, and to embrace Jesus Christ unfeignedly. 3. He gives them repentance, by making them, with godly sorrow, in the hatred of sin, and love of righteousness, turn from all iniquity to the service of God. And, 4. He sanctifies them, by making them go on and persevere in faith and spiritual obedience to the law of God, manifested by fruitfulness in all duties, and doing good works, as God offereth occasion. »*
The phrases in betweeen the starts (*) are my concern for a high sacramentalism.
Grigs, Have you read Phil's articles on Baptism in the Westminster Standards? I think that you would find that very helpful.
I think that God does give real saving grace through the sacraments, but saving here is used in a broad sense. It does not mean that the sacraments move someone out of a state of sin and misery and into a state of salvation. It means that they are more and more saved from sin and misery by the increase of the graces that they have received by the power of the Holy Spirit through the sacraments.
I think that this is clearly what is stated in the explanation of the divines, "By the sacraments, God will have the covenant sealed for confirming the bargain on the foresaid condition." It does not establish the covenant but confirms it. They are real means of grace, but they are confirming not converting ordinances. Once we understand that, we can easily avoid the errors of the Romanists and Lutherans.
I do not think that anyone should believe that they are saved who willfully neglects the Word of God, prayer, Church, and sacraments. I do not think that such an attitude could consist with a desire for salvation.
I can see that as an explination, but the problem is that in the text is that they are described as a means of justification. I am not saying this is denying sola fide, I am just saying that it seems there seemed to be a real debate going on at the time over justification and how exactly the sacraments related to it. The theologoy of Owen and how he describes it is clearly different than Dickson which is different than Owend and radically different than Edwards. Perhaps it is because of these real controversies that Kuyper came to presumptive regeneration on the basis of baptism and still could affirm in good conscious sola fide?
Grigs, I don't see anywhere in the statements that you gave that say "the sacraments are the means of justification." I do not think that there was a debate about the sacraments being a means of justification.
Second, presumptive regeneration does not teach baptismal regeneration. In this view, all elect children have the seed of regeneration from conception. They are baptized because they are regenerate not to make them regenerate. Thus, the signs in no way confer conversion, justification, or regeneration.
If you could bring the quotation of Dickson, perhaps we could discuss that.
Here is what I am getting the idea of justification from: «I. BY these outward ordinances, as our Lord makes the reprobate inexcusable,* so, by the power of his Spirit, he applies unto the elect, effectually, all saving graces purchased to them in the covenant of redemption, and maketh a change in their persons. In particular, 1. He doth convert or regenerate them, by giving spiritual life to them, in opening their understandings, renewing their wills, affections, and faculties, for giving spiritual obedience to his commands. 2. He gives them saving faith, by making them, in the sense of deserved condemnation, to give their consent heartily to the covenant of grace, and to embrace Jesus Christ unfeignedly. 3. He gives them repentance, by making them, with godly sorrow, in the hatred of sin, and love of righteousness, turn from all iniquity to the service of God. And,…»
By these outward ordinaces (plurial) these things, through the spirit follow and come from (my paraphrase). And all the following things are essential elements in saving faith (one of benefits being justification). It specificaly says it converts (the ordinances) and regenerates persons. Now I am well aware of the argument that because word and sacrament go together, it is the word worship through the sacrament that does its job, but I don't think that gives justice to the Apostle's point in Romans 10. Also J.I. Packer in his ''History and theology on the Puritans'' discusses this point a bit and talking about how there was a real difference but it never became a real heated debate (the views of Perkins were different than Ames and were different than Sibbes) and the Westminster Confession and Catechisms were consencus documents that were written broadly enough to exclude arminiamism and other erreurs/heresies, but specific enough as to where those who believed that God ordinarly uses the grace (or even faith) in baptism to later justify the infant later in life through the preaching of thw word. I reference lectures 7-10 (for context). I will also be in Princeton Seminary next month, so I will look up anything I can find on this subject.
Again, that statement has to be taken in context. They are means of grace but in this sense, "By the sacraments, God will have the covenant sealed for confirming the bargain on the foresaid condition."
They confirm faith already present, they do not confer regeneration, faith, or justification.
There may have been some debates on some things, but we should be careful that we understand the nature of the debates.
The idea that the Westminster Confession is a consensus document seeking to include all possible views has been disputed.
Lane Keister goes over the evidence here: http://heidelblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/heidelcast-march-21-2010.mp3
Finally, I think that Vitringa demonstrated that there is a remarkable consensus on the sacraments. That's the post I pointed you to earlier.
On that Heidlecast, I think the subject was limited simply to the issue of active and passive obedience and other doctriens were not discussed. Will read a bit more, but this seems to be different than what John Gerstner and Sproul say on this subject. http://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/handout-church-history/ulrich-zwingli/?lb=true
sorry wrong video link :http://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/handout-church-history/covenant-theology-and-the-internal-attack-on-refo/
Grigs, I don’t want to unduly interject myself into your discussion with Wes, but please allow me to make some comments.
First, I think it is important to note that in his discussion of the outward “means” of conversion Dickson clearly includes, and indeed gives first place to the preaching and hearing of the Word. It is very clear that Reformed theologians have uniformly seen the ministry of the Word as the principle means through which the Holy Spirit initially “conveys” or “works” saving faith—i.e. “faith comes by hearing” (Rom. 10:17). In other words, the Word is a “converting” means of grace. This view is repeatedly shown in quotations from Reformed writers throughout the series on “Baptism in WS vs. FV” that Wes referred you to, and is specifically examined in the second half of Part 6.
As Wes has also pointed out, it is equally clear that Reformed divines uniformly understood the sacraments to be “confirming” ordinances—that is, visible means through which the Holy Spirit seals and strengthens PRE-existent, saving faith in the elect. WCF 14.1 is very clear in making these same points. As Thomas Boston aptly pointed out, “…It remains that they [the sacraments] are indeed appointed for confirmation, which doth necessarily suppose the pre-existence of grace in the soul, seeing that which ‘is not’ cannot be ‘confirmed.’”
While Dickson may not flesh out all of the various aspects of how the sacraments operate in his relatively brief summary, I find nothing there, when read carefully, which necessarily contradicts or doubts the orthodox position. In any case, he very specifically limits the efficacy of the four means of grace that he is discussing to the elect (III.1). Later on in his work, Dickson indeed gives another overview which helps put these issues into place and perspective:
“Great assurance of life is holden forth to all who shall heartily receive Christ, and the offer of the covenant of grace and reconciliation through him: He that believeth on the Son (saith he) hath everlasting life; for it is made fast unto him, (1.) In God's purpose and irrevocable decree, as the believer is a man elected to life. (2.) By effectual calling of him unto life by God, who, as he is faithful, so will he do it. (3.) By promise and everlasting covenant, sworn by God, to give the believer strong consolation in life and death, upon immutable grounds. (4.) By a pawn and infeftment [i.e. ‘symbolical possession’] under the great seal of the sacrament of the Lord's supper, so oft as the believer shall come to receive the symbols and pledges of life.” (Warrants and Motives to Believe, 4 [p.49])
Here Dickson plainly presents the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper as being a “great assurance” and one means through which the covenant of grace “is made fast unto him [he that believeth].” There is no indication that he thought of the other sacrament (baptism) as operating any differently in the spiritual realm.
Grigs, please allow me to make 2 more points (the combox will only allow a limited number of characters per entry):
I would also a point that that the Westminster divine George Gillespie made. He acknowledged that when terms like “convey” and “exhibit” are used by Protestant divines in describing the role of the sacraments, their meaning may be, and are in fact sometimes misunderstood:
“That exhibition which they speak of, is not the giving of grace where it is not…but an exhibition to believers—a real effectual lively application of Christ, and of all his benefits, to everyone that believeth; for the staying, strengthening, confirming, and comforting of the soul…Our divines do not say that the sacraments are exhibitive ordinances, wherein grace is communicated to those who have none of it, to unconverted or unbelieving persons.” (See Part 4 “Baptism in WS vs. FV)
Finally, in terms of the working of justification, alongside Dickson’s presentation about how the 4 outward means of grace effect “a change in their [the elect’s] persons,” in the very next point he states:
“Together with this inward change of the persons, God changes also their state: for, so soon as they are brought by faith into the covenant of grace, (1.) He justifies them, by imputing unto them that perfect obedience which Christ gave to the law, and the satisfaction also which upon the cross Christ gave unto justice in their name.” (p.14)
Here he plainly reserves the actual working of justification to the means of faith, through which Christ’s righteousness is forensically imputed to the elect. (Notably, he also specifies both Christ’s passive and active obedience as being necessary parts in this transaction.)
I do apologize for the length of my comments, but I hope they will be helpful.
Ohh, I never said Dickson contradicted the Westminster standards to he best of my knowledge, I'm jsut saying that in the it seems that in the passags I quoted it can very easily be understood to be because certain puritans were more sacramental than others. The sacramental piety between Owen and Calvin is pretty large in my mind. I just get very nervous when people talk about baptism and the Lord's supper being converting ordinances because in a sense I can agree but in a bigger sense I would disagree. If you say baptism proclaims the promises of the gospel on a child and put that child under commitment to respond to those promises, I have no problem but when that act of baptism becomes a basis of assurance (outside of mentioning the promises of God which it signifies) then I get really uncomfortable. But as I said, I was not born a covenant child and came to the Reformed Faith out of generaic revivalistic evangelicalism, so this could just be baggage from that. But, most people in practice (though they woudl in theory) use the sacraments without the Word as basis of assurance and as a result I have met many baptized covenant children, who have made profession of faith yet live horribly ungodly lives but the church presumes them regenerate because of a profession and baptism and that just seems insanity to me as I read my Bible.
Grigs, I share your concern, and I think that your concerns are shared by the consensus of Reformed theologians. That's one of the main points that distinguishes us from the Lutherans.
There are Lutherans still around who actually believe in Lutheran doctrines?
Thanks for the summary Wes.
Le’ts compare it with, say, Matthison’s, assertion:
“Without the word, the sacrament is merely an empty sign. Without the sacrament, the word is not properly sealed and does not have its full, intended effect.”
(p.270, Given For You: Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord Supper)
Strange and unclear language at best.
I think Doug Wilson agrees:
http://www.federal-vision.com/?p=139
Then, why is he still selling Leithart’s The Baptized Body which says that baptism effects justification and regeneration?