|
This Article needs serious revision. It does not clearly express what I think about this topic today (8/10) However, there is some good material in it so I will leave it posted as is for now.
I have been a confirmed Episcopalian since January, 1982; I still wrestle with the use and meaning of the Sacraments (Baptism and Eucharist). The most common belief on this subject among Episcopalians is that Sacraments are "effective symbols"- that they convey and effect what they symbolize. If Baptism effectively signifies union with Christ and regeneration in Him, this means Baptism conveys that union and regeneration to whomever receives the Sacrament. Likewise, if Communion is an effective symbol of Christ or the Sacrifice of Christ and the remission of sins, this means that the Sacrament communicates or conveys or effects or makes objectively real Christ and His Sacrifice and the remission of sins to those who receive Communion.
I believe personal salvation is made possible by grace alone through faith alone in the work of Christ alone to the glory of God alone. These are the four "Solas" (Latin for "alone"). So I believe and so I preach. This is called the "Gospel of Grace". It is Scriptural. I can not change my conviction about it. If I am confused about the Sacraments, I am not confused at all about the Solas.
Many Episcopalians I know are creedally orthodox and they have a real faith in Christ and His salvific work. They are being saved by grace alone through faith alone in the work of Christ alone. They do not believe they are saved by (God through) the Sacraments. They find that the Sacraments (and Liturgical Worship and life in the Church) are important and helpful to build and strengthen their faith, as I do. Usually, they have come to Christ outside the Church. They found the Lord in some evangelical church or in parachurch meeting, a Bible Study or through the witnessing of an evangelical friend. They simply ignore the contradiction of what they have experienced and believe with the faith and practice of their Priests and the Church.
It is very disconcerting to me, and it must be very confusing to those who hear the Gospel with its four Solas, when the Episcopal Priest invites people to the Altar to receive Christ by taking Communion. With no further explanation, people (most of whom come from the Roman Catholic Church) are thus led to think that "receiving Communion" (wafer and wine) is what an Evangelical means by "receiving Christ as personal Savior and Lord". Likewise, welcoming an infant immediately after being Baptized as the newest "Christian" among us is contradictory to the Gospel Solas. In practice, people are taught or allowed to assume that Salvation comes through Sacraments. But if they believe this, they will not find Christ and be saved. We can not ignore or accept "Beliefs" that keep sinners from Salvation.
Are sinners saved by responding to the Gospel by faith alone or are we saved (by grace) and become a Christian by being Baptized (and in the case of the infant, with no faith involved at all)? Are we forgiven our sins and kept saved (by God) by taking Communion? As simplistic as all this sounds, sincere church people believe these things. "Receiving Christ", "saved by faith alone, et al", "becoming a Christian", "receiving Communion" and being "Baptized" must be carefully and Scripturally defined and differentiated and related. In 25 years I have never heard that done by an Episcopal Priest. These expressions are used interchangably. That troubles me.
Because I am committed to Salvation by the 4 Solas, I must reject the idea that Baptism and Communion are essential to Salvation. I believe the Baptism and Communion are Sacraments. I believe Sacraments are visible signs of invisible spiritual realities, particularly union with Christ (Baptism) and the remission of sins and other benefits of Christ's Sacrifice (Communion).
We have these realities by faith alone, but God has willed that we also be given signs or pledges that we really have received union with Christ and the remission of sins (or that we shall receive them, in the case of Infants). Put another way, We have God's verbal promises in Scripture, but we are given these additional, external signs that the Promises will be kept. The realities come with signs attached, but the signs are not identical with the realities. There is a sign that says, house for sale, but he sign is not that house. There is a curve in the road ahead and a sign warns the driver of that fact, but the sign is not the curve.
The woman who has become engaged can be assured it is true by looking at the engagement ring on her finger. Likewise, when friends later see her wedding ring, they will know she really is married. The rings are effective signs of an invisible reality. The rings do not create that reality. They do not make her engaged or married. But they are not meaningless or empty signs- "just rings". Likewise, Baptism and Communion are definitely not empty signs (they are not signs without the signified) but they do not save us.
Actually, most Evangelicals do not think of Baptism and Communion as "signs". They do not normally use that descriptor. Being Baptized is something they do. Likewise, they obey the Lord's ordinance (command) and take Communion. Thus they turn the Sacrament from something God gives into something they themselves do. If it is a sign, it points to their acts not to God's. Being Baptized is a public sign that they have received Christ by faith (usually by a "sinner's Prayer") Taking Communion is a sign that we believe the death of Jesus was the atonement of our sins. Taking Communion together is also a sign (a reminder) that we are a Christian Church. However all this is, this is not what a Sacrament is and misses what God is trying to do for us in Baptism and in Communion. This view, known as Memorialist or Zwinglian, in effect, not only inverses the sign, but separates it from the signified all together.
XXV. Of the Sacraments.[39 Articles of Religion in the BCP]
Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.
The confusion comes, not only when we use the word "sign" but when we add the word "effectual" to the definition of sign, i.e.- "effectual sign". An "effectual sign" communicates, confers or even effects or actualizes what it signifies. I want to keep the belief that Baptism and Communion are signs given by God to Believers and that these signs are effectual. And I want to keep the effectual signs and things they signify together.
In the Catechism of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer we read: What meanest thou by this word Sacrament? I mean an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us; ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof. How many parts are there in a Sacrament? Two; the outward visible sign, and the inward spiritual grace.
[Note that the sins and the things signified are distinct and must remain that way, but are also connected and must remain that way. This is the "nature" of a Sacrament.
Why was the Sacrament of the Lordʼs Supper ordained? For the continual remembrance of the death of Christ, and of the benefits we receive thereby. What is the outward part or sign of the Lordʼs Supper? Bread and Wine which the Lord commanded to be received.
What is the inward part, or thing signified? The Body and Blood of Christ, which are spiritually taken and received by the faithful in the Lordʼs Supper. What are the benefits whereof we are partakers thereby? The strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the Body and Blood of Christ ... (emphasis added)
Thus, the Wafer and Wine of Communion are effectual signs of the Body and Blood of Jesus which were given in sacrifice for the remission of sins, they communicate or confer the sacrificial Body and Blood of Jesus to those who ingest them. In addition, by extension, they communicate or confer the remission of sins to those who ingest them.
Writing in "Liturgy for Living", Charles P. Price and Louis Wei [in the Church's Teaching Series] identify three kinds of symbols; arbitrary, participating and communicating symbols.
Arbitrary symbols can be whatever you make them. Participating symbols participate in the reality to which they refer. Communicating symbols function at the deepest of levels and actually communicate the reality to which they refer. One of the best examples is currency. A twenty dollar bill represents $20 but it differs from “play” money because it actually communicates and transmits $20 in value. We can say that a twenty dollar bill is twenty dollars. Twenty dollars in “play” money is not.
Communicating symbols are the most profound. It is in this same sense that we can say the bread and wine we receive at the Eucharist are the body and blood of Christ. They don’t just represent Christ but they actually communicate and transmit Christ.... In a similar vein we can call Jesus a communicating symbol of God. By the work of the Holy Spirit he is the God he represents and he communicates that reality (emphasis added) pp.34-37
One major problem with this last concept of "communicating symbol" is that Jesus does not represent God as a symbol. He is God. He does not communicate God (that reality) as though he were other than God. The symbols are not literally the Body and Blood of Christ in the same way Jesus was God
Going with the "effective symbols" concept, we say the Body and Blood as well as the concomittent (something that occurs or exists concurrently with another) remission of sins are given sacramentally and received spiritually, in the heart, internally, by faith, i.e.- neither are physical or received physically in the mouth. The Catholic error is making the sign and the signified identical, which actually destroys what a sacrament is (This is true of trans- and substantiation as well as impanation: the teachings that the Body and Blood are literally and physically in, with, over or under the Wafer and Wine).
XVIII. Of the Lord's Supper.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.
The Sacraments do confer "grace". That "grace" is the renewal and edification of our faith. The signs that come attached to the Promises of God build up our assurance that we are, in fact, in Christ and are truly forgiven and saved. In moments of doubt, we may say, "I know I am saved because I have been baptized. I have the sign". In times of guilt and contrition, we can repent and confess and receive a sign that we are forgiven because we trust in the sacrifice of Christ on our behalf. The sign assures us that the Body broken and the Blood shed do still avail for us. We ingest the signs of Wafer and Wine thankfully and have peace. This is why it is essential that those receiving the signs are confessing, creedal Believers. The signs do indeed convey and make real the assurance of spiritual realities to Believers.
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Baptism, the sign of being in Christ (and therefore, regenerated) has the same effect of giving assurance to the Believer who receives the sign that these realities are true for them. The infant child of Believer(s) receives the sign of Baptism to give assurance to the parent that God will keep His promise in the future to save that child if the parents will raise [him] in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
XVII. Of Baptism
Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.
The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.
The major reason I have for rejecting the "communicating symbol" and all the other realist views, is that Jesus has become the Risen Christ. His crucified body was glorified at the resurrection and is now glorifed and in Heaven. Therefore, it is not on the Communion Table. And the main reason I reject the view that the Sacrifice of Jesus is, in any sense, repeated on our church altars, is that His Sacrifice was done once for all at Calvary. His sacrifice can not be repeated on the Table. Neither the crucified body of Jesus is on the Altar nor is His Sacrifical death is being repeated on the Altar. We call the Lord's Table an Altar because it is am doing when I kneel or stand as I receive the Signs.
When we receive the wafer and wine, we are receiving the Sacramental signs of Jesus' sacrifice, not the Sacrifice itself. The wafer and wine are the sacramental body and blood of Jesus, not the literal body and blood. These signs are effectual. They communicate assurance that the Promises of God are real and we are saved. The Signs effectively convery the assurance of judgment to those who partake wihout faith. This is why the Church must do its best to assure that Communicants are creedal, believing Christians (at the very least, they must be confirmed members of the Church).
What about the "real Presence" of Christ? We have already written, the crucified body of Christ has been glorified. Jesus is now the Risen Christ and He has ascended into the heavenlies and dwells bodily there. Believers experience and enjoy the real presence of the Risen Christ when they ascend in the Spirit into the heavenlies by faith during the Eucharist. The "real presence" is more than simply having the presence of His Spirit in our hearts or among us when we assemble in His name. The Risen Christ is in Heaven at the right hand of the Throne of God. Therefore true worship is ascending into his true and real presence there above. We enter that presence with songs of praise and our sacrifices of thanksgiving. That is what happens in the Eucharist.
But isn't Jesus truly present in the Sacrament as the Bread of Life? Are we not eating that Bread when we ingest the Wafer and Wine? No. I do not believe that. This concept is based on John 6. Based on careful exegesis of the chapter, I do not believe that the 6th chapter of John is about the Lord's Supper. The traditional interpetation is based on assumptions, theology and Tradition.
We do not feed on Christ and build up our faith as we chew and swallow the Communion wafer. But as John 6 insists, we must feed on Christ, the bread of Life, in order to live. That feeding comes primarily from spiritually ingesting and digesting and living by the Word preached, not from receiving a consecrated Wafer into our mouth. Hence the importance of Biblical Preaching. Without a vision (a message from God) the people perish. The Word of God is more important than the Eucharist and must be given priority. The Eucharist is a sign. The thing signified is the Word, particularly the Gospel preached (the Eucharist is a dramatization, a form of preaching, of the Gospel). The sign is secondary to what is signified and is nothing apart from it. If Priests want to feed their flock the Bread which gives life, they must preach and teach the Word of God
The Eucharist celebrates the Cross, therefore it celebrates Christ's victory over Sin, Satan and the World. In keeping with its Passover roots, the Eucharist celebrates our redemption and deliverance from Death through the Blood of the Lamb of God, Jesus. It is the occasion that commemorates that the Kingdom has come into the world (the Incarnation) and it anticipates with joy the Kingdom that will yet enter the world (the Parousia). The Eucharist looks back to the past (remembering it, making it present) and it looks to the future ("proclaiming his death until he comes"). It is more than a memorial. It is eschatological. The Eucharist is primarily a sacramental means of building up our faith and a time for praise and thanksgiving and hope, a time of renewal and rededication. That is why it is the heart of our Worship. This, I believe, is the Biblical, Reformed and Classic Anglican understanding of the Sacraments.
|
