Chapter 13.1 - The Church, Part II

The Church, Part II (A) The last of all is marriage, which, while all admit it to be an institution of God, no man ever saw to be a sacrament, until the time of Gregory. And would it ever have occurred to the mind of any sober man?

                             Calvin, Institutes

It is for this reason that every Catholic is bound, under pain of mortal sin, unless there be legitimate excuse, to sanctify the Lord’s holy day, Sunday, by assisting at Mass.

                             The Teaching of the Catholic Church

Therefore, the Last Supper is something very different from an institution: it is the performance of an act of fellowship--of the fellowship centered in Christ and grounded in the saving history of the past, present, and future.

                         Brunner, The Misunderstanding of the Church

Wherever we see the word of God sincerely preached and heard, wherever we see the sacraments administered according to the institution of Christ, there we cannot have any doubt that the Church of God has some existence. Calvin, Institutes

We have seen something of the diversity of viewpoint up to this juncture. The further we go in the doctrine of the ecclesia, the more diverse the opinion can become. There is a basic principle that underlies much of the difference between Protestants and Roman Catholics on the subject of the church. The principle of the church as a teaching church means that the doctrines in "germ" in the Scriptures are fully developed under the teaching authority of the bishops of the church together and through their head, the Pope. It is impossible to connect the present highly organized, highly liturgical, and highly transformed structure of the modern Roman Church to the apostolic simplicity without this cardinal principle. Likewise, a collateral line of development survives in much of Protestantism as it was inherited from the Roman Church. The Reformation did not by any means return to the apostolic norm of the ecclesia in everything. It recovered the doctrines of faith, grace, and authority of the Scriptures; but beyond that the reform was not sweeping and thorough. Therefore, because of the difference in degree in recovery of the apostolic form, there are differences in certain structures of the churches and practices.

Types of Organizations (polity) In dealing with the various types of polity, we will arbitrarily place them on a scale descending from the complex to the least complex.

     Episcopal.--The episcopal system of government is based on the belief that the government or rule of the church was delivered by Christ to the bishops as successors of the apostles. There are different degrees of episcopacy. The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church is one type in the United States in which there is equality of bishops. The Roman system is episcopal in nature but is ruled by a monarch, the Pope.

Ignatius is probably the earliest advocate of episcopacy. He speaks of the church "as having three grades of officers; namely, the bishop, the elders, and the deacons." ¹ Along with the move toward episcopacy and growth of the powers of the bishopric there is the corresponding demise of power from the nonclerical members of the church. In the Roman system, the laity has no voice in the government of the Church. Episcopacy in its early years of the second century grew in popularity as the problem of heresy or false doctrine increased. The need of a common faith, expressed in a church’s having a continuity from the time of the apostles under a bishop who had succeeded, similarly was fulfilled and proved a powerful weapon against heresy. With a few generations, episcopacy grew to the extent that Cyprian declared, "Ecclesia est in episcopo [The Church is in the Bishop]." ² The bishop is primary, but there are two officers under him--the priest (presbyter) and deacon. The question of the legitimacy of this system will depend upon the standard adopted. Without a developmental principle, built upon circuitous inferences, one cannot derive the type of government from the New Testament. There is no transfer of authority to Peter and hence no evidence in the New Testament to support it. There is no biblical evidence that Peter appointed the bishops of Rome as his successors. The question concerning Peter’s even being in Rome is yet debated.

    Presbyterian.--In opposition to the episcopal system in which the power structure of the church resides in the bishops, the Presbyterian system locates the power and authority of the church in the session, or local congregation. From the session run lines of authority up to the General Assembly which meets once a year. In between are two areas of power: the presbytery, composed of proper representatives from the sessions of the area; and the synod, composed of a number of presbyteries of an area. A representative form of government seeks to safeguard the autonomy of the session as well as honor the cooperative aspects. There are three offices in the Presbyterian system: pastors, elders, and deacons.

Congregational.--The name of independency is sometimes given to this system. The individual congregation is the complete ecclesia. It does not derive its power or structure from another group. The authority for church action lies within the group. Officers are appointed by the church to serve various functions but have no power beyond that granted by the members of the church. A working relationship is often established with other churches of the same persuasion to promote various programs and boards; i.e., missions, education, and service. It might meet in annual conventions but the convention has no authority to impose its decisions upon the local congregation. These are the diverse types. There are variations and degrees, but we will not speak of them here. The question that must be raised is: which type is right, if any at all? In answer to this question, a number of approaches may be cataloged. There is the attitude summed up by John Macquarrie when he says, "Even if there had been an ’original’ pattern of the ministry and one could discover what it was, this would not be specially important. It is clear that there must have been a formative period in which changes in the institutional forms would be required as the Church moved out from being a revolutionary movement in Judaism to become a settled, world-wide community." ³ It seems to be a part of the thinking of many that it was not important what the nature of the structure of the apostolic church was but it is vitally important that it remain what it is now. Macquarrie also declared that "alongside the New Testament, we have to recognize the living development within the Church. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that from an early time the regular and universal pattern of the Christian ministry was the threefold one of bishops, priests, and deacons, and that this is a natural development from the New Testament picture itself."⁴

In spite of those in sympathy with Macquarrie, it is yet a legitimate question as to whether or not we can look to the New Testament for a pattern that is up-to-date in the twentieth century as well as having the endorsement of the apostolic norm. Did the development away from the simplicity of the apostles come because it was not working, or did it develop because of other reasons; namely expediency, power politics, and political ambition from the area of religion? Another attitude is that expressed by Berkhof concerning some of the Reformed churches today. "Reformed Churches," he writes, "do not claim that their system of Church government is determined in every detail by the Word of God, but do assert that its fundamental principles are directly derived from Scripture." ⁵ Berkhof maintains that the principles are consistent with the Scriptures but admits that the details are determined "by expediency and human wisdom."⁶ The third attitude is expressed in the desire to return to the New Testament pattern as far as it can be discerned. There is considerable description in the New Testament concerning the fellowship of the ecclesia. The following items point this up:

1. There were stated meeting times, generally on the Lord’s day or first day of the week (Acts 20:7; Heb 10:25).

2. The fact of election of certain members points out a form of democratic government in the churches. Matthias was chosen to succeed Judas and there were also elections of deacons.(Acts 1:21-26)

3. The early church had leaders. In addressing the Philippi church, Paul delineated bishops and deacons. (Further discussion of the leaders will be presented below.) No mention is made of others.(Php 1:1)

4. The officers, or servants of the church, were designated such; and their appointment is linked to the Spirit, who had made them bishops or overseers.

5 There is a recognition of the authority of the church as a deciding body as well as the authority of the minister who is elected as pastor of the church (Mat 18:17; 1Pe 5:2).

6. The church had the power of discipline. This is also noted in Mat 18:17, but Paul specifically, in writing to the church at Corinth, admonishes Corinthian Christians to exercise their right of discipline (1Co 5:4-5, 1Co 5:13)

7. The church had a financial record of some primitive arrangement. Even the twelve disciples had a treasurer in Judas who, among other things, got carried away with his role as treasurer; but the believers did store up money on the first day of the week for beneficent purposes (Rom 15:26; 1Co 16:2 ).

8 The early churches issued letters of commendation. In a world of charlatans and false teachers--both then and now--valid letters of communication are issued from church to church, commending or warning of people moving in their direction (Acts 18:27; 2Co 3:1).

9. The benevolence program of the early church was developed enough to include a register of widows who needed aid (Acts 6:1; 1Ti 5:9).

10. The primitive church was uniform enough to warrant the apostle Paul to warn against certain practices and justify his warning on the basis that no such custom was practiced in the churches of God (1Co 11:16 ).

11. The first churches observed certain religious ordinances. Of two we can be positive; namely, baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Of any more there is debate among men of different denominations, depending on what they have at stake.

12. The proto-church seemingly had good order that was not only admonished but practiced also (1Co 14:40Col 2:5).

13. A group normally requires certain qualifications for membership in it and the church in the scriptural accounts is no exception. The command of Jesus was to convert or make disciples, immerse, and teach them to observe what he had commanded (Mat 28:19; Acts 2:47).

14. The early church seemed to be taken up with its work that was common to the whole body of Christ Php 2:30). The common work is evidenced by the success of the church that wherever it went it bore witness to the gospel of Christ.

It is basically this type of fellowship that is presumed to be reproduced in the modem period. It is simple, and in its simplicity it made a phenomenal change in the world. Its flexibility of movement made it possible to invade the cities, to be a church on the move, to go where the people were. It is possible to deprecate the foregoing items by saying that there is "no system of government in the New Testament." Such a statement really means that if there is no more than the items listed above there is no pattern of church government in the New Testament. At this point enters the question of other organizations in modem church life. What justification is there for such well used instruments as the Sunday School, ladies missionary organizations, men’s groups of various kinds, as well as subsidiary organizations? These things can be presumed on the basis of the ecclesia’s ministry of self-education, mission outreach, and cooperative stewardship. As far as the functions of these organizations go, they are traveling under non-New Testament names to fulfill what the early church was most concerned to do--share the message as well as teach it.

Leaders of the Ecclesia

Within the ecclesia there were a number of leaders who were the servants of the people. They may be divided into two general categories--temporary and permanent.

Temporary Leaders Undoubtedly the first group, the apostles, ceased with the death of the last of the twelve. Those directly called by Jesus became witnesses of his ministry and especially of the resurrection. Some of them performed distinct contributions by way of their writings which form the basis of the New Testament. Included within this group is the apostle Paul who was called after the resurrection of Jesus.

A second group of unique leaders were called prophets. The role of the prophet is seen in two ways. Occasionally there were prophets who spoke of future events. Such is seen in Agabus, who spoke of the famine that would come in Jerusalem, as recorded in Acts. The predictive role of the prophet is presumed lost since the apostolic period. The second role of the prophet is in the matter of spiritual building up or edification. Prophesying in this sense is tantamount to preaching (1Co 14:32-33). This has been permanent in the ecclesia. A third servant-type leader is seen in the evangelists. Not much is certain of them. Only about four are known: Philip, Timothy, Titus, and Mark. It is doubtful whether one can identify the evangelists in the New Testament with the concept of today. The modern evangelist is often a pastor who has greater success in the recruitment of converts than other pastors. The pastorate is the spawning ground of most modern evangelists.

Permanent Leaders or Officers

     Bishop, overseer, pastor, elder, presbyter.--The bishop or overseer was the chief servant and leader of the ecclesia. A number of terms are used synonymously for that role. The following breakdown of the terms may help in understanding:

Bishop: an old Middle English word used as a translation of the Greek term episcopos.

Overseer: an alternate translation of the Greek term episcopos.

Pastor: a translation of the Greek word meaning "shepherd."

Elder: a translation of the Greek word presbyter.

Presbyter: a transliteration of the Greek word presbyter which means "elder."

Some form of these terms, except bishop, occurs in the book of Acts. In Acts 20:17, the leaders from Ephesus are called "presbyters," or as it is translated, "elders," while the same group is encouraged to "pastor" the flock over which they are overseers (episcopos, hence bishops) in Acts 20:28 .

A parallel example can be seen in our modern practice of speaking of one as pastor, minister, preacher, or "brother." It would be unfortunate to conclude that all four terms speak of four different offices. Basically, this misunderstanding has been imposed on the New Testament usages of these terms. Consequently, many denominations have different orders of ministry. It may be of interest to note the disuse of the title of bishop among some Protestants. The term bishop occurs in several prominent places in the New Testament, especially when the qualifications of that person are outlined in 1Ti 3:1-5. Likewise, the term elder occurs most frequently in the New Testament and it is used very infrequently in today’s church terminology. In some cases it is used today to designate an office lower than bishop. The qualifications for the bishopric are listed in 1 Timothy as well as hinted at in other places. Certain of the qualifications relate to his moral life. The aspiring bishop must be irreproachable, or blameless, sober, temperate, not a drunkard, or a brawler At the same time he must not be governed by the pursuit of money. In addition, he must have civil or social abilities to be courteous, hospitable, avoid quarrels, and have a forbearing disposition. Third, he must have certain capabilities. He must be a good teacher, he must manifest qualities of administration-first with his own family and then the congregation. Without the first, doubt is cast on his being able to qualify in the other. Along with the capabilities, one can speak of spiritual maturity A new convert is not firmly established and may fall into subtle sins such as conceit and pride. Fourth, there are marital qualifications, he must be the husband of one wife. The latter qualification is interesting in light of the widespread rejection of it in large segments of Christendom. Canon law of the Roman Church has forbidden a married clergy for centuries. Even where permitted, it is often limited to the lower ranks of clergy. But here in the New Testament it is connected with the office of bishop. Calvin inveighed against this alien practice and spoke of the dignity bestowed upon marriage by requiring that a bishop be the husband of one wife ⁷ It is true that some men would prefer to be single for the work of the gospel but it is not true for the large majority. Marriage is a wholesome relationship and a happily married bishop or pastor could do much to show the troubled marriages of today how marriage can be fulfilled. The bishop is admonished certain roles of servitude. We have avoided as far as possible the term authority or power. The only authority one can speak of is geared to persuasion and leadership (1Pe 5:2-3). The bishop is a servant of the people and as such he is a spiritual leader and teacher. The bishop has no rank, no command of power, and no demand of obedience. He is a leader by virtue of his devotion to God, wisdom, spiritual insight, and persuasiveness. The believers are urged to remember their leaders and "follow the example of their faith" (Heb 13:7)⁸ The pastor or bishop has the role of preaching the Word of God for the upbuilding of the ecclesia. He is committed to preaching the Scriptures in a balanced way. His primary responsibility from Sunday to Sunday will be in the midst of believers who need to be lifted up and encouraged. All preaching has evangelical aims, but not all preaching is to be evangelistic preaching. The pastor must attempt to avoid preaching to people who are not in the audience. A second role of service is leading the church to observe the ordinances. However, the pastor is not a priest in the usual sense and therefore is not indispensable. But for the sake of order, he is the leader when the ordinances are observed. A third role of service centers around the matter of church discipline. The pastor must counsel those who have chosen to walk their Christian lives at a distance from the Saviour. Others must be kindly rebuked in love--speaking the truth in love--to keep them from bringing shame to themselves and to the name of Christ. The pastor has no power of expulsion from the church. Only the ecclesia can do this. He may lead it to initiate action, but without the ecclesia he can do nothing.

Deacon--The second servant-type leader of the ecclesia is the deacon. This office is not mentioned as often as that of bishop. However, considerable detail is given about qualifications. There are character traits, such as "not indulging in double talk, given neither to excessive drinking nor to money-grubbing" (1Ti 3:8-13). In a word, they must not be scandalous. He, like the bishop, must be the husband of one wife, governing his household with discretion. The marital question is often misunderstood. Some moderns have understood the matter by saying a deacon should not be a person who has been divorced. A man may have messed up his life before becoming a Christian. Yet according to the rule, as it is understood, he cannot ever be a deacon; but it is possible that through the transforming power of Christ he may be better qualified than one who has never been divorced. The limitations here should be under- stood in light of the prohibition against polygamy rather than the past situation of a man’s life before conversion.

Third, there are spiritual qualifications. The deacon must be a man of faith with a pure conscience. A firm hold "on the deep truths of our faith” is necessary (1Ti 3:9). The deacon should be able to speak in behalf of the Christian faith in the same manner that the early deacons did. It was because of this aspect of his service that Stephen was martyred. The duties of the deacon are not defined extensively. If the office of deacon originated in Acts 6:1-6, and some question this, then part of their work was in reference to benevolence and charity. If this is the case, one can say that the deaconate originated before bishops. The deacons were to relieve the apostles in the ministry of benevolence so that the latter could continue in preaching. In essence they served both the bishop and the people. To the pastor they gave re- lief for preaching the Word of God; to the people relief from hardship.

     Tradition has placed the serving of the Lord’s Supper into the hands of the deacons in some churches. As a matter of order this is fine, but the deacon should also be directed toward more substantial acts of Christian service.

Other Leaders

     The two officers mentioned above constitute the extent of the New Testament offices.⁹ Nothing can be said to support archbishops, cardinals, or popes. There are some church offices that have come into existence purely on the basis of expediency. The role of the church clerk could be reflected in the fact that the churches issue letters of commendation but in the modern sense the clerk records the decisions of the church body from time to time. Even if this is expedient, it is an elective office without authority or rule. One office in the modern church is required by law; that is, the trustees. They are necessary for holding property in the name of the group. The same function could be achieved by the deacons, but a different group is often chosen.

Ordination

Ordination is the official act of recognition by a church that a man is called by God to fulfill the work of the ministry. Differences of opinion about ordination come in sacramental churches where a communication of grace and priestly power supposedly takes placein the act of ordination. Non-sacramental churches speak of ordination as merely the recognition and authorization to fulfill the ministry. Protestants, as a rule, profess no indelibility of character which is transmitted in ordination. The Roman view, however, implies a change of character. This may be expressed in the statement, "Once a priest, always a priest." No ceremony is given in the New Testament with the exception of the phrase "the laying on of hands." And the meaning of this term is subject to debate. The New Testament knows nothing of a sacramental view of ordination. There is general misunderstanding concerning the idea of the laying on of hands. In the New Testament the Greek word has the meaning of stretching out the hand, as in voting; or to appoint, rather than touching of the hands to someone. The term does not refer to a ceremonial induction to office.¹⁰ The nature of the appointment idea can be seen in the instance of Barnabas and Saul. They were designated to a new field of service, not ordained. The right of ordination belongs to the church, whether ordaining one to the pastorate or sending him forth to minister.

Church Councils

There is a precedent in the book of Acts for a council to discuss certain issues bothering the churches. The issue of faith without legalism was the cause of the first meeting. In the history of the church other councils have met. Can councils be justified? The first council, as recorded in Acts, was in reality the coming together of the mother church at Jerusalem. Instead of being ecumenical, it was little more than a church meeting. The proximity of the first church to Judaism, along with the presence of the apostles, made it the natural place for considering the problem of the Judaizers. The more interesting aspect of the meeting was that it enjoined nothing upon the Christians in the affected areas than what they had already received in the gospel as it was preached to them. This precedent has not been kept. Having said this by way of criticism, there is a useful device in councils. A council can discuss problems that are common to the Christian communities at large. It can bring to light certain troublemakers, both in the realm of morals and doctrine. It can bring together some of the best minds for the solving of difficult, complex problems. In all of this, however, it must be remembered that a council is purely advisory and that it always is judged by the standard of the Scriptures.

Membership in Ecclesia

The requirements for membership in the early church were very simple, yet profound. The first requirement was conversion and faith in Jesus as the Christ (Acts 2:38). Second, one must be baptized (Acts 2:41-42); and third, to remain in the fellowship as an active member, one must maintain a consistent life in accord with the ethic of love. From the standpoint of the necessity for fellowship and the makeup of the early ecclesia, the individual who shrugged off membership in the group would be an abnormal phenomenon. Fellowship in Christ implies fellowship with his followers.

Ordinances of the Ecclesia

     The religious rites of the early ecclesia were described in unifying terms: one baptism and the unity of the one loaf and one cup. Ironically, Christendom is split the greatest over the meaning of these observances. A number of questions must be answered before a discussion of any of the observances can take place.

First, what is the origin of the rites?

It seems quite evident that Jesus originated two of the rites: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. About this there is little question Concerning other rites: confirmation, marriage, ordination, and so forth there is more debate. The Roman Catholic opinion is "all the Sacraments can be connected up with something that Christ said, and a foundation for the assertion that he instituted them can be found in his own words: the general behavior and temperament of the Apostles bear out that herein they acted on some sort of mandate received from Christ in person: precisely in what way he gave it, save in the case of Baptism and the Eucharist’ we cannot ever know."¹¹ This is to infer that because the Roman Catholic Church observes seven sacraments because the apostles were so conservative that they would not have done anything without a mandate from Christ, therefore Christ must have instituted them. A great part of the sacramental system of the Roman Church is built upon inference E J. Mahoney has written, "In the case of some of the sacraments there is explicit reference in the New Testament establishing their institution by Christ. Others like Matrimony, are not so explicitly mentioned, but the doctrine with regard to them is contained in Tradition and rests ultimately on the infallible authority of the Church"¹² He readily admits, with the Council of Trent, that the doctrine of matrimony is "inferred from the New Testament on the basis of the ’dissolubility of marriage’ as Jesus spoke of it"¹³ Much is based on tradition and the "infallible authority of the church"¹⁴ Recognizing the inability of the Roman Church to substantiate more than two rites by the words of Jesus, Protestants have firmly maintained that Jesus alone can establish a religious rite. Certainly without drawing questionable inferences it is possible to see only two rites that Jesus clearly instituted.

Second, how many? Two or Seven?

If one adopts the standards of the New Testament in its presentation, there are only two. If the tradition of the church, developing and growing over the centuries, is accepted, then there are seven. On the latter view, it must be understood that the development was slow and it took a full one thousand years before a writer definitely spoke of seven sacraments.¹⁵ The Reformation returned to the position of two rites. It refused to set up other rites, because a religious rite must have met the following criteria:

1. A rite must be instituted by Christ. In the case of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, there is undoubtedly a basis in the Scriptures. There is much more than questionable inferential evidence concerning them. Origin of the Lord’s Supper is recorded in parallel in the three Synoptic Gospels and also in 1 Corinthians. The Great Commission completes the witness of the Scriptures concerning baptism as it stands under the approval of Jesus from the time of his own baptism.

2. A rite must be enjoined by Christ upon his followers. This is true for both of these rites. On the other hand, not all followers can receive the seven sacraments. It is an either/or case with marriage and holy orders. 3. A rite must exhibit a divine act and thought. The first two rites do this. Baptism depicts the act of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. The Lord’s Supper also exhibited the divine act of the death of Christ. Baptism commences the ministry of Jesus and the Lord’s Supper is the termination of it. Baptism expresses his identification with mankind and the Lord’s Supper speaks of his atonement for it. Baptism expresses the initiation of man into God’s covenant; the Lord’s Supper expresses the occasional renewal of his covenant with man.

Along with the first two criteria--which rule out the five additional rites adopted by the Roman Church--this standard not only has application there but in another supposed rite. There is no act of God symbolized in penance, marriage, extreme unction, confirmation or holy orders. At the same time, the matter of washing the feet of the disciples expresses something that they must do; not what God did. There is no evidence that the apostolic church thought differently or practiced such.

Third, what are these rites in nature? The rites are sometimes called sacraments and sometimes ordinances. The word sacrament does not occur in the New Testament. It is the Latin translation of the Greek word for mystery, and the Greek word occurs in a number of places (Eph 1:9; Eph 3:2; Col 1:26; 1Ti 3:16 ). The term developed in meaning from an oath of allegiance to a commander to a distinctively religious use. Eventually the word’s currency in Roman Catholic thought was defined as a religious rite using materials that are signs or symbols and the sign conveys the grace it signifies. Following Peter Lombard, it can be said, "A Sacrament is properly so called because it is the sign of the grace of God, and the expression of invisible grace, in such a way as to be not only its image, but its cause."¹⁶

As a means of conveying grace, Roman thought speaks of the rites by means of the term ex opere operato; that is, by virtue of performance of the sacraments. It appears to me that some Roman Catholic expositions on the subject are fuzzy. On the one hand, one can read statements like the following: "If you had to find one word in which to crystallize the Catholic sacramental tradition, I think it would be ’Efficacy.’ The Sacraments are, as we see, efficacious of themselves."¹⁷ On the other hand, the necessity of the right intention is set over against the efficacious nature of the sacraments. The intention does not have to be too conscious--in fact one might be quite distracted in the process--as long as it is latent in consciousness.¹⁸ Again, some of the sacraments--baptism, confirmation, and holy orders--are supposed to produce a sacramental character, an indelible character, so that one is forever a "baptized, confirmed, ordained person." ¹⁹ But on the other hand, it is possible to commit mortal sin and be forever condemned. A mortal sin "carries with it the forfeiture of God’s friendship, loss of grace, spiritual death." ²⁰ One may ask what happened to the indelible character? Another fuzzy approach is seen in the matter of intention versus obstacles to receiving grace. Roman thought claims, on the one hand, that grace is conveyed through the sacraments where there are no obstacles to the channel. It is clearly maintained that an infant cannot place such an obstacle to the efficacy of baptism.²¹ But what about the intention? Obviously the infant knows nothing of faith, baptism, or the church. Proxy intention is then designated to the parents, or godparents, who have faith for it. The Reformation view of the rites is such that the word sacraments used with a different meaning. Calvin wrote:

“First, we must attend to what a sacrament is. It seems to me, then, a simple and appropriate definition to say, that it is an external sign, by which the Lord seals on our consciences his promises of goodwill toward us, in order to sustain the weakness of our faith, and we in our turn testify our piety towards him. ... We may also define more briefly by calling it a testimony of the divine favor toward us, confirmed by an external sign, with a corresponding attestation of our faith towards Him.”²² The Reformed position differs from the Roman view in several ways. Generally speaking, the requirement of faith is necessary, with the exception of baptism, wherein infant baptism is practiced. In contrast to the Roman view, infant baptism is not a necessity. When the sacrament is received in faith, the grace of God accompanies it: "The external sign becomes a means employed by the Holy Spirit in the communication of divine grace." ²³ The Reformed view is not far enough removed from the Roman view to suit many others. People who seek a radical return to the New Testament speak of the religious rites that Jesus instituted as ordinances. An ordinance is an outward rite or a visible sign of the saving truth of the gospel. The ordinances are "signs, in that they vividly express this truth and conform it to the believer."²⁴ An ordinance is also a rite speaking of a covenant or divine promise. In this sense they do not convey grace. To be more precise, grace is the cause of God’s redemption. Faith does not bring grace; it responds to it. Faith in Christ brings the gift of God’s Spirit, who works internally in the life of man to transform him, lift him up, make a new being of him. An ordinance is therefore a reminder of God’s grace.

We never outgrow the reminder of our baptism; namely, that we confessed ourselves dead to sin and alive in Christ. We never out grow the reminder of the Lord’s Supper; namely, that in it God promises and guarantees the forgiveness of our sins because of our faith in Christ. These rites do not strengthen grace in the heart of man; they speak of faith and commitment on man’s part and thereby the enlargement of the Spirit’s control and direction of his life becomes possible.

The history of the church shows how men have bounced from one extreme to the other concerning the meaning of the rites. Men have emphasized the objectivity of the sacraments on the one extreme and rejected the personal qualifications of the administrator on the other. At the same time they have turned away in horror at the subjectivity of the rites. The true view of the New Testament is the requirement of faith on the part of the recipient. This is tacitly admitted in the sacramental discussions on everything but baptism. But here is where it is most crucial. The requirement of faith, in essence, abrogates all sacramental systems, particularly the sacrament of infant baptism. More will be said of this in the discussion of the individual rites.

XIII.1 The Church, Part II

1 H. E. Dana, A Manual of Ecclesiology. p. 103

²Ibid., p. 145.

³Principles of Christian Theology (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1966)p. 384

⁴Ibid ⁵ Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 581.

⁶Ibid.

⁷John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957) II, p.469

⁸Cf. Heb 13:17; NEB; Acts 20:20; Acts 20:23; Acts 20:35; 1 Thessalonians 5:12 9 The limitation to two offices in the ecclesia is borne out by the Didache which speaks of only two officers, bishop and deacon (15:1) Thus at about A.D. 150 the structure of the ecclesia had not departed from the early proto-type .By the time of Irenaeus one can see three orders of church officials. At the same time, because of his fight against heresy, he believed in the apostolic succession of the bishops. Under the bishops were the elders and the deacons. Dana, Manual ofEcclesiology, p 109 ¹⁰Cf. Brunner, The Misunderstanding of the church, p. 80 ¹¹Smith, Teaching of the Catholic Church, p. 751 ¹²Ibid., p. 1064

¹³Ibid.,p. 1065 ¹⁴Ibid., p. 1064 ¹⁵Peter Lombard was the first writer to catalog definitely the sacraments as seven. This was done about A.D.1150 ¹⁶ Smith, The Teachings of the Catholic Church, p. 748 ¹⁷I bid., p. 763.

¹⁸Ibid., pp. 754-5.

¹⁹Ibid., p. 756

²⁰Ibid., p.926

²¹Ibid., p. 795 ²²Calvin, Institutes, pp.491-492 ²³ Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 618. Cf. Calvin, Institutes, II, 497 ²⁴Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 930.