Why No Rebaptism?

A friend recently wrote asking for resources about the topic of rebaptism.  One of the things I sent him was this little piece that I wrote for Reformed Perspective back in 1999.

WHY IS THERE NO REBAPTISM FOR EX-ROMAN CATHOLICS WHO JOIN A REFORMED CHURCH?

A good question!  We could even extend this question to those who come to us from other false churches.  This difficult question has a long history in the Christian church.  Since the time of Augustine, the Christian church has recognized the validity of baptisms administered by heretics — with one condition:  a valid baptism must be administered by an ordained minister of the gospel according to the Trinitarian formula of Matthew 28:19.

However, an appeal to history is meaningless if we do not also show from the Scriptures why the church has always maintained this position.  One thing we notice from the Scriptures is that it is always the role of God which is central.  We see this for example in Colossians 2:12.  We do not get the impression from the Bible that baptism depends upon the one who is baptizing, other than the fact that the administrator must also be one ordained to preach the Word.  As long as the baptism is administered according to the command of Christ it is valid.  We must look to what baptism signifies, namely the covenant promises of God which are signed and sealed by God to the one being baptized.   God is the active subject in the administration of baptism, and thus a baptism is valid so long as it is administered by an ordained minister of the gospel in the name of the Triune God.  For that reason we should accept the baptism of an ex-Roman Catholic (administered under those conditions), but we should not accept the baptism of an individual baptized in an evangelical church only in the Name of the Lord Jesus.

Tied up with this question is the question of what constitutes a church.  Consider this:  in our confessions we imply that the Roman Catholic Church is a false church.  But note that we still consider it a “church.”  It has gone drastically astray, but it retains some things which permit us still to speak of it as a “church.”  It has vestiges or traces of what the church should be.  It still confesses the Triune God and baptizes in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (although adding many unscriptural elements).  It still maintains the Apostles’ Creed, although it is understood in often radically unscriptural ways.  Among the Jehovah’s Witnesses, however, we do not find traces of what the church should be.  A baptism administered among the Jehovah’s Witnesses should never be recognized as valid.  Of course, that leads right back to the conditions for a valid baptism.

For further study:  Dr. J. Faber wrote his doctoral dissertation on this very subject: Vestigium Ecclesiae:  De doop als ‘spoor der kerk’  (Goes:  Oosterbaan & Le Cointre, 1969).  Although this book is in Dutch, there is an English summary by Rev. G. VanDooren: “Baptism as ‘Vestige of the Church.’” in Canadian Reformed Magazine, Vol. 18, Nos. 37-40 (1969).  For the history of this issue, cf. “Baptism as Administered in Non-sister Churches,” by Rev. G. VanRongen, in Una Sancta Vol. 34, No. 26, and Vol. 35 No. 3 and No. 4.

Can You Lose the Holy Spirit?

From time to time I get questions.  Here’s a particularly disturbing one I recently received:

I have a quick question that I believe I know the answer to, but need confirmation: can you lose the Holy Spirit? Can you lose your salvation? That idea seems rather Arminian, yet we’ve come across it in Canadian Reformed circles…can you explain?   Thanks.

This was my reply:

No, you [a Christian] cannot lose the Spirit or your salvation. That idea goes against the doctrine of the preservation (perseverance) of the saints, found in the Bible, and confessed in the Canons of Dort. The way of thinking that you’re hearing is related to a bad understanding of covenant theology. In that understanding, with our baptism we receive all the benefits of Christ, but if we do not obey the obligations of the covenant, then we can lose those benefits. Included in those benefits are salvation and the gift of the Holy Spirit. I have written something on that (see this link). Hope that helps.

It doesn’t take a theologian to sense that badly formulated covenant theology can be a way for Arminian thinking to find a home among us.

Gootjes: the Promises of Baptism

I am getting giddy about this new book, Teaching and Preaching the Word: Studies in Dogmatics and Homiletics.  It’s like re-reading my dogmatics notes from seminary.  Chapter 9 deals with the promises of baptism.  Gootjes tackles the issue of the promises mentioned at the beginning of the Reformed baptism form:

When we are baptized into the Name of the Father, God the Father testifies and seals to us that He establishes an eternal covenant of grace with us. He adopts us for His children and heirs, and promises to provide us with all good and avert all evil or turn it to our benefit.

When we are baptized into the Name of the Son, God the Son promises us that He washes us in His blood from all our sins and unites us with Him in His death and resurrection.  Thus we are freed from our sins and accounted righteous before God.

When we are baptized into the Name of the Holy Spirit, God the Holy Spirit assures us by this sacrament that He will dwell in us and make us living members of Christ, imparting to us what we have in Christ, namely, the cleansing from our sins and the daily renewal of our lives, till we shall finally be presented without blemish among the assembly of God’s elect in life eternal.

He deals specifically with the last part about the Holy Spirit.  He asks, “Can these words be applied to all children that are baptized?  Does the Spirit dwell in all of them?”  He surveys Calvin and Ursinus on these questions and then looks at the scriptural data.  I’m not going to rehearse his entire argument.  Let me just share his conclusion:

…The answer is simple.  The Form does not state that the Spirit actually dwells in all baptized children.  It does not speak of an existing situation.  Rather, this is presented as a promise for the covenant people of God.

That is in complete agreement with Scripture.  The promise of indwelling is first mentioned in Acts 2:39, “The promise is for you and your children…”  It is conditional on repentance and faith: “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins may be forgiven” (Acts 2:38).  It is also mentioned in Romans 8:9-11; there, too, it is conditional on faith.  When the Form for Baptism speaks of the indwelling and sanctifying work of the Spirit, it speaks of promises.  These are great gifts of the covenant offered by God and grasped with the hands of faith.

The same promissory character can be seen in the way the Form speaks about the meaning of being baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son.  The promise that “He will provide us with all good and avert all evil or turn it to our benefit” is fulfilled in those who believe (Rom. 8:28 speaks of “those who love him”).  And the covenant promise of the Son is the forgiveness of sins, and is fulfilled through our union with him, as Romans 6:5 says: “If we have been united with him like this in his death…”

The Form for Baptism follows Scripture in presenting the statement about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as promises.  In baptism, our Triune God promises himself and all his benefits to us.  These are splendid gifts, granted by God and accepted in faith. (192-193)

I hope this book gets the wide readership that it deserves!

Guido de Brès & Communion for the Sick

The sacraments were designed by God to strengthen our faith in Jesus Christ.  As we go through life, we experience trials and difficulties that sometimes challenge our faith.  In those sorts of times, we can be glad that our Father has given us the sacraments to nourish us, and to confirm us in the promises of the gospel.  Historically, however, the Canadian Reformed Churches have withheld the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper from those who are shut-in and unable to attend a regular public worship service.  Those who might benefit from it the most have been unable to.  Until recently.

Recent Decisions

In 2006, the Canadian Reformed Church at Smithers brought an overture to a Classis Pacific West, requesting that the Church Order be amended to accommodate administering the Lord’s Supper to those who are shut-in because of sickness or old age.  The suggested revisions maintained that the sacrament would be administered in the context of a worship service by a minister and all other agreements in the Church Order with regards to admittance to the sacrament would be followed.  The Classis Pacific West of October 10-11, 2006 agreed to pass on Smithers’ overture to the next Regional Synod West.  Regional Synod West 2006 considered the matter and agreed to forward it to General Synod Smithers 2007.

Synod 2007 decided that it was not necessary to revise the Church Order to accommodate the administration of the Lord’s Supper to shut-ins.  The Synod agreed with and took over these considerations of Regional Synod West 2006:

1)      It is not the number of attendees nor the venue that constitutes a “public worship service,” but the presence of office bearers together with congregation members (‘the form of the church’).

2)      The current recognition of the form of the church in multiple places can by extension be applied to extraordinary circumstances in the congregation, in the sense that the consistory could have a worship service for those who cannot come to the normal gathering.  In principle this does not differ from a consistory calling the congregation together at two times (e.g., because the building is too small, necessitating two services back to back) or calling the congregation together at two locations (e.g., because members live too far apart).

3)      Consistories are responsible for the pastoral care of the members.  If in the consistory’s judgment a shut-in member requires the encouragement contained in the Lord’s Supper, the consistory ought to do what it can to provide that encouragement.

4)      While the administration of the Lord’s Supper does belong to the churches in common, it remains debatable whether or not a revision of certain Church Order articles is needed.

Essentially then, Synod 2007 gave the green light to Smithers and other Canadian Reformed churches to provide the Lord’s Supper for shut-ins.  Despite three appeals, Synod 2010 upheld the decision of Synod 2007.

An Older Discussion

This issue has been discussed before in our history.  I recently came across it in a debate that was held between Guido de Brès and a Roman Catholic bishop.  The author of the Belgic Confession was in prison in Valenciennes, awaiting his date with the executioner.  He had been charged with celebrating the Lord’s Supper contrary to the order of the government.  On May 22, 1567, Francois Richardot came to visit and debate with de Brès.  He had hoped to change his mind and yet bring him back to the Roman Catholic fold.

The debate centered on the differences between the biblical Lord’s Supper and the Roman Catholic mass.  About half way through their session that day, de Brès said the following:

Inasmuch as you say that the mass is the Supper of the Lord Jesus Christ, I really want to know why the priest does other than what Christ has done and commanded to be done.  Christ was seated at the table with his disciples.  He preached and admonished from the Word of God.  He was not at all disguised in a get-up like a priest.  He did not speak in an unknown language.  He took the bread and after having given thanks to God, he broke it and distributed it to his disciples.  And likewise the cup, saying, “Drink from it all of you.”  He did not have an altar, but a table.  He did not sacrifice, but ate and commanded to eat.

De Brès’ strategy in this debate was to constantly come back to the differences between the way the Lord’s Supper was celebrated in Scripture and the way the mass was done by the Roman Catholic Church.

In his response, Richardot latched on to what he thought was the weakness of de Brès’ position in the words quoted above.  De Brès had noted that this was a communal meal, celebrated by Christ and his disciples.  Bishop Richardot responded:

…I say that the mass is such a wonderfully praiseworthy thing, that every time that it is said, that communion is held, I eagerly desire it.  And if anyone should ask for it, it should not be refused him.  If there should be a priest who has the devotion to celebrate it, should he be prevented from this blessing because there are no other communicants?  That would not at all be reasonable.  And certainly you are greatly to be condemned for cruelty and inhumanity.  Pardon me that I speak thus about your refusing the sacrament for the poor sick, which is a thing totally repugnant to brotherly charity and to the manner of the early church, who allowed it to be taken to the sick.

For our purposes it is the mention here of communion for the sick that draws our attention.  The bishop alleged that the Reformed churches forbade giving the Lord’s Supper to those who are shut-in and that this was cruel, inhumane, unloving, and out of step with the early church.

A short time later, de Brès came back to this point and gave his response to the bishop:

As for you accusing us of inhumanity for not giving the sacrament to the sick, I confess that it has been done some times before.  But whether it is lawful, based on what I have said, I cannot see a good reason.  It is not a sacrament designed to be given to just one person, since it is a communion of many who should receive it together, and not just one.  However, I would not be too strict if some believer being sick requested to receive this sacrament and if several others were prepared to receive it with the one making the request, and if it were the custom of the church, I would not, I say, condemn such a custom.

At first glance this response appears to reflect some ambiguity on the issue.

A Well-Considered Position

On the one hand, de Brès was a careful student of the early church fathers.  His extensive knowledge is revealed not only in his debates and other writings, but also in the Belgic Confession and its many patristic allusions, quotes, and paraphrases.  When he says, “I confess that it has been done some times before,” he is giving some deference to the early church.  However, he quickly adds that it is difficult to rationalize the lawfulness of this practice.  That statement should be understood in the context, however, of a number of aberrant practices.  For instance, in the medieval church there was the practice of reserving consecrated bread/wafers to be received later by the sick.  They would receive it privately, typically without any explanation or any accompanying administration of the Word (see John Calvin’s Institutes 4.17.39).

De Brès insisted that the sacrament, by its very nature, was not designed to be taken by one person all by himself or herself.  It is called “communion” for a good reason.  A communion of one would be an oxymoron.

However, de Brès recognized the danger of being overly rigorous with regards to those who are sick and shut-in.  The normal practice should be communion with all the other believers in a public worship service.  But he did not exclude the possibility of allowing a believer to take the Lord’s Supper outside of that context, provided that it would be done in a communal setting, and with the approbation of the church.  He would not stand in judgment over that kind of carefully circumscribed celebration for those who are shut-in.

The bishop dropped this particular issue at this point in the debate and so no more was said.  If we had the opportunity to ask him, undoubtedly de Brès would say more.  What exactly he would say has to remain a matter of speculation.  Unfortunately, besides the Belgic Confession, de Brès only wrote two major books and a few other shorter writings and, so far as I know, this matter is not addressed in any of these other works.

What is clear is that, under carefully delineated conditions, the author of the Belgic Confession was prepared to allow those shut-in to receive communion.  Of course, Guido de Brès does not have the last word on this matter.  He was but a man and men can and do err — see his own statement on that in Belgic Confession article 7:  nothing is “of equal value with the truth of God.”  Nevertheless, the historical record demonstrates that the position taken by Synod 2007 falls within the range of positions taken by our Reformed forefathers on this issue.

Lutheranism and the Lord’s Supper

As I was recently preparing for a sermon dealing with Lord’s Day 18, I had the opportunity to explore again the background to QAs 47 and 48.  As you may know, the Heidelberg Catechism was written in Germany and first published in 1563.  It is unusual:  a Reformed catechism emerging from a predominantly Lutheran context.  Some of the substantial disagreements between the Lutherans and the Reformed are discernible in the Catechism and Lord’s Day 18 is one of the most notable places – after all, we have here four QAs on the ascension.  Compare that with one QA on the resurrection in Lord’s Day 17.  There was obviously something going on in the historical background that made extra attention on this point necessary.

The Ubiquitarian Error vs. the Calvinist Heresy

If you’ve been around the block a few times, you’ve heard plenty of catechism sermons on Lord’s Day 18.  Likely you’ve heard that this issue goes back to the Lord’s Supper.  Indeed, it does.  But more fundamentally, it goes to the issue of where Christ’s human nature can be found today.  It is an issue of Christology (the doctrine of Christ).  In fact, this is one of the most significant questions in Christology.

The Lutherans were historically known as ubiquitarians – they held that Christ’s human nature is ubiquitous, which means that it is present everywhere.  The Reformed were historically known as sacramentarians – they held that Christ’s human nature is only in heaven, but he is spiritually present at the Lord’s Supper on earth.  The Reformed spoke of the “ubiquitarian error.”  The Lutherans returned the favour and even did one better, referring to the Reformed position as “the Calvinist heresy.”

Many commentators and preachers of the Catechism have said that the Lutherans held to this error in order to shore up their doctrine of consubstantiation.  So, for instance, J. Van Bruggen in his Annotations to the Heidelberg Catechism wrote that the Lutheran teaching is to be rejected because “it leads to a misconception of the Lord’s Supper in the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation, i.e. that Christ is BODILY present in, with, and under the symbols of the Lord’s Supper” (131).

Richard Muller is a well-known historical theologian at Calvin Seminary.  He’s written many helpful books in his field.  Among them is his Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms.  In his article on consubstantatio, Muller notes that this was a doctrine of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper that dates back to the Middle Ages.  It was taught as a possibility by Duns Scotus, John of Jandun and William of Occam.  Says Muller, “According to the theory of consubstantiation, the body and blood of Christ become substantially present together with the substance of the bread and wine, when the elements are consecrated” (80).  He says that this is not to be confused with the Lutheran doctrine of the real presence of Christ’s human nature in the Lord’s Supper.  The medieval doctrine of consubstantiation proposed that Christ is present locally.  In other words, you could draw a line around the bread and say that Christ was right there.  You could spill some wine on the table, carefully draw a line around the puddle, and say that Christ was present right there in that very place.

However, the Lutheran doctrine of real presence says something different.  There is a real presence, but it is illocal.  “Illocal” is an unfamiliar word to us.  Immaterial beings (such as angels) have an illocal presence.  That means you cannot draw a line around the presence of an angel.  Angels are present, but they cannot be limited to a certain spot.  According to classical orthodox Lutheran theology, so it is with the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper.  Christ is there in his human nature, but not in such a way that you can pin him down to a certain spot – he has a real, illocal presence.  It should also be noted that the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper is different from his presence elsewhere in the world.  It is a presence “specific to the sacrament….bound to a particular promise of God given in the words of institution.”  In the Lord’s Supper, he is present “definitively and sacramentally” (Muller, 242).

Can You Make This Simple for Me?

As I was reading this, I began to think about the poor Lutheran pastor who has to somehow teach this to his flock.  It sounds quite complicated.  How would he do it?  To answer that question, I turned to Concordia: the Lutheran Confessions, a Reader’s Edition of the Book of Concord.  This volume was published by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS), one of the two more conservative and confessional Lutheran churches in North America (the other being the Wisconsin Synod).  If you want to understand the Reformed churches, you would turn to the Three Forms of Unity.  If you want to understand Lutheranism, a good place to turn is the Book of Concord.

The first thing to note is that this is a large book of over 700 pages and in those pages you will search in vain for even one mention of the word “consubstantiation.”  “Transubstantiation” (the Roman Catholic view) is there and critiqued, but no where do we read something like, “Lutherans hold to a doctrine of consubstantiation.”  Rather, they describe their position as “sacramental union” (470).

It is true that the Lutherans believe that Christ’s human nature is present everywhere.  In reference to the ascension, Martin Luther understood the words “at God’s right hand” to mean everywhere (488)  — God’s right hand is his almighty, omnipresent power.  So, when speaking about article 8 of the Formula of Concord, the editors of Concordia explain:  “Does the human nature of Christ share in the divine attributes so that Christ, according to both natures is present everywhere, even under the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper?  The biblical position, explained in this article, is clearly, Yes” (491).  Likewise, elsewhere we read this: “Lutherans believe that the true body and blood of Jesus are actually present (under the bread and wine), distributed, and orally received in Holy Communion” (487).

Consubstantiation?

Whether that position can fairly be called consubstantiation is a matter of debate.  When it comes to the root or etymology, consubstantiation simply means something like “with the substance.”  The human nature of Christ is “with the substance” of the bread and wine.  So, from an etymological perspective, consubstantiation might be an appropriate description of the Lutheran view.  However, if one digs deeper into Lutheran theology, it becomes clear that there is only a superficial similarity with what has historically been termed “consubstantiation.”  It would be akin to calling Arminians “Reformed” because they hold to a doctrine of election.  There are only superficial similarities between the Arminian and Reformed views of predestination, and similarly there are only superficial similarities between the Lutheran view of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper and the medieval doctrine of consubstantiation.  Moreover, according to the Wikipedia entry on the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, “It is occasionally reported that the LCMS and other Lutherans teach the doctrine of consubstantiation. Consubstantiation is generally rejected by Lutherans and is explicitly rejected by the LCMS as an attempt to define the holy mystery of Christ’s presence.”

None of that takes away from the real and serious differences between the Lutherans and ourselves.  It also does not take an iota away from what the Catechism says in QAs 47 and 48.  There is a real and significant error being addressed there, one that continues to divide us.  The Lutherans also continue to recognize the divide.  In fact, the Epitome of the Formula of Concord rejects and condemns the teaching of the Heidelberg Catechism.  They reject and condemn the teaching that “Christ is present with us on earth in the Word, the Sacraments, and in all our troubles, only according to his divinity.  This presence does not at all apply to his human nature” (494).  That sounds like it is directed at our Catechism and given that this was written in the late 1570s, it is entirely possible.

Undoubtedly, some of this is quite detailed and complex.  I have struggled to understand it myself for over ten years.  What is important for us to know and believe is that Christ is in heaven with our human flesh.  He is here on earth with his “divinity, majesty, grace and Spirit.”  Unlike the Lutherans, we don’t believe that Christ’s human nature is here on earth right now in any way.  But unlike much of the broader Christian world (what used to be called “evangelicalism”), we also believe that Christ is really present when we celebrate the Lord’s Supper.  He is present in Word and Spirit to bless us.  It is a sad thing that for over 400 years we haven’t been able to agree with the Lutherans on these points.  May God quickly bring the day when we will at last find “concord” with them.