The Need for Creeds

This is a good follow up from Sunday's sermon on how the Gospel is tied to doctrine and you cannot have Gospel without a confessional basis which supports sound doctrine.  See Rom. 6:17 where Paul says that believers have "obeyed from the heart the form (or body) of teaching (doctrine) which you were committed." 

Along the same line, Carl Trueman has written a book called, "The Creedal Imperative" and I've included a review of the book by Fred Sanders of Biola.  The review is from Christianity Today, which I hope will spread the word throughout the evangelical world. This is so timely and sorely needed! 

Our church has a need for a creed. In The Creedal Imperative (Crossway), Westminster Theological Seminary's Carl R. Trueman presses the case that "creeds and confessions are vital to the present and future well-being of the church."

It's not just that a creed (a public, established statement of a church's most important beliefs) is a useful tool for teaching doctrine, holding leaders accountable, defining the boundaries of church membership or cooperation among churches, and telling the world what a church stands for. Creeds do all that. But this book is not about the handy helpfulness of creeds; it's about the creedal imperative. A church that obeys the Bible should follow the injunction of the apostle Paul's pastoral epistles to Timothy, and resolve to guard "a form of sound words transmitted by eldership … ensuring good management of the household of God."

Trueman builds up this biblical case for creeds, layers over it the historical case from both the patristic church and confessional Protestantism, and puts the burden of proof on what he calls the "'No Creed but the Bible!' brigade." Given this biblical and historical trajectory of churches using creeds, "the question is not so much 'Should we use them?' as 'Why would we not use them?'"

Trueman acknowledges that there is a case to be made against creedalism, but he thinks that case is spurious because it is entirely cultural: The spirit of our age ignores history, distrusts institutions, values emotions more than words, and hankers after novelty. For moderns, the loftiest goal is to be authentic, to speak spontaneously from the heart, giving voice to unique insights from our own points of view. For this mindset, the idea of reciting a set of ancient words in public agreement with a group is, if the word be allowed, anathema.

As a result, anti-creedal evangelicalism is, ironically, "not countercultural, but culturally enslaved." Trueman is passionate and eloquent about how creeds enable churches to dig in their heels and stand with the great tradition, pushing against the modern temperament.

One of Trueman's most deft arguments is that every Christian and every church already has a creed in the sense that they all "think the Bible means something and that its teaching can be summarized" in different words.

He continues, "The only difference is whether one writes the confession down, so that others may scrutinize it and judge whether its teaching is consistent with Scripture, or whether one refuses to do so, in which case one's beliefs are essentially identified with the teaching of Scripture and placed above such scrutiny."

It is the anti-creedalist, in other words, who trumps the Bible with an unassailable (because unstated) tradition.

Ironies like this are delicious to the already persuaded, but they are unlikely to change minds. Trueman almost always avoids what he calls the "rather distasteful, not to mention sinful, tendency among many confessional writers to look down with scorn and derision on those who are not confessional." But he does lecture from a rather high seat, and at times he makes it clear that all God's ways tend toward a good Presbyterian church.

But what about evangelicals not already convinced by confessionalism? Perhaps, for them, the most helpful parts of The Creedal Imperative will be the section on the biblical foundations of creedalism and the delightful chapter on "confession as praise." Trueman's fine book may actually give them a glimpse of the high helpfulness, if not the necessity, of creeds.

Fred Sanders is associate professor of theology at Biola University's Torrey Honors Institute, and the author of The Deep Things of God: How the Trinity Changes Everything (Crossway).

Thanksgiving Day

A Puritan Holiday

On August 5th, 1620, two ships carrying puritan families, the Mayflower and the Speedwell set sail from Southampton, England, for the new world.  Most of the passengers on the Mayflower were a single congregation that left Nottingham in 1607 for Holland fleeing the imposition of English Prayer Book by Elizabeth. 

Yet after they set sail, the Speedwell began to leak and the ships were forced to stop in Dartmouth, England. On August 21st, they left again, only to be forced to return home for England, this time to Plymouth. The Speedwell was considered not sea worthy and the hopes of those on board were dashed.  Some managed to squeeze into the Mayflower so that it was carrying 102 souls. On September 6th, the Mayflower launched from Plymouth, this time alone.

Crossing the Atlantic two and a half months, enduring bad weather, sickness and hunger, they landed on Cape Cod, November 21st.  Eventually they moved inland for a more secure settlement in what is now Plymouth, Massachusetts, on December 21st.

Enduring many hardships, seeking to find a place where they could not only worship as the Bible prescribed, they desired to establish a Christian commonwealth where the Gospel could go out to the nations.  William Bradford, the congregation’s pastor and first governor of the colony wrote:  “They saw themselves as “stepping stones unto others…laying some good foundation, or at least to make some way therunto, for the propagating & advancing the gospel of the kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world.”

 A year later, with the help of local Native Americans, to whom they had shared the gospel, the Pilgrims celebrated a good harvest with the first Thanksgiving.  They maintained the puritan conviction that God in his good providence had provided for them, even though the first winter over half of them died.   In the midst of hardship and in the pursuit of godly aims, the first Thanksgiving was a feast of grateful hearts for the blessings of God.  Of course, most Americans have forgotten this heritage.   May you and your family recapture this sort of worship and gratitude that is rooted in God’s provisions even when things are hard and difficult, but persevere in the godly pursuit of Christ’s kingdom in the midst of this world.     

Psalm 79:13 (ESV) 

    But we your people, the sheep of your pasture, will give thanks to you forever; from generation to generation we will recount your praise.

Front Almost Done

This was the front of the Church back in August as we were getting close to the finish line. All the construction took about 6 months.  We had our first service back in the new sanctuary on Sunday, Sept. 3rd, 2012.  We have now being worshipping in the new space for almost three months.  It still feels and smells so new and fresh and so different.   We have since put lettering on the front of the building - First Presbyterian Church PCA.   Soon a new sign will be put up.  May the Lord be glorified in this place!

“Breaking the Cycle”

Psalm 78:1-8 (ESV) 

   (a transcript of sermon, so not grammatically correct for writing purposes)TDB preached on Nov. 4, 2012

[4] We will not hide them from their children, but tell to the coming generation

1.      Passing on the Faith Requires us to remember the Gospel.

2.      Passing on the Faith to the Next Generation is Keeps us Future Minded.

3.      Passing on the Faith Breaks the Cycle of Bondage to the Past.

We are a church that stresses the use of the catechism for teaching the Faith.  In fact, it was the practice of years past, to use the catechism for evangelism – teaching the Gospel (content of the Faith) to children and new believers (seekers learning) so they could then fully participate in the worship and life of the Christian fellowship – Body of Christ.  

Today, many have turned around the this process, so that now we use worship to evangelize (entertain the seekers) and then we teach the saints.   This psalm is a reminder to us the way to go back to the biblical model of teaching as a means of evangelism.   One that begins first in the home, but is also the mandate of the Church to make sure the Gospel is passed on to the next Generation. 

The word “catechism” means to “sound down” – it is the sounding out, by questions and answers what one believes about God and our salvation.  

In the 17^th century, English Puritan pastors, concerned about the biblical illiteracy in the nation – and ignorance of Christian truth, began writing their own catechisms,  so that dozens of catechisms, being published and circulated.  

There is a new interest in catechisms today.  I hope it is not a fad, that will disappear soon. But, the beginning of a new revival of true faith in our churches.   This Psalm is a call for us today to see the value of the past,  our need to be mindful of the future and the great means of breaking the cycle of unfaithfulness that we see in homes.  

     [2] I will open my mouth in a parable;

        I will utter dark sayings from of old,  [3] things that we have heard and known,

        that our fathers have told us.  [4] We will not hide them from their children,

        but tell to the coming generation

Things we have both heard and known – things that our fathers have told us. 

We see this pattern given to the covenant with Abraham –

Genesis 18:17-19 (ESV) 

    The Lord said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, [18] seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? [19] For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has promised him."

The promises of God’s love – a covenant to generations – is where the blessings of Abraham are passed down to future generations and the nations will be blessed by it.    We see here that teaching the faith and world evangelism were tied together from the beginning.  

Jesus said, “make disciples of the nations , teaching them…  (Matthew 28:18)

The Psalmist speaks of telling the future generations the “dark sayings from of old” -  this is a word of mystery – that is not a mystery that is a deep dark secret – to keep under wraps. – but the mystery of the Gospel – revealed by God.

1 Tim. 3:16 (ESV)   Paul speaks about the Mystery of the Gospel  - as the confession of the church looking at the person and work of Jesus Christ -

    Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:

    He was manifested in the flesh,

        vindicated by the Spirit,

             seen by angels,

     proclaimed among the nations,

        believed on in the world,

            taken up in glory.

 Only a Gospel of Free Grace – that we have been chosen and adopted as God’s children – can be believed and received as it is taught and passed down from our fathers.  

There must be a content to our faith in order to pass it on.   We tend to think that faith is something that will just appear.  The old liberal notion of faith is that it is a feeling.   But, the theology of that kind has seeped into our songs -  Remember the camp song – “It only takes a spark to get a fire going”  -  God’s love is like a fire, just warming us up , so we pass it on.    Well, it is a good song, but the idea is that faith is just a warm feeling.  

Wesley found Christ, after attending seminary, and work as a missionary – “my heart was strangely warmed.” -  but the warmth was based on his understanding that he was justified freely by grace in the work of Christ.”  Today people talk about the feelings of faith, but the content of faith is rather nebulous. 

If you don’t know the faith -  who is Christ, what he has done – the core of the Gospel, you will have nothing to pass on.  

When Moses was nearing his death his great concern was about the next coming generation.  Read in Deut. 6 – what he is telling Israel -  the generation of the Exodus was not obedient.  They were hard hearted and rebellious.   But, Moses was still hopeful about the promises of God.   Just because they had unfaithful fathers, did not mean that God was an unfaithful father.   The Grace of Adoption – the fact that Israel was chosen was not something that was going to change.  

Twice in Deut 6 – he repeats the charge to “teach them to your children” -   The teaching was both formal and informal.  That is, both sitting down and then walking.   Faith has to be taught and lived out in the home and this of course is reinforced in the Church.    We must not just be orthodox in our doctrine – I am glad we are.  We have to be orthodox (right thinking-rule) in our daily lives.  

This command to teach the next generation is also found in chapter 11 in Duet. 

Deut. 11:19 (ESV) 

    You shall teach them to your children, talking of them when you are sitting in your house, and when you are walking by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. 

I think of this passage often as we baptize our covenant children and as we minister to young couples.  Many of them end up moving away. But, we have the responsibility to lay down a good foundation.  

This is not however a call for just parents.   Most churches are made up of about 50 percent single people.  There is a tendency in our family churches to think that ministry and teaching is just for families with children.   The Bible does not separate home life and church life.   We are God’s family.   Some people in God’s family are married, some are not.  Some have children, some not.  Some have different size families.    But, we are to see ourselves as God’s children by adoption and God is our Father.    There is a great need to see the responsibility of passing on the faith to the next generation as a collective responsibility.    This is what we reflect when we promise as a church to raise our baptized children in the Faith.  

I am very thankful that our SS material is faithful to God’s word and reinforces our WA catechism.    I have no worry that what I teach my children at home is reinforced in SS and in our church’s teaching.  

In fact, this is what must happen.   If our children are only taught at home – it can lead to an imbalance in their minds.   They will be cut off from the history of the Church’s teaching role.   They need spiritual fathers and mothers who are wise in the faith and can support and reinforce what they get at home.  

What we see today, is a weak emphasis on SS – even those who say it is past and over.   Teaching in the church is replaced with fellowship.   

We must recover the Church’s role in shaping the hearts and the minds of a new generation.   The millennial generation (20’s) are the most unchurched and secular minded generation ever in America. 

One writer puts it this way - “Young people aren’t walking away from the church, they’re sprinting…Barna Group estimates that 80 percent of those reared in the church will be “disengaged” by the time they are 29 years old.”

That is a shocking statistic.  But, it is tragic, because many in the Church today, are not doing anything to stop the decline into unbelief.  

[5] He established a testimony in Jacob

        and appointed a law in Israel,

    which he commanded our fathers to teach to their children, [6] that the next generation might know them, the children yet unborn, and arise and tell them to their children,

        [7] so that they should set their hope in God

    and not forget the works of God,

        but keep his commandments;

This is a far reaching vision into the future.  It is about generations yet unborn.   Verse 7 gives the purpose of this generational blessing -  so they will set their hope in God.   

We can never guarantee that our children will believe -  it is not a power we have to create faith.   But what we have are promises of God, so that we can create a place where faith can flourish.   

The final verse of this passage, this morning – puts us on track concerning our abilities.  The truth is Israel was a bad role model.  Their fathers were rebellious.   This was not a generation of faithful men and women who were passing the torch.  These were sinners who desired future generations not to endure the mistakes they made.   It is hopeful verse, because it reminds us that the hope of future generations rests not in us, but in the power of God’s grace.   

    [8] and that they should not be like their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation,

    a generation whose heart was not steadfast, whose spirit was not faithful to God.

It is only the Gospel that breaks the cycle of rebellion.  It is God’s free gift of mercy to generation that sees it’s sin and turns from it and embraces Christ. 

Five Reasons Protestants Become Catholics

The reason young Calvinists are abandoning the principles of Reformation for the structured faith of the Roman Catholic Church are as myriad as the individuals who convert from John Henry Newman (of the 19th century Oxford Movement) to Tom Howard (brother of Elizabeth Eliot).  One cannot judge inner motivations.  One can, however, take an honest look in the mirror and see the problems that are self-generating.   So, with this mirror of looking at ourselves, we may discern certain inherent tendencies, even weaknesses that make this trend more readily comprehensible.  It saves us from all the head scratching that happens when the next book or published announcement of one of our own crossing over to the other side of the line.   This mirror I offer is not a perfect analysis of the problem, it is just one man, with one angle, standing in one place, with one glance at a many faceted reality.  

1.       Most conservative Reformed people are ignorant of history beyond the sixteenth century. The Reformation did not start when a German monk nailed a list of grievances on the door of a church.  The reforming of the Church began in Acts 15, when the first council of the early Church met in Jerusalem to discuss what was essential to the Gospel and the Church’s mission in light of it.   There was after that a rich and diverse history of the Church seeking to reform itself in light of Gospel truth for over 15 centuries.   The Protestant Reformers saw themselves in line with Chrysostom, Augustine, Bernard and a great host of reform minded luminaries against dark forces in every age of the Church.   They never saw themselves as schematics or doctrinal innovators. 

 

2.       Calvinists today tend to focus on the debates of the Reformers and the Puritans without reference to five hundred years of change in Roman Catholicism.   It is just as dangerous to ignore recent theological reflections (for different reasons maybe) as to engage in dialogue between Evangelicals and Catholics today without knowledge of the debates of the Reformation, which led to the historic division of the Council of Trent.   There is a tendency to be short-sighted on either end of the spectrum.  It requires due diligence to be both good historians and contemporarily engaged with living tradition, even though it frustrates the modern obsession with being specialists.  But such engagement requires honest and accurate scholarship.   We should not be historical experts without knowledge of post –Vatican II theological formulations, not should we be naïve (or snobbish) to think that we moderns have outgrown the concerns of our forefathers.  

3.       We view Roman Catholics with a monolithic perspective.  What defines Roman Catholic belief is not easily described like confessional Protestants.   Getting two Catholics to agree is about like trying to get two Calvinists to agree.   Doctrinal unity is not a goal and the summum bonum for Roman Catholics like us Reformed minded believers.   They look to more of a mystical union established in a tradition that is complex and ever growing.  We point to our Confession, and they will say to us, “the Church is much bigger than that.”  In a sense they are right.  Confessions do not define the Church, they express its truth.  The Gospel defines and gives life to the Church, and of course this is where we can help Roman Catholics.  

4.       Ignorance of ancient strands of Catholic spiritual traditions and renewal movements keep Protestants stuck in a myopic mindset about the universal church.   Ignatius was a contemporary of Calvin, fought the Reformers about grace, but also encouraged a system of studying the Bible that laid a foundation of spiritual life in Benedictine circles that inspired great missionary endeavors.   Prior to the Reformation, writers and practitioners of the imitation of Christ stood in contrast to the corrupt morals of the church leaders.    Their body of literature belongs to us as well.   

5.       Protestant soteriology is often stressed to the exclusion of a rich, historically informed ecclesiology.   Calvinists today tend to focus more on salvation than on the means of salvation.  We are functionally more Quaker in this regard than we are Reformed.   We are often more aware of Catholic heresy than our own Protestant heresy that has prospered like a new Gnosticism, looking for salvation in a theory more than in Christ and His Church.  

The Missing Jewell

Jeremiah 6:16 (ESV) 

    Thus says the Lord: "Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls.  But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'

One of our great aims at FPC is to recover our historic distinctive of Reformed belief and practice in our worship and our way of being a church.  This is not a popular road to travel, even among people of our own denomination.  It seems as though we are constantly bombarded with the message that to be relevant to our culture we must move from the past.  But, the Bible reveals the way of faithfulness is not mimicking the culture, but going back to the ancient paths our spiritual ancestors marked out for us.  Our new sanctuary is one example.  Its newness is a recovery of historic Reformed worship where people gather around the preaching of the Word.  This sanctuary has been designed in the shape of a Cross to reflect the centrality of Christ’s work as the means of coming into the presence of God.   The congregation gathers around the raised pulpit to hear the Word of God read and expounded to capture the Reformed priority of the Holy Scriptures in bringing forth faith in those who believe. 

This reality of the centrality of preached Word, has implications in everything we do.  It means more than just one hour of listening to the pastor and then going back to life as usual.  It stands as a call that the whole day, which our Presbyterian forefathers called the Sabbath, was to be spent in holy rest and religious worship, because God rested after six days of creating this world(Gen. 2:3), and as a Gospel rooted  ordinance (Acts 20:7).  In fact, what we see in Acts, is a church more engaged in worship, then what Israel was mandated in the law.  Worship in the reality of Christ’s finished work and resurrected power is the transforming experience of Christian living.   The more I study the Scriptures, the more convinced that this is the missing jewel (to borrow A.W. Tozer’s phrase) in many people’s lives.   People are living under greater stress today; our lives are being pulled apart by discord and unhappiness.  The more we work to find contentment and joy, the less we experience it.  Our children and family life with our middle class affluence are filled with discontent and rebellion.   They see the hypocrisy of our disjointed morality and according to many studies are leaving the faith in masses. 

It may sound overly simplistic, but the core problem of our manifold crisis is our contemporary disregard of the fourth commandment to “honor the Sabbath.”   The whole day was meant to reconnect our lives, our homes to our true identity as God’s people.  Through all day worship, training in the Scriptures, learning the catechism, praying with one another, in godly fellowship and caring ministry, this one day was set apart as a blessing and not a burden.   I am not talking about a legalistic observance, but a Gospel soaked experience of getting us back to where we find God’s grace poured into our lives.  

I will make a challenge for you.   Is your life fraying at the edges?  Do you need more peace and joy?  Then do what God prescribes, by making the whole day, not just one hour, the Lord ’s Day, where He is central in your week.  If you are struggling in some area in your life and are not worshipping weekly, don’t ask first for pastoral counseling, go first to this God designed pattern for wholeness.  This is the missing jewel in your life.  In public worship, God uses the ordinary means of grace to minister to heavy hearts.  In those times you need someone to hear you unburden your heart and to be prayed for (James 5:16), we have prayer/counseling rooms behind the sanctuary, where an elder and the pastor can meet with people following worship, as needed.   It is our hope that coming to church on the Sabbath will become a wellspring of life and blessing to the saints gathered at First Presbyterian Church in Enterprise.  

Eat and Drink

Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is my body."  [27] And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you,  [28] for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.  Matthew 26:26-28 (ESV) 

…to the end that the one should be eaten, and that all should drink of the other..

What Christ Jesus did, and commanded to be done, is evident by the evangelists, and by Saint Paul. Scots Confession, Ch. 22

Is the modern practice of “intinction” or dipping bread into the cup, as some argue an ancient practice of the church that does not undermine the Reformed theology of the “Lord’s Supper”?   Is this just a matter of indifference, since the confession does not spell out for us the manner of distribution?   Is concern over this issue just theological nitpicking over matters best left to the discretions of ministers and sessions?

In the Reformed theology of the sacraments there has been a clear distinction between what has been understood as essential to them and things indifferent.  It may surprise many in our ranks today to find among the Calvinists’ confessions and catechisms a remarkable uniformity in how both baptism and the Lord’s Supper were to be taught and performed.   There was a certain simplicity conveyed in the use of sacramental ministry of the Church, which did not add to elaborate elements of the symbols of the sacraments so as to impede or obscure the truth they represent and the grace that they convey.   Sacraments are mysteries that reveal the Gospel.  Our Reformed Churches throughout the German, Dutch, French and English extractions would wholeheartedly agree with the view of Richard Greenham, “the more ceremonies, the less truth.”    However, our Reformed family today is often found in a haze of various sacramental views and practices, so that this uniformity of practice is lost.   This is a cause of great concern, for the Reformers understood “the right use of the sacraments” to be one of the sure signs of a true Church of Jesus Christ.   Like the truth of the Gospel, the sacraments belong to the person and authority of our Lord and Savior.  The validity and the ministration of the sacraments are directly related to the meditorial office of Jesus Christ and not to a minister, or individual church.   The efficacy of the sacraments does not rely upon the minister who performs them but, as our confession states, “but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution.”  It is the Spirit at work in connection with the words and actions that Jesus commanded his church to use which make it the means by which he promises to seal his grace upon his own body, the Church.  

When the Westminster Assembly was charged to reform the theology, the worship and the government of the Church in the three kingdoms of Britain, they were instructed to base their reformation only upon “the word of God, and the practice of the best of Reformed churches.” (The Solemn League and Covenant) 

What this meant in terms of developing a liturgical guide for England, was not merely to reinvent the wheel based on their own cultural needs, but to conform their practice to the long standing Reformed use across the Continent and the ancient practice of the Catholic Church from early times. The Reformers like Luther, Calvin and Bucer understood the fundamental connection between the faith of the Gospel and the worship of the Church.  

Words and Actions

Our confession states that there are two elements to every sacrament, the outward sign and the inward grace (Ch. 27:2).  This is what defines the term of what we mean by sacramental signs, of which baptism and the Lord’s Supper were instituted by Christ for His Church.   Secondly, the efficacy of a sacrament is tied to the “Spirit and the words of Institution”.   That is to indicate that while the inward work of the Holy Spirit makes the sacrament to be a real means of grace, that work is tied to the very commandment of Jesus Christ. A.A. Hodge describes it vividly as, “The Spirit is the executive of God.  He takes of the things of Christ and shows them unto us.” (pg. 334, The W.C. Commentary)  The Reformers understood that it is upon the testimony of Scripture that the Lord’s Supper was a meal in its most fundamental character.  It was not a sacrifice of Christ, nor is it a mere memorial of a bare sign, but a real means of participating in Christ and all his benefits.   As Luke reminds us in his account of the meal, the Lord’s Supper grew out of the Passover, where the bread and the wine of Israel’s deliverance were given new meaning and significance (Luke 22:17-20). 

Therefore the meal in which Jesus shared with his disciples was a matter of essential significance for the church’s continual sacramental practice.    Indeed, the biggest debate at the Westminster Assembly over the Lord’s Supper was concerning the use of a real table, and whether it required all to sit at the table or remain in their pews.   The Directory of Worship has language that points to a compromise between the two practices,  where those who receive the elements can do so “at or around the table”, in other words sitting at the table as was the Scottish practice or at the pews.   This does not mean that distribution in any form is a matter of indifference, but that the idea of a table meal should be retained in any particular context of distributing the elements.  

Why are the words of the institution required?   They are required to be said, by “a lawfully ordained minister,” because the minister does not act for himself, but is by Christ’s command following the order and the actions of Christ in the right use of the sacrament.   As the Scots confessed, “the holy action” of this sacrament was to be done only with the sanction of Christ and nothing done without his “word and warrante.” (Thompson, pg. 292).  We do not make up our own words, nor do we introduce new actions, or innovations that would diminish the simplicity of the “eating and drinking” of the bread and wine.   There are four clear commands that Jesus gives us in the outward elements in the institution (harmonizing the Gospels and Paul):  “Take bread, give thanks, break it and eat”.  For the cup, the command is to “take the cup, give thanks, give it and drink it.”  Both the elements (real bread and real wine) and the actions are considered by our Confession to be essential to the sacrament.   It represents to us a real communion with Christ, so that the shared meal is a true eating and drinking of Christ and his benefits by faith.   The use of intinction, where the cup seen, but not drunk removes this basic symbol of the meal and robs the church of truly drinking of the benefits of their redemption (an issue that the Reformers and our confession always makes clear as a gross violation of Christ’s sacrament).   It furthermore removes the cup from the table and brings it before people who come to a minster or elder to receive the elements, ironically putting an emphasis on an individualist participation rather than a communal participation of the meal. 

The Larger Catechism clearly expresses the Confession’s singular emphasis of the shared meal of the Lord’s Table given in two separate actions.  To feed upon Christ, by the Holy Spirit is to be nourished through the physical act of eating and drinking.  

Q. 169. How hath Christ appointed bread and wine to be given and received in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper?
A. Christ hath appointed the ministers of his Word, in the administration of this sacrament of the Lord’s supper, to set apart the bread and wine from common use, by the word of institution, thanksgiving, and prayer; to take and break the bread, and to give both the bread and the wine to the communicants: who are, by the same appointment, to take and eat the bread, and to drink the wine, in thankful remembrance that the body of Christ was broken and given, and his blood shed, for them.

We should then follow Christ’s command with a joyful obedience and with thirsty souls drink from the cup he offers.  Intinction then should not be used simply because it is not consistent with Christ’s example and our Reformed Confessional heritage.