Grant Shelton

Omnibus V Primary Section C

Mrs. Hensley
May 9, 2014
The PCA and Calvin
Sometimes when bringing up doctrinal differences in the Sacraments,
Christians roll their eyes as if to say not this again. And while it may sometimes
seem that the arguments on these particular articles of our faith are rather small
when compared to the enormity and importance of the core message of the Gospel,
it is still incredibly valuable to know what we believe, and why we believe it. This is
why Calvin spent four chapters of Book IV of The Institutes of the Christian Religion
solely on Sacraments. Having read through these, and having interviewed my
pastor, I can assert that I, as well as my church, agree with most of the proposed
beliefs on the Sacraments of Calvins Institutes.
Before examining the intricacies of the Sacraments, however, it is important
to define the word sacraments both from the Institutes and The Westminster
Shorter Catechism (followed by the Presbyterian Church of America). In Chapter
fourteen, section one of Book IV of the Institutes, Calvin states, [a sacrament] is an
external sign, by which the Lord seals on our consciences his promises of good-will
toward us, in order to sustain the weakness of our faith, and we in our turn testify
our piety towards him, both before himself, and before angels as well as men
(Calvin, 119). The Westminster Shorter Catechism version is similar, but not exactly
the same, as it says, A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ, wherein,

by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the New Covenant, are represented,
sealed, and applied to believers (Williamson, 293). We can see that the two
definitions are very nearly identical, but Calvin recognizes our weakness and need
for the sacraments as part of the definition as well.
In relation to the Lords Supper, Calvin believes that our need for the
sacrament is more than just a need to remember, but one of spiritual nourishment
as well. I asked my pastor, Parker Agnew, about this and he said, The Lords
Supper is a means of grace. He said that there was certainly a remembrance aspect
to it, but the purpose of this sacrament went much deeper than the mere memorial.
He explained to me that labeling the sacrament as a means of grace shows the
importance of the Lords Supper as not only something we do to honor Christ and
remember his sacrifice, but as a way for Him to bless and nourish us. My pastor also
referred me to question and answer eighty-eight of The Westminster Shorter
Catechism. Question: What are the outward means by which Christ communicates
to us the benefits of redemption? Answer: The outward and ordinary means by
which Christ communicates to us redemption, are his ordinances, especially the
Word, sacraments, and prayer; all of which are made effectual to the elect for
salvation, (Williamson, 282).
This discussion then moved on to the question of Do we believe we are
made holier by taking this sacrament, and are there consequences for not taking it
as a Christian? To this, my pastor answered, Yes, neglecting the means of grace
would be like not eating. He came to the same conclusion that we had discussed in
Omnibus class that if this sacrament is spiritual nourishment, as we believe it is,

then refusing to partake in it would be the same as refusing food. The only time a
believer should not take of the sacrament of the Lords Supper is if he or she is
currently living in sin (note that this is different from merely being a sinner).
After discussing this, I asked my pastor why we would not take the Lords
Supper every Sunday if it is in fact spiritual nourishment and a means of grace as
Calvin stated, Each week, at least, the table of the Lord ought to have been spread
for the company of Christians, and the promises declared on which we might then
spiritually feed, (Calvin, 181). He answered that in our church, the decision of
when to have communion is left to the session (elders of the church). My pastor also
said, It allows for us to have more time to spiritually prepare if we dont have it
every week.
This does, however, beg the question, Should we not always come prepared
to worship? We discussed this, and though it is true that we are required to always
come in this manner, a special preparation must be made for partaking in the Lords
Supper, a holy sacrament. Our session feels that having Communion every Sunday
provides an opportunity for our fallen human nature to pull us into a cycle of
complacency towards this sacrament. Essentially, by taking communion only once
every five weeks, they are seeking to remove this temptation, while also
participating in it more than just once a year as some other denominations do. I feel
that this is wise, as the Bible does not clearly state how often to partake, and having
it not weekly while also not too sparingly, removes us from the temptation of
complacency that might arise.

While we were still on this topic, my pastor pointed out to me that the
guidelines for the giving of communion are strict. As part of the PCA, we believe in
open, public Communion, meaning we accept all believers to the Lords Table. Also,
it must always be given with a preaching and reading of the Word. And if there is a
member of the church that is sick and requests communion, a pastor can only carry
out this sacrament if at least one elder is present and it is accompanied with a short
sermon and Scripture. Calvin condemned the practice of private communion,
especially that practiced by his contemporaries of the Catholic Church. He wrote
this scathing remark aimed at the Pope, The edict of the eternal God is, that all are
to drink. This, an upstart, dares to antiquate and abrogate by a new and contrary
law, proclaiming that all are not to drink, (Calvin, 182). The Catholic Church would
only allow the priests to partake, and while it may seem that Calvin was speaking
against all private communion, he was only writing against those that denied the
whole body of believers this sacrament.
As an end to our interview, my pastor and I discussed how the Old Testament
ceremonial practices (mainly the Passover and circumcision) relate to the
sacraments of the New Testament. Both are seen as fulfillments of the Old
Testament. We now practice the Lords Supper instead of the Passover, and
Baptism is a sign and seal of the New Covenant just as circumcision was that of the
Old Covenant. The sacrament of Baptism is the new seal of a covenant for Gods
people that takes the place of circumcision. It is for this reason that infants of
believers are included in the Covenant. As with circumcision, Baptism is not what
really saves, but it is a sign of the body of Christ. Likewise, the whole celebration of

the Passover, deeply ceremonial in its order and purpose, has been fulfilled in
Christs death. It was a celebration of freedom and salvation from Egypt, just as the
Lords Supper is a celebration of freedom and salvation from sin. But it goes so
much deeper than that now. We arent merely called to eat and remember once a
year, but we frequently partake to remember, repent, and be refreshed in our faith.
I agree with Calvin and my pastor on the subject of the sacraments. We are
spiritually nourished through the frequent administration of the Lords Supper, and
refusing this nourishment is equal to not eating. The preaching and reading of the
Word must accompany both of the sacraments as Calvin says, and they are meant
for sinners, but not those currently leaving in sin. These intricacies may seem
somewhat minor in view of the Gospel, but it is through this better understanding
and clarity that we are able to grow in our faith.

Calvin, John. "Institutes IV." Institutes of the Christian Religion. Web. 9 May 2014.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/vpsa/generic/91820/InstitutesIV.pdf?1395057077
Williamson, G. I. The Westminster Shorter Catechism: For Study Classes. 2nd ed.
Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 2003. Print.