Book Review: Beyond Smells and Bells

By Trevin Wax on Oct 30, 2008 in Book Reviews | Print This Post Print This Post | Share (Twitter, Email, Facebook)

The Wonder and Power of Christian LiturgyIt’s probably not a good idea for me to read too many books like Mark Galli’s Beyond Smells & Bells: The Wonder and Power of Christian Liturgy. (Paraclete, 2008).

After all, I have long desired a closer following of the church calendar. I have written of my love for more liturgical forms of worship. My experience worshipping with semi-liturgical Baptists in Romania whetted my appetite for more thoughtful worship.

Beyond Smells & Bells is a short book that appeals to two kinds of people. For those already in liturgical churches, Galli’s brief book will either explain to you for the first time how the liturgy intends to form you spiritually or it will renew your love for liturgy. For those not in liturgical churches, Galli’s book works as an apologetic for more thoughtful liturgy. Even though a posivite apologetic for liturgy is not his intention, Galli’s work accomplishes this promotion in an indirect way.

Galli writes that his book is for ”those who find themselves attracted to liturgy but don’t quite know why.” That’s me! So if the book is written for people like me, it’s no wonder I enjoyed it.

What I appreciate about Beyond Smells and Bells is how Galli builds on the work of Robert Webber without making liturgy out to be more important than it is (which Webber tended to do at times). Galli cautions against seeing the liturgy as a “magic potion”. He realizes that even as some people connect with God through the liturgy, others find it a terrific place to hide. Galli affirms the importance of worship space, but he wisely warns against the liturgy fan’s tendency to idolize holy places.

Galli doesn’t try to make a biblical case for high-church. Trying to prove from the Bible that churches should adopt a liturgical worship service is nearly impossible. Instead, he wisely goes in the direction of common sense. Take for instance his view of the church calendar: this “cosmic daytimer” forms the way we look at time and challenges the other calendars that we live by (including sports!).

What I find most refreshing in liturgy is the way in which “liturgy puts a break on narcissism.” Galli says, “From the beginning, you realize that this service isn’t about you.” The fact that liturgy is not seeker friendly tells us something about the transcendence of God.

There are times in Beyond Smells and Bells where Galli downplays the idea that church is about education. Instead, he sees spiritual formation taking place within the community in other ways. I fear that the role of the sermon could get lost in Galli’s emphasis on community and liturgy. To his credit, he acknowledges the role of education, but he seems to create a dichotomy between truth that is imparted by a teacher and truth that is “lived together” in the community of faith.

Surely an emphasis on historic liturgy could refresh our often-anemic worship services. But there are plenty of liturgical churches that deserve the term “dead.” I would rather be in an anemic worship service than a dead one. In many ways, Galli’s book is an attempt to keep the life in liturgy, to reestablish the good reasons for utilizing liturgy, and to renew and revive this ancient way of worshipping our Savior.

After reading this book, I realize that I am not so attracted to certain forms of liturgy, but to the rhythms of worship that flow through a liturgical worship service.

Let there be freedom and movement in worship. At the same time, let us be thoughtful about our worship.

Let us think about the rhythms of liturgical worship. And let us constantly evaluate what our worship tells us about ourselves and others about our God.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

© Copyright by Trevin Wax | Print This Post Print This Post | Share (Twitter, Email, Facebook)

15 Comment(s)

  1. What is worship, and who is the audience during worship? Dealing with the latter, God is the audience. As Galli says, “From the beginning, you realize that this service isn’t about you.” It’s not about to what degree I am entertained. Dealing with the former – what is worship? – Liturgical worship is the call of God summoning His people to enter into the Divine Drama of Redemption. We are invited to the wedding banquet (Rev 21). We worship God, yet he generously invites us to become “partakers in the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4). Sweet.

    Brian | Oct 31, 2008 | Reply

  2. Trevin,

    Nice to hear of other Baptists who are interested in liturgy. Did you write somewhere else of your experience with semi-liturgical Baptists in Romania?

    Thanks…James Grant

    James Grant | Nov 1, 2008 | Reply

  3. Check the Romania category on the sidebar. I know I’ve written about these experiences before…

    Trevin Wax | Nov 1, 2008 | Reply

  4. Trevin,

    Thanks for the review. I grew up in a liturgical tradition (RCC), received Christ at age 21, and then began attending an independent Bible church. I am now 48 and find myself experiencing a deep hunger for a return to a more liturgical expression of worship. I guess I am feeling a bit burnt out on the high energy, loud, fast moving expression that so dominates evangelical churches here in the south. Galli’s book is next up on my reading list.

    I hope you don’t mind me adding a link, but here is an article that I think describes many of us.

    Blessings

    http://www.desertpastor.com/paradoxology/2008/10/when-church-services-leave-people-still-needing-church.html

    Austin | Nov 5, 2008 | Reply

  5. I believe asan ex roman catholic that roman catholicism is the most unpure of all Christian denominations and possibly the greatest deception of and by Satan himself. I know I experienced what Calvin also described as a true Protestant conversion only after I was able to renounce the roman catholic church and its pope completely.

    I think only ex catholics like me and educated Protestants like you can understand that one cannot be a Reformed Protestant until one renounces roman catholicism. I wish more Protestants understood the importance of us remaining Protestant and reformed, we are the heirs of the true gospel and the church of Christ as it was given to the apostles.

    dudley davis | Nov 5, 2008 | Reply

  6. Easy does it Dudley. Guys like Michael Horton say we need a new reformation to get things recalibrated. Sounds like you’d be in favor of that. What would be the result? Further divisions, splitting, and fracturing no doubt. Christ formed ONE Church… ONE. I gather you’d insist, “yes, and she apostatized from the beginning.” So, is that the best we can hope… initial orthodoxy, then quickly apostacy, then shortly thereafter fracturing in protestation? What a pitiful church that would be. Jude 1:11 reminds us of Korah’s rebellion. Read about it in Numbers to see what the Almighty things of fracturing within His Church.

    Brian | Nov 7, 2008 | Reply

  7. Your thought is well taken Brian. I am only concerned as a Reformed Protestant that our liturgy remain authentically Protestant. Protestant denominations differ in the degree to which they reject Catholic belief and practice. Some churches, such as Anglicans and Lutherans, tend to resemble Catholicism in their formal liturgy, while others, like Baptists and Presbyterians, retain very little of the liturgy and tradition associated with the Catholic church.

    I was an Episcopalian for a brief time after I left the roman catholic church. However after a thorough study of Protestantism and the Protestant reformation I discovered the Reformed branch of Protestantism and became a Presbyterian.

    I rejected the traditions of the roman church after I studied the reformers especially Calvin, Knox and Zwigli, I knew I was going to be either a Baptist or Presbyterian. I attended services at both the Baptist and Presbyterian congregations in my area. I liked the form of worship in both denominations. I decided to become a Presbyterian because I liked the Governmental set up of the Presbyterian fold.

    I follow and confess to the Westminster Confession of faith as a Presbyterian Protestant but I also concur with the Baptist Confession of faith.

    I adhere to the authority of the Bible and the doctrines of he early creeds. and as a Protestant I follow the emphasis on the doctrines of “justification by grace alone through faith, the priesthood of all believers, and the supremacy of Holy Scripture in matters of faith and order.”As a Presbyterian Protestant I now recognize only two sacraments directly commanded by the Lord – baptism and communion – as opposed to the seven sacraments accepted by the Catholic Church..

    I also now see the Lords Supper, communion in a different light than when I was a roman catholic.

    The doctrine commonly called transubstantiation which maintains that in the supper the substance of bread and wine is changed into the substance of Christ’s body and blood through consecration by a priest or in any other way, I now concur is repugnant not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason. Furthermore, it overthrows the nature of the sacrament and has been, and is, the cause of all kinds of superstitions and gross idolatries.

    In this sacrament Christ is not offered up to His Father, nor is any real sacrifice made in any sense of that term for remission of sin of the living or the dead. The supper is only a memorial of the one offering up of Christ, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all. It is also a spiritual offering up of all possible praise to God for the once-for-all work of Calvary. Hence the popish sacrifice of the mass, as it is called, is utterly abominable, and injurious to Christ’s own sacrifice which is the sole propitiation for all the sins of the elect.

    The outward elements in the Lord’s supper-bread and wine-duly set apart for the use appointed by Christ, bear such a relation to the Lord crucified that, in a true sense although in terms used figuratively, they are sometimes called by the names of the things they represent, namely, the body and blood of Christ, even though, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before being set apart for their special use.

    While we Presbyterians reject the liturgy and the mass that roman catholics follow we have a beautiful form of worship and liturgy that was ordained by the early church and free from the corruption’s of popish and some pagan traditions that have crept into roman catholicism over the last 1500 years.

    dudley davis | Nov 8, 2008 | Reply

  8. I appreciate your words Dudley. You say regarding communion, “It is also a spiritual offering up of all possible praise to God.” Here are some things to think about. A) Your use of “all possible praise” would mean it’s the summit of Christian worship, pretty darn important, so how often does your PCA church have communion? If not weekly, why not? B) Malichi 1:11 prophesises the day when, from sun up to sun down (i.e. all over the world each day) they bring sacrifice, “a pure offering”. What’s the only pure offering which indeed pleases the Father? His Son, of course. So how is a memorial meal fulfilling this prophesy?… and only once a month at many churches at that. C) Christ, through his death, entered behind the veil (the fullness of the OT priests in the temple), yet he doesn’t leave as they did. He remains in the Holy of Holies. Revelation 5 describes the Lamb worthy to open the scroll “standing as though slain”. This is Christ, his perpetual sacrificial offering before the Father. Where do Christians see heavenly worship brought to God’s people with robes, candles, virgin priests, hymns of praise, incense, etc., just as Daniel and Rev 4 & 5 describe it? Worship is God summoning his people into this heavenly event. By his generous gift, we become a part of it. We are lifted up, liturgically, with Christ’s ever-present sacrifice before the Father. Is this, as you say, a “popish corruption” or Christ centered worship in glory and praise?

    Brian | Nov 10, 2008 | Reply

  9. Brian,

    My Presbyterian congregation celebrates the Lords Supper once a month.When I was a roman catholic i attended mass every Sunday and received thier eucharist. I Left the roman catholic church in January 2006 I was an Episcopalian for a while but in February 2007 I began practicing as a Presbyterian and I am now a confessed and communing Presbyterian Protestant.While I was an Episcapalian I began to study the Protestant reformation.When I discovered Calvin, Knox Zwigli and the Reformed Theology I experienced like Calvin described “A true Protestant Conversion”. I at first became an Episcapalian becuse the liturgy and structure was close to what i knew as a roman catholic. However I found in my studies that my beliefs on sacrament and theology became Refomed Protestant.

    I now believe that the roman catholic position on tradition requires Romanists to believe in something that is incredible and absurd on many levels.

    Not only papal authority but the romish papish mass and eucharist–I renounce the idea of a sacrifice( mass) as did Calvin.

    I would have no problem with a weekly Lords Supper as long as our liturgy does not become like the popish mass. I believe that Christ makes himself present but the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine.

    Transubstantiation was probably the most bizarre and unbelievable of the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. I now find it difficult that I did accept that abominable teaching before my conversion to the Reformed faith This doctrine insists that the priest has the power to order God to leave Heaven and make Him enter into a wafer so that the faithful can eat Him!  This perversion of the Lord’s Supper claims that the actual body/blood of Christ is contained in the bread/wine, ignoring the fact that Jesus Himself said that it was only symbolic. “This do in REMEMBRANCE of Me”  (Luke 22:19).  Any one who refused to believe that the bread and wine literally contained Christ’s “body, blood, soul and divinity” but believed that it was only symbolic, was considered a heretic by the Catholic Church. “If any one shall deny that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist there are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and the blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore whole Christ, and shall say that he is in it only by sign, or figure, or influence, let him be accursed.” – Council of Trent (Sess xiii, can. I, qtd. in Wylie “Book Two” Ch. 13).  

    I deny and now also renounce the teaching of transubstantiation as well as the mass. The Presbyterian teaching is not only logical, it makes total sense. How Jesus becomes present is the symbols of the bread and wine is a mystery of the infinite God. Rome is blasphemous in creating such a ludicrous and foul teaching about the Lords Supper, and is attempting to be God and explain Gods mysteries. Also why I renounced the church of Rome and became a Presbyterian Protestant.

    I now can confess also that I truly experience the presence of the Lord in our Presbyterian communion as I never did as a roman catholic. i found it interesting that even Mother Teresa said the same in her letters.  

    Not only do they believe that Jesus’ actual body and soul is contained in their Eucharist wafer, but they also believe that the consecrated wafer should be worshipped as God!  Since Jesus is supposedly contained in the wafer, they believe that they should worship the wafer as if it were Him! Why they believe this is such: when the priest performs the `transubstantiation,’  they believe that he completely transforms the bread and wine into Christ’s flesh and blood, and that the bread and wine are completely removed.  This is believed despite the fact that it still looks, feels, and tastes like bread and wine! Anyone who refused to believe this was likewise declared a heretic:

    The Romanist fiction of authoritative tradition that resides with the popes and bishops gives the church hierarchy incredible power:

    The Roman catholic church was really all about money and control. I have found that I without intention have become a bit anti-papist as well as a bit anti-roman catholic as a result of my studies. I never thought I would ever convert to Protestantism let alone become a Presbyterian. We were taught as roman catholics that Presbyterians are the furthest from the roman church in sacraments, worship and government, and that really is true. We were taught that Presbyterians through out the mass, 5 of the sacraments and they cast out the ecclesiastical form of church government and renounce the pope as vicar of Christ. They do not believe the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The irony is that I truly believed Presbyterian Protestants had strayed too far from the truth and the true church of Christ and the apostles, which was the Roman catholic church.

    In grace,
    Dudley

    dudley davis | Nov 15, 2008 | Reply

  10. Brian,

    A few more thoughts on the subject from someone who was like calvin a roman catholic at one time and then became a Protestant.

    I believe now as the Reformers who realized as they studied the Scriptures that the great central doctrine of the gospel was expressed in the comprehensive sentence, “Christ died for our sins.” The death of Christ was the great center from which the doctrine of salvation sprung. Rome, instead of preaching the Cross, boasted she was repeating the sacrifice of Christ in her service of the Mass. The papist mass wasseen by Calvin as a denial of Gods Sovereignity and he renounced it as a blasphemy. As long as our liturgy remains authentically protestant I have no problem with chnages in our Reformed Protestant worship.

    I also now hold as a Protestant that salvation is through Christ alone. “Sacraments do not save us.” That is one of the basic differences between we Protestants who are also Presbyterians and the Roman Catholic faith.

    There is much more that John Calvin wrote on this issue, the nature of the Lords Supper. John Calvin I believe was one of the greatest theologians of Christianity. He wrote over and over again in his writings about the Eucharist and he made clear that he believed that we do truly partake of Christ true body and true blood when we, in faith, eat the bread and drink the wine of the Lord’s Supper. He disagrees with both the Lutheran and Roman Catholic explanations of the mode by which we receive Christ, but that is about mode and not about the fact that Christ body and blood are truly given to believers in the Eucharist, the Lords Supper. John Calvin was not alone in this view. What he argues for is the same doctrine that we find in the 16th century creeds and catechisms of all the Reformed Churches. Calvin and other Reformed theologians believed that they were standing with the Early Church Fathers and the Bible when they taught and defended the idea that “we are truly made partakers of the proper substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ” when we take part in eating the bread and drinking the wine of communion.

    John Calvin as I have read was still catholic when he began writing his catechism. He was really attempting to preserve the original truth that had been corrupted by the Roman Pope and the Roman church and the Reactionary Council of Trent.

    I proclaim and believe the following definition of the Lords Supper and as a Presbyterian Protestant who knows the dangers of the RC church’s teaching on the Eucharist. What they teach is also idolatry, in what they call adoration. Which I now see as the adoring of a bread wafer when it is held outside the celebration of the Lords Supper. I hold to the following now as a Presbyterian.

    I believe The Lord’s Supper is a Sacrament wherein by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to Christ’s appointment, His death is showed forth, and the worthy receivers are not after a corporal or carnal manner but by faith made partakers of His Body and Blood with all His benefits to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace. ‘However the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine, and the command of Christ is: ‘Do this in remembrance of Me.’

    I now believe the Church of Rome incorrectly teaches a false doctrine that corrupts the nature of the Lords Supper and is a blasphemy to Christ himself when they teach that the bread and wine are changed ‘truly, really and substantially into the Body and Blood, together with the Soul and Divinity and the bones and sinews of Christ’. This doctrine which they call and is known as Transubstantiation I now see as a teaching that is ludicrous as well as the Roman worship service known as the mass.

    I have read some of Calvin’s original Catechism transcripts and I have looked at some of his other writings. In the mid 1500’s Calvin and other Reformed theologians got into a debate with some of their Lutheran counterparts on the issue of Christ presence in the Supper. Joachim Westphal wrote against the Reformed position. Westphal condemned the Reformed Christians and accused them of denying Christ presence in the Eucharist.

    Calvin took up his quill to defend the Reformed doctrine on Communion. In his first treatise defending the Reformed position he was still hoping to see unity between the Lutheran and Reformed Churches. So he tried to be diplomatic and non-confrontational.

    Here are a few segments from that Treatise:

    Calvin wrote “The bread is given us to figure the body of Jesus Christ, with command to eat it, and it is given us of God, who is certain and immutable truth. If God cannot deceive or lie, it follows that it accomplishes all which it signifies. We must then truly receive in the Supper the body and blood of Jesus Christ, since the Lord there represents to us the communion of both. Were it otherwise, what could be meant by saying, that we eat the bread and drink the wine as a sign that his body is our meat and his blood our drink?” (pg 163)

    … we have good cause to be satisfied when we understand that Jesus Christ gives us in the Supper the proper substance of his body and blood, in order that we may possess it fully, and possessing it have part in all his blessings. (pg. 163)
    We all then confess with one mouth, that on receiving the sacrament in faith, according to the ordinance of the Lord, we are truly made partakers of the proper substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

    In this first treatise (which is titled “A Short Treatise on the Supper of Our Lord, In Which Is Shown Its True Institution, Benefit, and Utility”) Calvin takes on Westphal directly, but he does not mention him by name. Calvin writes, “It is not necessary to go far for arguments in our defense, seeing that this foolish man shortly afterwards quotes our own words, in which we openly acknowledge that the body of Jesus Christ is truly communicated to believers in the Supper. I pray you do we leave nothing but empty signs when we affirm that what is figured is at the same time given, and that the effect takes place?” (pg. 195)

    So I now as did Calvin and other Reformed theologians believe that we are standing with the Early Church Fathers and the Bible when we defended the idea that “we are truly made partakers of the proper substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ” when we take part in eating the bread and drinking the wine of communion. It is not for us to explain and completely understand how Christ makes himself present to us in the sacrament we must rely on “faith alone”. That is in essence one of the major reasons why you and I are Protestants and not members of the Roman catholic faith.

    In grace,
    Dudley

    Protestantism involves protesting against error, but also propagating the Truth. A Protestant, therefore, in the true sense, is one who not only protests against the corruption’s, abuses and apostasy of Romanism, but also bears faithful witness to the fundamental principles of the Gospel as set forth in the Word of God.

    I am now a Presbyterian and a Protestant because the Reformed Protestant Faith bears faithful witness to the fundamental principles of the Gospel as set forth in the Word of God.

    In Grace,
    Dudley

    dudley davis | Nov 15, 2008 | Reply

  11. One last thought on this subject. Our liturgy and any symbols must continue to empasize Protestant truth. I will admit I do not miss the bells and smells of the roman catholic chuirch. The roman catholic (as well as many orthodox, and yes now even some Protestant churches) have/use the crucifix is because of the false roman catholic teaching that Jesus is slain again and again and again every mass. The false RC teaching of transubstantiation is the view that Jesus is slain/killed every time the communion is performed. That is why I also now believe the roman mass is an abomination and a blasphemy to God and Jesus his son. To “enhance” this belief, roman catholics through the centuries have used the symbol of the Lord still on the cross (crucifix). Protestant Christians will have the cross as a reminder of the finished work of Christ on the Cross. That He is not there, and that He needs never again to die on the Cross.

    Romans 6:10
    For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

    Hebrews 9:28
    So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

    Hebrews 10:10
    By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

    1 Peter 3:18
    For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

    In grace,
    Dudley

    dudley davis | Nov 15, 2008 | Reply

  12. Protestant denominations differ in the degree to which they reject Catholic belief and practice. I became a Presbyterian because I also rejected rc belief and practices. Some churches, such as Anglicans and Lutherans, tend to resemble Catholicism in their formal liturgy, which is why I said I made a brief stop in the Episcapal church when I first left roman catholicsm, while others, like Baptists and Presbyterians, retain very little of the liturgy and tradition associated with the Catholic church. I am of the belief that Reformed churches have the liturgy of the early church before it became corrupted by roman superstitions and even idolatrous practices such as worshipping the bread wafer outside the celebration of the Lords Supper. That aweful practice led to the incorrect teaching of Transubstantiation. I do not want our Presbyterian worship to resemble in any way the rc mass. Protestants are distinguished by their emphasis on the doctrines of “justification by grace alone through faith, the priesthood of all believers, and the supremacy of Holy Scripture in matters of faith and order.”

    dudley davis | Nov 15, 2008 | Reply

  13. Dudley, I’ll try to be brief so as not to bore Trevin to death. First, read Karl Keating’s, “Catholicism & Fundamentalism”. Secondly, the RCC goes deep on the theology here. God’s relationship to the Church, beginning in Genesis, through the Israelites, and into Christ’s joining with his Bride is put in a marital context. Genesis says a man shall leave his father & mother and cleave to his wife. Christ lived this out as he committed himself at Gethsemani, and he consumated this act when he died, said, “It is finished” (also translated as “It is consumated.”) Each time a husband & wife engage in the marital act, they renew their covenant and are mystically present again at their wedding. They are not getting married again. Similarly, at Communion, Christ is not re-sacrificed. He is the immolated Lamb in Rev.5, and his sacrifice is ever-present. True worship joins us to His eternal sacrificial offering that’s happening now. We, the Church at the Eucharist, are mystically present at his sacrifice at Calvary. That’s true worship. It’s not symbolic. Remember, types work from the lesser to the greater; the type fulfillment is greater than the type. So if Passover and manna are the types, how is a “symbolic” rememberance a movement to the greater? Back to marriage, what is the most a spouse can give to the other? A gift? A memory? No, as a husband, the most I can give is myself – everything I am, all that I am. Would Christ give less to his bride? No, in the Eucharist he gives us all that he is. As Adam slept, God made his bride from his side. As Christ slept the sleep of death on the cross, his marriage was consumated and his side was pierced, he joined with his bride; out flowed water and blood (Baptism and Communion as the Early Fathers saw it.) So, you see, he’s not slain again at every Mass, and he gives us his very self – completely, Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity. Lastly, regarding your problem with a crucifix, read 1 Cor 1:23, 1 Cor 2:2, and Gal 3:1. Gal 3:1 speaks of where Christ is “portrayed as crucified.” Sounds like they were looking at a crucifix to me. Regarding the Eucharist, if you knew what you were leaving, you never would have left. Despite your protestations, I pray that you give it another look.

    Brian | Nov 19, 2008 | Reply

  14. Brain,

    I will read the entire book.However I will not argue with you as long as our worship and sacrament and church authority remain authentically Protestant. I paraphrase both the Westminster Confession of faith as well as the Baptist Confession as a Reformed Protestant.

    Religious worship is to be given to God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and to him alone;4 not to angels, saints, or any other creatures; and since the fall, not without a mediator nor in the mediation of any other but Christ alone.
    4 Matt. 4:9,10; John 6:23; Matt. 28:19
    5 Rom. 1:25; Col. 2:18; Rev. 19:10
    6 John 14:6
    7 1 Tim. 2:5

    On the Lord’s Supper
    I believe as a reformed Protestant that the supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by him the same night wherein he was betrayed, to be observed in his churches, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance, and showing to all the world the sacrifice of himself in his death, confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof, their spiritual nourishment, and growth in him, their further engagement in, and to all duties which they owe to him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other.
    1 1 Cor. 11:23-26
    2 1 Cor. 10:16,17,21

    In this sacrament or ordinance Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sin of the quick or dead, but only a memorial of that one offering up of himself by himself upon the cross, once for all; and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same. I believe that the roman catholic sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is abominable, blasphemous and injurious to Christ’s own sacrifice the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect.
    3 Heb. 9:25,26,28
    4 1 Cor. 11:24; Matt. 26:26,27

    The Lord Jesus has, in this sacrament or ordinance, appointed his ministers to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to a holy use, and to take and break the bread; to take the cup, and, they communicating also themselves, to give both to the communicants.
    5 1 Cor. 11:23-26, etc.

    The denial of the cup to the people, worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about for adoration, and reserving them for any pretended religious use, are all contrary to the nature of this ordinance, and to the institution of Christ. As an ex roman catholic i see it also as idolatry of the worst kind and a blasphemous insult to the sacrament or ordinance that Christ himself gave to us.
    6 Matt. 26:26-28, 15:9, Exod. 20:4,5

    I believe as a Protestant that the outward elements in this sacrament or ordinance, duly set apart to the use ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, although in terms used figuratively, they are sometimes called by the names of the things they represent, in other words, the body and blood of Christ, in substance and nature, however they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.
    7 1 Cor. 11:27
    8 1 Cor. 11:26-28

    I believe as a Reformed Protestant that the doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ’s body and blood, commonly called transubstantiation, by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason. It also overthrows the nature of the sacrament or ordinance, and has been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions and gross idolatries.
    9 Acts 3:21; Luke 14:6,39
    10 1 Cor. 11:24,25

    i believe as a Protestant that worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
    11 1 Cor. 10:16, 11:23-26

    I also believe that all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ, so are they unworthy of the Lord’s table, and cannot, without great sin against him, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted there unto. Whosoever shall receive unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment to themselves.
    12 2 Cor. 6:14,15
    13 1 Cor. 11:29; Matt. 7:6

    Finally and most important as Protestants I believe that The Lord Jesus Christ only is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; I renounce the Pope of Rome in any sense to be head thereof to me he becomes the man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.
    7 Col. 1:18; Matt. 28:18-20; Eph. 4:11,12
    8 2 Thess. 2:2-9

    In grace,
    Dudley

    dudley davis | Nov 21, 2008 | Reply

  15. Dudley, Funny you should say in your last entry “our worship and sacrament and church authority remain authentically Protestant,” and then you go on to cite from the Westminster and Baptist Confessions to bolster this quote. Westminster on Baptism says, “Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both, believing parents, are to be baptized (Ch 28:4).” But, the Baptist Confession of Faith 1689 says, “Those who actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects for this ordinance.” The Southern Baptist Confession puts it this way, “Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith (Article 7).” So, which of these “authentic Protestant” definitions of “sacrament and church authority” are binding and doctrinally true? Is it Westminster, which holds infants are to be baptized, or the Baptist Confession which holds only those capable of professing belief are able to be baptized? Or maybe it’s the Augsburg Confession which says, “… it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God (Article IX).” Here, Augsburg says it’s essential and efficacious and the others say it’s merely symbolic. So, tell me… which view is “authentically Protestant”? Which view is authoritative? Which view would Paul adopt, and which would be consistant with what he tells the Corinthians in 1 Cor 4:17, “[Timothy] will remind you of my ways in Christ Jesus, just as I teach them everywhere in every church”? No need to answer… like you, I don’t wish to argue (or to clog up Trevin’s blog with a dust up)… just don’t slam the door on Catholicism. You may someday be surprised.

    brian | Nov 23, 2008 | Reply

1 Trackback(s)

  1. Oct 31, 2008: from Review : Mark Galli’s Beyond Smells and Bells: The Wonder and Power of Christian Liturgy | The Daily Scroll

Post a Comment