Reformed theology understands that God has chosen to relate to us by means of covenant — a relationship established by a promise. There are two divine covenants, namely the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. Witsius wrote: “[The law] served the covenant of works of old: and still it serves the covenant of grace.” Obedience to the law became the condition of what was promised in the covenant of works – do this and live, a covenant broken by our first parent’s sin. God’s redemptive way of relating to his people is through the covenant of grace in which the law still has an important place.

I was sitting across the table from my pastor when he asked what I thought the weakest part of his preaching was. As someone who is prone to a critical spirit I was hesitant to answer. But, at his prodding, I gave my opinion: “I think the weakest part of your preaching is that you’re scared to tell Christians what they need to do.” He responded by saying: “That’s a very fair observation.” He went on to admit that he’d rather tell people what Christ did for them than tell them what they need to do for Christ.
It’s a short anecdote but it illustrates what is often a perceived tension in preaching — the distinction between law and gospel. This distinction is important in Reformed theology. In his excellent book Conciliatory or Irenical Animadversions, Dutch theologian Herman Witsius helpfully defined the “strictest notion” of both words. He wrote: “The law signifies that part of the Divine word which consists in precepts and prohibitions, with the promise of conferring a reward upon them who obey, and threatenings of punishment to the disobedient.” He went on to say: “The gospel signifies the doctrine of grace, and of the fullest salvation in Christ Jesus, to be received by elect sinners by faith.” According to these narrow definitions we might say that law is command and gospel is promise.
The distinction between law and gospel finds its way into many questions — not the least of which is pulpit ministry. Martyn Lloyd-Jones once famously quipped that preaching the gospel faithfully will likely get you accused of being antinomian — that is, anti-law. But the reciprocal is true too. Faithfully preaching the law can get you accused of being moralistic or, what is sometimes called neonomian — making the gospel a new law. Neonomianism and antinomianism are significant threats to the truth of Jesus Christ. On the one hand, those who pervert grace to lawlessness are designated for condemnation (Jude 4, and Matthew 7:23, Titus 2:14, 2 Peter 3:17, and 1 John 3:4), and on the other hand those who undermine grace by works are also under a curse (Galatians 3:10, see also 2:16 and Romans 3:20, 28).
How should law and gospel relate in preaching? One simple answer might be to say that the law should be used to show us our need for Jesus — the law is preached in order to make hearers desire the promise of the gospel. To borrow the expression of the Apostle, that is a lawful use of the law. After all, this same Apostle said: “I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, ‘You shall not covet’” (Romans 7:7).
But this simple formula — preaching the law to preach the gospel — isn’t the only way that law and gospel should relate in the pulpit. Here, Herman Witsius is a great guide as he lays down several things that aid an understanding of preaching law and gospel.
First, while it’s true that law and gospel can be defined strictly, it’s also biblically true that they can be defined more broadly. Witsius says “all who are acquainted with theology” recognize a more extensive definition.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by T.M. Suffield |
Wednesday, February 15, 2023
We can judge from creation, that the division that comes by saying the truth leads in time to order, which leads in time to unity. How do we know? Because Genesis 1 is eventually leading to the reconciliation of all things in God (Colossians 1). Division leads to order leads to unity.

God creates by dividing, that’s the pattern begun in Genesis 1. He continues to create that way today. I’ve written before on how the Lord makes order from chaos in the first Creation narrative, and how that work which is begun but not completed becomes our work. Adam was meant to create order in the garden by slaying or expelling the serpent, doing God’s works after himself: ruling over the dragons of chaos.
Let me show you what I mean. On the first three days of creation, God forms things: Light or Day, the Sky and the Sea, and the Land. On the next three days of creation, God fills those things:

Day 1
Day 2
Day 3

Light. Day and Night
Sky and Sea
Land and Trees

Day 4
Day 5
Day 6

Day is “filled” with the Sun, and Night with the Moon, powers to rule over them so that we can tell the right time for the festivals.
Sky and Sea are filled with animal life and dragons.
Land and Trees are filled with animal life and humans.

On the seventh day God rested.
So, where’s the division? Well, let’s look at how God creates on each day. On the first day he creates light by separating it from the Darkness, making two defined ‘times’ that did not exist before: Day and Night.
On the second day he creates the heavens and the sea by separating the waters above from the waters below. Where before there was one water, there is now water below (the sea, where chaos and evil dwell) and the water above (the sky or heavens, where order and angels dwell).
On the third day he creates the land by separating it from the water below, and then all the trees by separating them into their kinds. The phrase “according to its kind” begins to occur frequently.
On the filling days we find categories multiplying: heavenly bodies, birds, fish, dragons (have I ever mentioned that there are dragons here and we just skip over it? I have?).
Creation is an act of breaking things down into kinds. When we meet humans we then immediately find them divided into male and female. God creates by dividing.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Paul J. Barth |
Tuesday, May 7, 2024
At the time of administration, covenant infants are capable of the grace signified by baptism (Jer. 1:5; Luke 1:15; John 3:8), but not the grace signified by communion. So, even though we confess that “the efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered” (WCF 28:6), the signification of baptism, in principle, remains prior to, and during, the time of administration. This is not the case for the Lord’s Supper because the signification of it requires active faith, and a verifiable profession of such faith by the elders (1 Cor. 4:1; 5:11).

A common objection against infant baptism by credo-baptists is that if children are to be baptized, then, for the sake of consistency, they ought to also be admitted to the Lord’s Supper. In other words, the logical conclusion of infant baptism necessarily leads to the absurdity of infant communion; paedocommunion is obviously unbiblical and absurd, therefore paedobaptism must likewise be unbiblical. In like manner, paedocommunion advocates endorse the same logic, but instead of denying both infant baptism and infant communion, they affirm and practice both under the same pretense of consistency (cf. Infant Communion? By Douglas Wilson). Since paedobaptism is true, paedocommunion is likewise true, and it is inconsistent to treat them differently by giving one sacrament to infants but not the other.
But is this charge of inconsistency a valid criticism of confessional Reformed sacramentology?
Baptists and Paedocommunionists both hold to the same naive and superficial assumption: “Since Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are both sacraments, they must also have the same qualifications for partaking worthily.” But this is not a sound conjecture, it is a false analogy. On the contrary, confessional Reformed Theology rightly affirms that the Lord Jesus Christ defines the manner in which each sacrament ought to be partaken of—and he does so in harmonious consistency with the nature, use, and ends that he himself instituted for each sacrament respectively.
So the remaining question is, why do confessional Reformed churches baptize infants, but do not admit them to the Lord’s Table? They do so for the following three reasons:
1) Covenant Status & the Requirements for Partaking of Each Sacrament
First, due to their covenant status, personal acts of faith (such as a credible profession) are not necessary for infants to be baptized, but yet they are necessary for them to partake of the Lord’s Supper.
A credible profession of faith, as validated by the elders of the church, is required of those outside of the visible church in order for them to join the covenant community. Converts to Christianity must enter the covenant community first, by professing faith in Christ, and then they can be admitted to the sacrament of baptism (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 8:37-38). However, infants of believers are already members of the covenant community, and are federally holy (Gen. 9:9; Gen. 17:10; Acts 2:39; 1 Cor. 7:14; cf. WLC 166). As members of the visible church, covenant infants have a right to the initiatory sacrament of baptism. That is why a profession of faith is not required of covenant infants before receiving baptism. [1]
Unlike the requirements for adult baptism, the requirements for worthily partaking of the Lord’s Supper are not given to unbelievers, but rather to the covenant community. There is no similar twofold requirement for this sacrament like there is for baptism with regard to unbelieving adults vs covenant children. This sacrament is exclusively for covenant members, not for outsiders of the covenant—which is why the prerequisites for worthy partaking are the same for all those who already are covenant members. These prerequisites are remembering Christ (1 Cor. 11:24-25), self-examination (1 Cor. 11:28; 2 Cor. 13:5), discerning the Lord’s body and blood (1 Cor. 11:27, 29), taking, eating, and drinking the bread and the wine (1 Cor. 11:24-25), not just physically, but spiritually by faith (John 6:35; 1 Cor. 11:26). As William Ames wrote,
“Baptism ought to be administered to all those in the covenant of grace, because it is the first sealing of the covenant now first entered into… But the Supper is to be administered only to those who are visibly capable of nourishment and growth in the church. Therefore, it is to be given not to infants, but only to adults.” (Marrow of Theology I.xl.11, 18, pp. 211 & 212)
Baptism requires covenant membership, which is obtained either by birth or by profession of faith. Covenant children are not an exception to this rule. Communion requires not only covenant membership, but also multiple spiritual exercises which are not required for any party in baptism. Of these spiritual exercises, John Calvin writes, “Nothing of the kind is prescribed by baptism. Wherefore, there is the greatest difference between the two signs [baptism & communion].” He continues with an analogy from the old covenant sacraments:
“This also we observe in similar signs under the old dispensation. Circumcision, which, as is well known, corresponds to our baptism, was intended for infants, but the Passover, for which the Supper is substituted, did not admit all kinds of guests promiscuously, but was duly eaten only by those who were of an age sufficient to ask the meaning of it (Exod. 12:26).” (Institutes of the Christian Religion IV.xvi.30)
Hence it is clear that the prerequisites for baptism are not comparable to those for the Lord’s Supper. The requirement for baptism is that one be a member of the visible church, yet one may become a member of the visible church in two ways. Non-covenanted individuals outside the church must profess faith in Christ to join the church and be baptized, whereas members of the church already have a right to baptism. However, the requirements for the Lord’s Supper, discussed above, cannot be met in multiple ways.
2) The Manner of Participation
Secondly, the recipient is passive in baptism, but active in communion. One is baptized by being a covenant member, and having water poured on the head, whereas in communion there are several physical and spiritual actions that must take place. The participant does not baptize himself, but in communion, the participant takes, eats, drinks, and remembers.
This passive and active manner of participation corresponds to the Christ-ordained ends of the two sacraments respectively. Baptism represents regeneration (Titus 3:5)—which is an irresistible act of the Holy Ghost upon the passive person (John 3:8) bringing him to spiritual life (Ezekiel 37:1-10; Eph. 2:5) and giving him a new heart (Ezekiel 36:26). Yet, Communion represents active faith (John 6:35; 1 Cor. 11:26)—which is an act of the believer reaching out and taking hold of Christ for himself unto salvation (John 1:12; Acts 15:11; 16:31; Gal 2:20). It is important to remember that justifying faith consists of three components: knowledge of the gospel message (notitia), intellectual assent acknowledging the truth of the gospel message (assensus), and wilful trust in, and a faithful apprehending of, the promises of God in Christ unto oneself (fiducia). This knowledge and assent are intellectual actions, and fiducial trust is an act of the will [2] — all three of which infants in their stage of development are not yet capable of (Isa. 7:16; Rom. 10:17; 12:1). [3] Yet, regeneration, being the sole act of the Holy Ghost, infants are capable of receiving (John 3:8). As Robert Baillie (1602-1662) wrote,
“[Infants] are not capable of the whole signification of the Lord’s Supper, for the thing signified therein is not the Lord’s body and blood simply, but his body to be eaten, and his blood to be drunken, by the actual faith of the communicants; of this active application infants are not capable; but in baptism no action is necessarily required of all who are to be baptized; for as the body may be washed without any action of the party who is washed: so the virtue of Christ’s death and life may be applied in remission and regeneration, by the act of God alone to the soul as a mere patient without any action from it.” (Anabaptism, the True Fountain of Independency, pp. 151-152).
Furthermore, this “taking,” “eating,” and “drinking” in the Supper are not only to be understood as physical actions, but as the spiritual actions of the subject. As Augustine said, “Why dost thou prepare thy teeth and belly? Believe, and thou hast eaten.” (Tractate 25). Matthew Henry similarly comments,
“This is here exhibited, or set forth, as the food of souls. And as food, though ever so wholesome or rich, will yield no nourishment without being eaten, here the communicants are to take and eat, or to receive Christ and feed upon him, his grace and benefits, and by faith convert them into nourishment to their souls.” (Com. 1 Cor. 11:24). [4]
Hence, infants are capable of physically and spiritually participating in baptism (passively), but are not capable of participating actively in the Lord’s Supper. This will become more clear in our next point.
3) Infants Benefit from Baptism but Not from the Supper
Thirdly, regarding the efficacy of the sacraments, infants benefit from baptism outwardly and are able to inwardly, whereas they can not benefit from the Supper in either way.
Read More
Related Posts: