The Theology of the Church – Sacraments and the Visible Church

In an earlier article I wrote about the useful theological distinction of the visible and invisible church (WCF 25) that helps us avoid confusion about whom we, as a church, are responsible for. Here we turn to the matter of the sacraments (baptism and Lord’s Supper) and what relation they have to the visible church.

Chapter 27 of the Westminster Confession of Faith says:

I. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word.

Notice the words, “to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world”.

There are a few markers that are more of an ethical nature that distinguish the church from the rest of the world e.g. our love for another (John 13:35) and our holiness (Leviticus 20:26). These are of course of first importance. But something else the church through the centuries has taken for granted that had this function has been the visible signs for the covenant people: be it baptism / circumcision as the entrance marker, or Passover / Lord’s Supper as the maintenance / renewal marker. In other words, the visible church has always been marked by visible signs.

This is also affirmed in the Westminster Confession (chapter 28).

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptised into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, or his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world.

A visual representation of this principle occurs in Acts 10 when Peter speaks of Cornelius’ indisputable reception of the Holy Spirit: “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”

We might well ask the question, why did Peter feel the need to baptise Cornelius at all? If water baptism is completely unnecessary and only Spirit baptism is required then why not just stop there? Why not argue that Cornelius ought to be recognised by the church as-is?

The obvious answer is that it is because Peter’s act of baptising him added him as a member of the visible church, even as Cornelius was just made a member of the invisible church by the Holy Spirit. Further, Peter was working in his role as a custodian of the church, using the keys to the kingdom (Matthew 16:19) to “admit the penitent” (WCF 30.2).

This means that the practice of baptism is the concrete means by which a Christian is duly recognised as a Christian. Before this a person is not in a position to be publicly affirmed as one. It is when one is baptised and publicly professes faith, that he or she is recognised by other believers as a fellow believer and may take part in many church activities.

But what about the Lord’s Supper? How does this sacrament relate to the visible church? It is presupposed that those who take part at the table have been admitted as members to the visible church.

The scandal of the church of Corinth (1 Corinthians 11:17-34) was that they were failing to regard each other’s membership in the body even though they had the same profession of faith. The act of taking part in Lord’s Supper affirmed each other as members of the (visible) church. That they were excluding some called into question their rightful membership in the body (1 Corinthians 1:10-13). The scandal presupposes that those excluded were previously recognised and surely this recognition had occurred by the fact they all partook of baptism (1 Corinthians 10:1-5; 12:13).

So, we can draw the conclusion that no one takes it upon himself to partake of the Lord’s Supper. The proper order is that is a person is admitted to the table by a credible profession of faith and entrance into the visible church by baptism.

This relationship between the Lord’s Supper, baptism and the visible Church can be even better attested to if we were to look at the general pattern of its practice in Acts, how circumcision and Passover related to each other and functioned in Old Testament Israel (see particularly Exodus 12:43–51), and the practices of the ancient church. The biblical and historical evidence points to the validity of the belief that baptism is like the “door” to the household of God and the Lord’s Supper the “household meal”, even as the officers of the church hold the household keys.

I hope this introductory sketch helps us appreciate the validity of the Reformation belief that the second mark of the true (visible) church was the right administration of the sacraments.

Salvation of works?

Now let us address two questions that gets asked in our modern age in response to this: First, does this insistence on sacraments make Christianity teach salvation by “works”?

Certainly not! In the previous article we saw how one is saved and added to the invisible church (by baptism of the Holy Spirit) and the church duly recognises that! God can save a person without necessarily adding them the visible church. We accept that the thief on the cross was saved by faith, and some are saved on their deathbeds.

Baptism is not a work in order to be saved, but a work (in submission to Christ’s command) in order to mark out that you are saved. It is a seal of righteousness that one has by faith as circumcision was (Romans 4:11). When one submits to participating in the sacraments, one submits to God’s wisdom that that is one of the ways he marks out his church as distinct from the world.

Fear of Control

A second question that is asked is whether this insistence on sacraments is an attempt to exert control by over-the-top church leaders?

First, in answer to this, who knows what goes on in the mind of any given church officer? One can just about use any means to exert control with wrong motives.

Some church officers have undoubtedly used sacraments to throw their weight around. But the fact remains that elders are biblically ordained means for governing the church. The elders of the church are accountable to God for overseeing the church (1 Peter 5:1-5), and the means they have at their disposal are those laid out in the word of God.

For Further Reading

https://www.9marks.org/article/must-baptism-precede-membership-of-course/

https://heidelblog.net/2015/06/heidelberg-81-who-may-come-to-the-table/

https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/the-marks-of-the-church

https://www.9marks.org/article/the-reformations-restoration-of-the-sacraments/

– Bryan Kim