Old Sandals

Of the Sacraments

There are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.

Amen.

Of the Communion of Saints

Saints by profession are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification; as also in relieving each other in outward things, according to their several abilities and necessities. Which communion, as God offers opportunity, is to be extended unto all those who, in every place, call upon the name of the Lord Jesus.

Amen.

Of the Church

There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.

“Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is Antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2:22)

The Pope of Rome is not the Antichrist. Full stop.

I am in favor of replacing the above paragraph with the American revision adopted by the OPC, which reads as follows:

There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.

Of Marriage and Divorce

Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, gives just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.

“For the Lord God of Israel says that He hates divorce.” (Malachi 2:16)

Marriage was established by the Lord God in the garden of Eden.
“And [Jesus] answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? (Matthew 19:4-5)

Jesus spoke these words in response to the Pharisees’ inquiry.
“The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?’” (Matthew 19:3)

The Pharisees all agreed that divorce was permissible, but disagreed among themselves as to what was an acceptable reason for divorce. Those of the school of Shammai taught that divorce was only permitted when there was unchastity, or adultery, involved.  The school of Hillel taught that divorce was in order if, for any reason, the husband was dissatisfied with his wife—even if, for example, she burned his dinner one night!

Jesus responded, “…what God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matthew 19:6)

The Pharisees countered, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” (Matthew 19:7)

“Because of the hardness of your hearts”, Jesus answered flatly, “…but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:9)

What is Jesus saying here? Is He really teaching, as the Westminster Confession asserts, that where there has been infidelity it is lawful to divorce one’s spouse and then marry another? Wasn’t this the teaching of Rabbi Shammai? What then would be the force of His words “And I say to you”?

I think it is important to compare this verse with other similar verses found elsewhere in the gospels:
“But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery. (Matthew 5:32)

“In the house once again, the disciples asked him about this. So he told them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.’” (Mark 10:10-12)

“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery, and the one who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.” (Luke 16:18)

Jesus’ standard of righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees. It is a radical monogamy. Even to look lustfully at a woman is to commit adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:28)  The disciples’ response is very telling: “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry”, to which Jesus replied, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.” (Matthew 19:3-12)

The Apostle Paul reiterates the radical nature of Jesus’ teaching when he instructs the Corinthian church, “Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.” (1 Corinthians 7:10-11)

God hates divorce.  It is a tragedy.  But because two individuals are involved, it is sometimes the case that a divorce is unavoidable.  “But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace.” (1 Corinthians 7:15)  In other words, there is no injunction to “make war” on the offending spouse in an effort to save the marriage if that spouse is determined to end it.

The Catholic church, following the teaching of the early church Fathers, allows for divorce in special circumstances, but does not allow for remarriage after divorce.  According to noted church historian Philip Schaff, the historic teaching of the church—up to the 6th century in the East and up to the 16th century in the West—stands firmly behind a no remarriage understanding of Matt 19:9 and 1 Cor 7:15.

“What then shall the husband do, if the wife continue in this disposition [adultery]? Let him divorce her, and let the husband remain single. But if he divorces his wife and marries another, he too commits adultery.” Shepherd of Hermas

“Just as a woman is an adulteress, even though she seems to be married to a man, while a former husband yet lives, so also the man who seems to marry her [and] who has been divorced does not marry her, but, according to the declaration of our Savior, he commits adultery with her.” Origen

“Neither can it rightly be held that a husband who dismisses his wife because of fornication and marries another does not commit adultery.” Augustine

The historic teaching of the church has also emphasized that we are all sinners; that fornication and adultery are just two one of the many ways we “fall short of the glory of God”.  The gospel of Jesus Christ is about forgiveness, cleansing and restoration.  It is not about legalism.  One could think of any number of scenarios where a divorced woman, perhaps a young mother of children, is left alone to fend for herself.  Is she to remain single?  Is she called to live out the rest of her days (or at least until her first husband dies, according to 1 Corinthians 7:39) without companionship, without intimacy?

It is a question that ought not to be answered quickly.  The Lord may very well be calling her to remain single. “There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He [or she] who is able to accept it, let him accept it.” (Matthew 19:12) Doesn’t the Lord call all of us to a way of life that, apart from His grace, is simply unattainable? “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me.” (Luke 9:23)

The Lord knows our weakness, and the church should reach out to those victimized by divorce, and pray earnestly for them.  In the Orthodox Church the principle of oikonomia (Greek: house-building, or the prudent handling of a matter) gradually developed, which allows for a discretionary deviation from the letter of the law in order to adhere to the spirit of the law and charity. After much prayer and soul searching, with repentance, such a deviation may indeed be allowed in the matter of remarriage after divorce.  In this way, “Mercy and truth [will] have met together. Righteousness and peace [will] have kissed.” (Psalm 85:10)

Of the Civil Magistrate

Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; yet he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

The seven great Ecumenical Councils of the early church were all convened by the Emperor. The Westminster Assembly was itself convened by an act of Parliament. This fact by itself does not take away from the great truths articulated by these convocations, but it is indicative of the extent to which church and state were intertwined, a situation which, for the most part, served to foster rather than to mitigate corruption in both realms.

Consequently, I would be in favor of the so-called American revision to this chapter, which has been adopted by the OPC:

“Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.”

Of Lawful Oaths and Vows

In which respects, popish monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself.

Monasticism is an ancient Christian practice with laudable beginnings. Quoting Martin Luther:

“St. Antony, the very father of monks and the founder of monastic life, most wisely and in a Christian manner believed and taught that absolutely nothing should be observed which did not have the authority of Scripture. He knew absolutely nothing about monastic vows and ceremonies of this kind, but willingly chose to live as a hermit, and of his own will chose to live unmarried, after the pattern of the gospel.  Pursuing human wisdom, his successors made this way of life into a vow, into a matter of obligation and compulsion.  This way of life is but a specious copy and a mistaken observance of the rule of Antony, which is the rule of Christ.”

Antony’s decision to live as a monastic was personal, free and devout.  Sadly over time,  as Martin Luther (himself a former monk) observed, Antony’s successors “made this way of life into a…matter of obligation and compulsion”.  Beyond this, some regarded monasticism as a way of “higher perfection”, a way to ensure one’s justification before God. This blurring of the soteriological lines between divine grace and human effort raised the ire of the reformers.

On balance, we are called to be and to make disciples of Christ.  A disciple is one who is disciplined, focused, oriented.  The church is to be a gathering of disciples who share life together, who exhort each other, a kind of cenobium if you will.

“The restoration of the church must surely depend on a new kind of monasticism, which has nothing in common with the old but a life of uncompromising discipleship, following Christ according to the sermon on the mount.  I believe the time has come to gather people together to do this.” Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day

This Sabbath is to be kept holy unto the Lord when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.

I am not convinced that Christians are obliged to “keep the Sabbath” in a way distinct from the other days of the week.  Quoting Origen, “To the perfect (mature) Christian…all his days are the Lord’s, and he is always keeping the Lord’s day.”

“One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.” Romans 14:5

Of Christian Liberty,  and Liberty of Conscience

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word.

Amen.

Of the Law of God

God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it.

Our God is a covenant-making God, to be sure.  The Scriptures bear witness to this truth in both the Old and New Testaments.  I am not convinced, however, that a “covenant of works” was explicitly established with Adam, as this chapter indicates.

I also do not believe it is quite correct to say that God “threatened” Adam with death upon the breach of this covenant.  It wasn’t so much a threat as a warning—one might even say a gracious, albeit firm, warning.  For God did not say, “On the day you eat of the fruit I will kill you”, but rather, “On the day you eat of the fruit you will surely die.”  This warning is essentially the same warning God would later give the Israelites through the mouth of his servant Moses:

“See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the Lord your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess. But if your heart turns away so that you do not hear, and are drawn away, and worship other gods and serve them, I announce to you today that you shall surely perish.”  (Deuteronomy 30:15-17)

Of Assurance of Grace and Salvation

True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken…by God’s withdrawing the light of His countenance, and suffering even such as fear Him to walk in darkness and to have no light.

This obscure statement reminds me of “The Dark Night of the Soul”, a poem by St John of the Cross, a sixteenth century Roman Catholic mystic. I cannot relate to it. If it is true, it is beyond me.