Justin Taylor made me do it.
He linked to Ray Ortlund’s blog from a couple days ago at the Gospel Coalition – calling it a “classic†in which the he warns TR’s (i.e., Truly Reformed) about the danger of falling into the Judaizer trap. Ortlund writes:
The Judaizers in Galatia did not see their distinctive – the rite of circumcision – as problematic. They could claim biblical authority for it in Genesis 17 and the Abrahamic covenant. But their distinctive functioned as an addition to the all-sufficiency of Jesus himself. Today the flash point is not circumcision. It can be Reformed theology. But no matter how well argued our position is biblically, if it functions in our hearts as an addition to Jesus, it ends up as a form of legalistic divisiveness.
This is truly an amazing assertion by the Nashville pastor. Even though Reformed folks think they are following Paul in their teaching and ministry (let’s not forget the Jerusalem Council or the pastoral epistles which say something about presbyterian polity), they become Judaizers by following Paul and insisting that the church heed everything Christ commanded – from theology to worship and polity. I feel like I am in a Coen Brothers movie where up is down, white is black, and rodents are felines.
Ortlund’s post is standard fare among evangelicals who look for a lowest-common-denominator approach to Christian unity and so regard sticklers for doctrine and practice – like the Reformed – as sticks in the mud and unloving sectarians to boot. (Ortlund fails to remark that Baptists, Pentecostals, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Lutherans, who insist on the correctness of their distinct teachings and practices, are also would-be Judaizers. Rather than acknowledge that differences exist within the church because different parts of the visible church interpret the Bible differently, Ortlund, like many a pietist before him, disregards actual differences and chalks up resistance to unity as a lack of love – for both Christ and for other Christians. As the Church Lady might say, “isn’t that charitable?â€
But the neat trick that Ortlund adds to this standard kvetch about Reformed particularists is a claim about the psychology and sociology of being Reformed. He comments on Gal 4:17 – “They make much of you, but for no good purpose. They want to shut you out, that you may make much of them†– in the following paraphrase:
“When Christians, whatever the label or badge or shibboleth, start pressuring you to come into line with their distinctive, you know something’s wrong. They want to enhance their own significance by your conformity to them: ‘See? We’re better. We’re superior. People are moving our way. They are becoming like us. We’re the buzz.’â€
Ortlund adds, “What is this, but deep emotional emptiness medicating itself by relational manipulation? This is not about Christ. This is about Self.â€
Isn’t that charitable, indeed.
Is it so hard to imagine that other people with whom we disagree may actually have good reasons for what they hold, and that they may actually be trying to honor, serve, and love the Lord and his church? Apparently, Ortlund would rather speculate on motives and psychology.
Ortlund concludes with this plea to Reformed Protestants:
My Reformed friend, can you move among other Christian groups and really enjoy them? Do you admire them? Even if you disagree with them in some ways, do you learn from them? What is the emotional tilt of your heart – toward them or away from them? If your Reformed theology has morphed functionally into Galatian sociology, the remedy is not to abandon your Reformed theology. The remedy is to take your Reformed theology to a deeper level. Let it reduce you to Jesus only. Let it humble you. Let this gracious doctrine make you a fun person to be around. The proof that we are Reformed will be all the wonderful Christians we discover around us who are not Reformed. Amazing people. Heroic people. Blood-bought people. People with whom we are eternally one – in Christ alone.
Brother Ray, I have been around the non-Reformed and they are not nearly as much fun as Reformed folks are. As much as I do enjoy Mark Dever’s company (sorry for name-dropping), I refuse to smoke a cigar or drink a Gin & Tonic in his company, not because I find him unworthy of such camaraderie but because I know my smoking or imbibing could get Mark in trouble. Baptists still bulk large in the prohibitionist camp and for that reason the merriment supplied by leisurely conversation over a pipe or a pint (better with both) is off limits to many of the Christian groups that Ortlund wants me to hang out with and have fun.
This may seem like a trivial point but it actually bears much more on the passage to which Ortlund appeals than it might seem at first. Paul’s battle with the Judaizers was over the misapplication of Scripture. In the Judaizers’ hands formerly God-made rules had become man-made norms because the work of Christ introduced freedom from the old covenant norms. In other words, the Judaizers were effectively substituting man-made rules for being Christian than the gospel that Paul was preaching. The Judaizers were denying Christian liberty in the way that contemporary believers do when they conclude that smoking or drinking is sin with (erroneous) appeals to Scripture. Without a proper biblical justification for their prohibitions they wind up enslaving Christians and thus burden the very gospel that Paul was out to protect among the Galatians.
In my own knowledge of church history, it is the Reformed (and other confessional Protestants) who understand much better than the “Jesus only†evangelicals the difference between the word of God and the words of men. And it is this difference that makes Reformed Protestants (with apologies to my friend, Mark Dever) more fun.
184 Comments
Raja,
But isn’t the RCC included in the category of non-Reformed? But even if your comment is Protestant-only isn’t that sort of self-contradictory insofar as you are excluding certain Christians from the love? If you might, tell us why you’d exclude Roman Christians, otherwise it sure seems arbitrary, which doesn’t seem very loving.
I’m not going to the GC to make the case for paedobaptism, I’m going there to say that baptism is a lot more significant than you’ve been suggesting. Credo’s worth their salt, though quite wrong sacramentally, understand this much. And why can’t I point to the confessions to make the case about the sinfulness of credo-baptism? Those aren’t just nice, helpful guides you know, they the binding and authoritative articles by which Reformed Christians have bound themselves with regard to church polity. Your assertion that I “can’t just point to the appropriate chapters in the confession” is like telling an attorney, who has bound himself to its authoritative stipulations, that he can’t just point to the Constitution and state laws to make his case against law-breakers. What you seem to be demanding is the case for paedobaptism, but that isn’t really the point. The point is that sacramentologies have been agonized over, just like justification, and some say this and others that.
It’s intersting that you suggest to Jed that paedo’s could possibly be wrong, implying that this is why we should take it down a notch on baptism. What keeps the same reasoning from being applied to justification? Are you absolutely sure of sola fide, to the point of excluding Roman Christians in your “all non-Reformed Protestants” sentiment? If not, you could end up with egg on your face. I’m willing to take that risk on both the first and second marks.
The whole third section of the Heidelberg catechism covers works of gratitude. That’s why it’s titled “Of Gratitude” (or thankfulness) and includes the delineation of the Decalogue.
Zrim,
I already stated why I exclude the RCC in my previous comments. They have the gospel wrong, that should be clear enough.
The GC commands the baptism of believers, if anything. However, the command is to baptize, which most Protestant denominations do.
Confessions are useful guides, they are not binding. That is dangerous thinking, as if the confessions are equal with Scripture. I thought they were subservient to Scripture. Guess not, eh? Would you like me to respond to polemical disagreements with “consult chapter 7, section 3.”?
You ask:
“What keeps the same reasoning from being applied to justification?”
Justification is integral to the gospel. Are you suggesting baptism is on the same level? That’s what happens when you give all doctrines with same weight of importance.
You ask:
“Are you absolutely sure of sola fide, to the point of excluding Roman Christians in your “all non-Reformed Protestants†sentiment?”
Yes, aren’t you? This has to do with the essence of the faith. Are the subjects and mode of baptism of the essence of the faith?
Raja,
The GC commands the baptism of believers, if anything. However, the command is to baptize, which most Protestant denominations do.
Again, the point in bringing up the GC is not that it goes to paedo- or credo-baptism. The point is that baptism is so vital that it finds its way into the explicit command. So, what do you do with those who claim Christian faith but deny water baptism or even that baptism is necessary altogether? If you doubt their profession then why blame me for doubting those who deny infant baptism?
Confessions are useful guides, they are not binding. That is dangerous thinking, as if the confessions are equal with Scripture. I thought they were subservient to Scripture. Guess not, eh? Would you like me to respond to polemical disagreements with “consult chapter 7, section 3.�
Ah, so here we have it. You have an evangelical view of confessional formulations, not a confessional view. But contrary to the evangelical assumption, the confessional view is that the fallible forms are derived from the infallible Scripture; binding and authoritative are not the same as inspired and infallible. All texts which are inspired and infallible are also binding and authoritative, but not all texts that are binding and authoritative are inspired and infallible.
Justification is integral to the gospel. Are you suggesting baptism is on the same level? That’s what happens when you give all doctrines with same weight of importance.
I’m saying that my confessions say that the correct administration of baptism is the second mark of the true church. It is not a trifling matter. If a church doesn’t get this right there is enough ground to doubt its trueness, just as much as when it gets the first mark wrong. If you don’t like that then don’t bind yourself to Belgic 29 or WCF 25:4.
“Are you absolutely sure of sola fide, to the point of excluding Roman Christians in your “all non-Reformed Protestants†sentiment?â€
Yes, aren’t you? This has to do with the essence of the faith. Are the subjects and mode of baptism of the essence of the faith?
Short answer: Yes, infant baptism is of the essence of the Reformed faith. All the Reformed churches confess it. We discipline people for not baptizing their children. Extended answer: The confessions to which I have bound myself speak of three marks, not one. I think what underlies you’re thinking here is the common modern assumption that there are Catholics and then there’s everyone else and we call them Protestants (big top). But there is more to being Protestant than not being Catholic. The Protestant Reformation was a battle on two fronts, one against Rome and the other against Muenster (the Radical Reformation). And not only did Muenster deny sola fide, they also denied a whole raft of Protestant teachings, not least was mode and subjects of baptism.
Zrim,
You said, “The point is that baptism is so vital that it finds its way into the explicit command.”
Right. Baptism. Which most Protestant denominations do. If a denomination refuses water baptism or baptism all together, it is not a true church because it is denying the sacrament. I don’t see what the problem is.
You said:
“But contrary to the evangelical assumption, the confessional view is that the fallible forms are derived from the infallible Scripture; binding and authoritative are not the same as inspired and infallible. All texts which are inspired and infallible are also binding and authoritative, but not all texts that are binding and authoritative are inspired and infallible”
Huh? Could you flesh this out with examples so it makes sense? I would like further details on the intricacies of the differences between binding/authoritative/inspired/infallible.
You said:
“I’m saying that my confessions say that the correct administration of baptism is the second mark of the true church. It is not a trifling matter. If a church doesn’t get this right there is enough ground to doubt its trueness, just as much as when it gets the first mark wrong. If you don’t like that then don’t bind yourself to Belgic 29 or WCF 25:4.”
I know what you’re saying. I know what the confessions say. I’m just not convinced what you and the confessions say is what the Bible says. I don’t bind myself to Belgic 29 or WCF 25:4. I’m bound by Scripture.
You said:
“Short answer: Yes, infant baptism is of the essence of the Reformed faith.”
Yes, the Reformed faith, not necessarily THE faith.
I don’t believe in “big top” Christianity, but I also don’t believe in “pup tent” Christianity either. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
Raja,
To echo Zrim’s remarks, these doctrinal distinctives are consequential. Sure I could have egg on my face, but the only other option is to endlessly suspend judgment because golly both sides have good arguments. Like I said earlier, I am not questioning the catholicity of Baptist brothers who maintain a credible confession of faith, nor am I out on a witch-hunt to identify baptist churches as false churches. As I have come into the Reformed fold, I have found their doctrine to be convincing. That means that I have abandoned some of my broadly evangelical convictions because I am now convinced that they are false. I am fully willing to live with the consequences that flow from the positions I have taken.
From someone who has been there, I find your argument “I’m bound by Scripture” to be simultaneously admirable since Scripture is our canon of truth, and almost totally wrong-headed since you have eschewed a confessional/corporate reading of Scripture for an individualistic reading. This is more symptomatic of the individualistic spirit of the age than it is a reflection of orthodoxy. There are plenty of individuals and groups who are “bound by Scripture” and are still heretical, so by distancing yourself from a mutually agreed upon confession of Orthodoxy you have a lot of qualifying to do in order to distance yourself from some of the whackos out there (I ain’t sayin you are a whacko). Sooner or later, you will have to formulate some sort of statement of what you believe the bible does and does not say about the doctrines you deem essential to the life of the church and individual believers, or you will have to agree to one that has already been articulated, but biblicism frankly puts you on shaky ground because saying you believe the Bible doesn’t say much about what you believe the bible says.
This seems to feed into Dr. Hart’s original post as well. In the long run, distinctives matter a great deal. Can Christians in different communions seek to be more charitable, sure. But at the same time, if you study Evangelical history, the general problem in the last couple of centuries hasn’t been a lack of charity it has been a lack of doctrinal caution that has worn down the confessional distinctives of most denominations, and this has muddied the ecclesiastical waters and, in my opinion weakened the ministry of the Church. Unless you want to say that all is for the most part well in the Evangelical melting pot, you are going to have to grapple with the reality that maybe the defensive posture of those who seek to maintain their faithfulness to their Confessions of faith is understandable. Any overture that insists the confessionalists are mean and nasty for insisting that they are right and other Christians are wrong is going to cause them to put up their dukes and start swinging. After all they have been on the run for a couple hundred years from the homogenizing machine that is peitistic evangelicalism .
Raja, the reason to baptize infants is that the covenant is made with believers and their children. That’s clear in the OT, and it’s maintained in the NT in Acts 2, for instance. Not following Scripture is a sin, right?
And that’s one reason for not being in the same communion with Baptists. In fact, the sins of others is the only reason. If it’s only practical reasons that separate Baptists and Presbyterians, as you say, then you are more guilty of the errors identified in Ortlund’s post than I am. Your reasons have to do with levels of comfort, or something other than a biblical reason. What’s up with that?
You also wrote: “Ortlund is simply asserting that non-Reformed Christians are brothers in the faith–not second class citizens of heaven, that we should love as blood bought children who have the same standing as the Reformed do in the kingdom of Christ.” But Ortlund actually wrote this: “But their distinctive functioned as an addition to the all-sufficiency of Jesus himself. Today the flash point is not circumcision. It can be Reformed theology. But no matter how well argued our position is biblically, if it functions in our hearts as an addition to Jesus, it ends up as a form of legalistic divisiveness.” Your fighting way more over someone’s opinion than over biblical teaching. Could it be that you’ve added Ortlund to Jesus?
Raja,
If a denomination refuses water baptism or baptism all together, it is not a true church because it is denying the sacrament. I don’t see what the problem is.
The problem is that, evidently, you can declare with ease that a church which denies water baptism is false. I agree, but why are you faulting me for saying with equal ease that a church that denies infant baptism is false? Maybe it’s because you’re credo and resent it, but at least my credo’s understand enough to consider my childrens’ baptism’s to be insufficient (read: false) and demand they be re-baptized. That’s a respectable sacramentology (just like Rome’s anathema’s are a respectable soteriology).
I would like further details on the intricacies of the differences between binding/authoritative/inspired/infallible.
http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=19&var3=main
I know what you’re saying. I know what the confessions say. I’m just not convinced what you and the confessions say is what the Bible says. I don’t bind myself to Belgic 29 or WCF 25:4. I’m bound by Scripture.
But as soon as you begin to tell me what Scripture teaches you are doing precisely what a confession (and a confessionalist) is doing. Why do you get to claim being bound by Scripture and may teach what you think it teaches but we don’t? Is it that you think the confessions were dreamed up without any reference to Scripture?
Yes, the Reformed faith, not necessarily THE faith.
If one doesn’t believe that the Reformed expression is THEE superior expression of biblical and historical Christianity on earth then what’s the point of subscribing it?
Jed,
This is not about suspending judgment because both sides have good arguments, it’s about allowing for the fact that your judgment (and the judgment of your communion) is not infallible, and that there is really more room within the bounds of orthodoxy than you are comfortable with. Do you think that your beliefs (and those of your communion) are perfectly in line with Jesus? If so, you certainly are one of His favored ones. However, I am much more comfortable being wrong about who I include as “true churches of Christ” than being wrong about who I exclude.
As far as eschewing a confessional/corporate reading of Scripture, you would not embrace any doctrine unless you were convinced in your personal judgment that it’s taught in the Bible. No Protestant would. So your charge of “individualism” falls to the ground like a brick. You just happen to be convinced by the confession, otherwise you wouldn’t hold to it on every point either.
I hold to the Reformed confessions, however I don’t revere them as if they fell out of the sky or were delivered by angels. I don’t read the Bible through the lenses of my confession, so that when I come to a verse that doesn’t appear to fit into my a priori theological assumptions, I make it fit anyway. I refuse to be stuck in a confessional box. The men who wrote and formulated our Reformed confessions were fallible men of their times. They were written in the heat of battle, many times with Rome in mind. This makes them at times reactionary and imbalanced. Shall we adopt those aspects down through the ages because of a blind adherence to confessionalism? No thanks.
I was a part of a strictly confessional church for over ten years. I know from personal experience how simple Christians, either because they couldn’t grasp everything in the confession, or because they were unconvinced on some points, got crushed by their pastors and were separated from the people they love and the flock they were a part of, over issues that were no where close to the essence of the faith. Does that sound please to the Lord to you?
DGH,
You certainly totally demolished the Baptist position in your opening statement, eh? I don’t know why volumes have been written about this issue from both sides when we could have just appealed to Acts chapter 2. Oh, wait a second, it says the promise is “for you and your children AND for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself” Hmmm. Sounds like those who are far off are in the same position as “you and your children”. Well, it’s a sin not to follow Scripture, right?
I never asserted that Presbyterians should be in the same communion as Baptists, only that they should regard each other as true churches of Christ–even though they disagree on basically two items.
The gospel doesn’t stand or fall on those two items either.
Zrim,
The validity or genuineness of a church does not sit upon it’s doctrine of the subjects and mode of baptism. There is room for disagreement. If it were not so, the Lord would have made the subjects and mode of baptism abundantly clear. I have a position on the matter, but I recognize there is another competing position which excludes a subject of baptism I would include. Doesn’t make the church invalid.
You said:
“But as soon as you begin to tell me what Scripture teaches you are doing precisely what a confession (and a confessionalist) is doing. Why do you get to claim being bound by Scripture and may teach what you think it teaches but we don’t? Is it that you think the confessions were dreamed up without any reference to Scripture?”
No, I’m not. A strict confessionalist cannot speak outside of his confession, he has to take his confession’s interpretation of Scripture as the only true and valid one. He can let no light in that wasn’t shining 400 years ago when his confession was written. He has to make every Scripture fit into his confessional system whether it contradicts it or not. I am not so bound.
You said:
“If one doesn’t believe that the Reformed expression is THEE superior expression of biblical and historical Christianity on earth then what’s the point of subscribing it?”
Oh, I believe the Reformed expression is the superior expression of biblical and historical Christianity, just not the only one.
Raja,
You said to Jed: “I hold to the Reformed confessions…The men who wrote and formulated our Reformed confessions were fallible men of their times. They were written in the heat of battle, many times with Rome in mind. This makes them at times reactionary and imbalanced.â€
Why do you hold to formulations you are clearly so highly skeptical (cynical?) about? I can’t decide yet who you sound more like, the evangelicals in my CRC who are proposing castrating revisions to the Form of Subscription and mistake high opinions of the confessions for high views, or like (Presbyterian) Finney who conveyed a low opinion when he called them “paper popes.†Either way, you sure don’t have a high view of them (which is different from an infallible view, BTW, which is what Rome has of her ecclesiastical formulations. Curious how Protestants are mistaken by Romanists for being evangelicals and evangelicals mistake us for Romanists).
The validity or genuineness of a church does not sit upon it’s doctrine of the subjects and mode of baptism. There is room for disagreement. If it were not so, the Lord would have made the subjects and mode of baptism abundantly clear. I have a position on the matter, but I recognize there is another competing position which excludes a subject of baptism I would include. Doesn’t make the church invalid.
So subjects and mode of baptism are unclear from Scripture. You realize that one could say the same thing about justification, or about the nature and person of Jesus, right? Romanists and Arians have what they consider clear biblical arguments for their construals of justification and Christology. Why do you think soteriology and Christology are crystal clear but sacramentology isn’t? That sure seems arbitrary. Is there a verse that tells us the former two are plain and the third is up in the air?
No, I’m not. A strict confessionalist cannot speak outside of his confession, he has to take his confession’s interpretation of Scripture as the only true and valid one. He can let no light in that wasn’t shining 400 years ago when his confession was written. He has to make every Scripture fit into his confessional system whether it contradicts it or not. I am not so bound.
My point isn’t landing here. What I am asking of those who say they are solely bound by Scripture (solo scriptura as opposed to sola) is why they can open their mouths about what it teaches but when a confessionalist does the same by way of his confession he’s all of a sudden faulted? My thought is that whatever else is going on it owes to autonomous individualism that has real fundamental problems with ecclesiastical formulation, institutional deliberation and authority/submission. I understand the reticence to admit to something like “autonomous individualism,†but it might go easier if you admitted being skeptical of institutionalism instead of the feigned piousness which comes with all the solo jazz.
Oh, I believe the Reformed expression is the superior expression of biblical and historical Christianity, just not the only one.
Obviously, it’s not the only one. But that’s what it means to qualify something as superior (it’s a comparative phrase that assumes there are others). But back to your holding to something you’re also not wholly convinced of: huh?
Zrim,
You asked:
“Why do you hold to formulations you are clearly so highly skeptical (cynical?) about?”
I hold to them to the degree that I see they square up with Scripture.
You said:
“You realize that one could say the same thing about justification, or about the nature and person of Jesus, right?”
Yes, I do. However, those doctrines you site as examples are “of the essence of the faith” and have to do with the gospel itself. I would say those are a little more important than who gets baptized and whether they get immersed in water or have it sprinkled on their head. Why do I have to even argue this point?
You asked:
“Why do you think soteriology and Christology are crystal clear but sacramentology isn’t?”
Because it isn’t. Don’t most Protestant denominations basically have soteriology straight? How many Protestant denominations are labeled by their positions on soteriology? And how many labeled by their position on baptism (i.e. Baptist, Presbyterian)
You ask:
” What I am asking of those who say they are solely bound by Scripture (solo scriptura as opposed to sola) is why they can open their mouths about what it teaches but when a confessionalist does the same by way of his confession he’s all of a sudden faulted?”
I do not believe in solo scriptura, I just don’t elevate confessions to the level of Scripture. I’ve explained why a confessionalist is at fault when he opens his mouth and will only speak what the confession says.
I do hold to something I am wholey convinced of, that no confession is perfect.
Raja,
Yes, I do. However, those doctrines you site as examples are “of the essence of the faith†and have to do with the gospel itself. I would say those are a little more important than who gets baptized and whether they get immersed in water or have it sprinkled on their head. Why do I have to even argue this point?
Well, because for one thing you say that those who deny water baptism are false. That’s pretty strong language (are you listening, Sullivan?) Don’t you think you owe an argument to those whom you claim are unduly pedantic and divisive about baptism? So baptism has nothing to do with the gospel itself is what I hear you saying. Amongst all the different views on baptism I have never thought anybody had such an odd assumption. But if it doesn’t have anything to do with the gospel what accounts for all the divisions? It would seem that most think it does have something to do with the gospel.
“Why do you think soteriology and Christology are crystal clear but sacramentology isn’t?â€
Because it isn’t. Don’t most Protestant denominations basically have soteriology straight? How many Protestant denominations are labeled by their positions on soteriology? And how many labeled by their position on baptism (i.e. Baptist, Presbyterian).
Wait, so Christology is crystal clearer than sacramentology? Wow, I always though tit was pretty difficult, not to say unclear but way more obscure than baptism. I think the CREC has some soteriological problems. Presbyterians are named after church polity, not sacramentology. But now you’re bringing up a point about (credo) Baptists I have always wondered. They seem to take sacramentology so seriously they actually name themselves after their sacramental views (to the extent that paedocommunionism is the flip side error of credo-baptism, when will we see the Communionists?). Shouldn’t you go after the credo’s with at least as much vigor if not more, since they raise their sacramentology to such divisive levels? We call ourselves Reformed, which is a broad term which takes into account many different aspects of theological outlook.
I do not believe in solo scriptura, I just don’t elevate confessions to the level of Scripture. I’ve explained why a confessionalist is at fault when he opens his mouth and will only speak what the confession says. I do hold to something I am wholey convinced of, that no confession is perfect.
All due respect, but, when you keep suggesting that confessionalism conceives of confessional formulation as infallible you haven’t shown that you understand confessionalism/sola scriptura. I think you need to read that Mathison piece again. If you’re not solo, I am not sure what is.
Zrim,
Those who deny baptism, which by definition requires water, are denying the sacrament all together. They are not disagreeing about the subjects and mode of baptism, they are denying baptism.
Baptism is a symbol. It saves no one. An error about the subjects and mode of baptism is not a fatal error, nor does it make your church false–it just makes it mistaken.
I don’t think Christology is unclear, are you sure you’re really orthodox?
Baptists used the term as definitional partly because it was the primary issue of disagreement with paedobaptists. Not to mention, some of them gave their lives for it. Sounds like both sides had quite an imbalanced view, doesn’t it?
If you judge other churches in the light of your confessional standards, how is it in practical terms (you know, reality) not viewing your confession as infallible?
I guess saying that your confessional standards are authoritative and binding but not infallible is like saying, “well, we could be wrong (there is an eency weency chance of it) but we’re going to act like we’re not.”
Raja, you’re only digging your hole deeper. You say that Baptists and Reformed existing in separate communions is okay. What would be the possible grounds for that on the “only Jesus” model. I mean, if baptism is only a theological point, and not Christian truth, then why wouldn’t these two groups be in the same church?
In point of fact, on matters that are adiaphora, we allow them within the church and don’t discipline. So the ones we don’t allow in the church, are not up for grabs as you have them. I guess you’re more suited for the EV Free church where you have the option of infant baptism or dedication. But watch out — not only is your snark in violation of Ortlund’s post — I don’t think it goes with EV Free piety.
DGH,
The assertion I made is that Reformed and non-Reformed churches should regard each other as true churches of Christ, and love one another in spite of their differences about secondary matters.
Simple.
However, you and others want to make minors into majors and fight over them to the bitter end. You want to label non-Reformed churches as false churches. You want to label Baptist churches as false churches over essentially 2 issues of disagreement (ecclesiology and sacramentology). You like being the gladiator.
I imagine this kind of in-fighting is what gave birth to the saying, “The Reformed churches eat their own”
Raja,
I think what we’ve established is that you believe baptism to be of little importance in order to be able to maintain that confessional paedobaptists are unduly divisive, yet at the same time you may render those who deny water baptism false. I think I give up trying to understand this level of convenient arbitrariness. It seems to be more and more common anymore though.
If you judge other churches in the light of your confessional standards, how is it in practical terms (you know, reality) not viewing your confession as infallible?
You seem to be setting up a false dilemma: if I actually take the confessions seriously this means I think they are infallible. But I don’t see how judging other churches as sub-Christian based upon the Reformed confessions is any different from judging other countries as sub-American that deny the Constitution or Bill of Rights, etc.
I guess saying that your confessional standards are authoritative and binding but not infallible is like saying, “well, we could be wrong (there is an eency weency chance of it) but we’re going to act like we’re not.â€
I get the implication of arrogance, but I can work with that. Or like saying, “I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.†So what? People do this with all sorts of things every day. I could fall on my face when I get out of bed, but each morning I’m pretty sure I’m right that I can do it. Am I arrogant for having that “infallible assurance†and getting up? Or take marriage vows. In my vows I tell my wife that I could very well fail, but I’m pretty sure I won’t. Is that arrogant, or simply the way adults approach their mature relationships? It seems to me childish to suggest that people who get married, or bind themselves in these ways the midst of their fallible humanity, are being arrogant. Maybe they’re just being grown-ups? Don’t you think there is an important difference between being arrogant and being confident?
But remember that the Reformed and Presbyterian world has seen fit to edit their confessions in their histories as they have been deemed wanting. It’s not as if that is beyond us. If we really thought our formulations were infallible would we have edited them? I don’t know the last time we edited the Bible.
I imagine this kind of in-fighting is what gave birth to the saying, “The Reformed churches eat their own.”
Boy, that’s bleak. I’m more inclined to think it spawned, “Reformed and always reforming.” Who says confessionalists can’t be optimistic?
Zrim,
I didn’t say it was of *little* importance, I said it was of *secondary* importance. So, I wouldn’t put it on the level of whether the carpet in the sanctuary should be beige or blue, or if we should have church bulletins or not.
You said:
“…if I actually take the confessions seriously this means I think they are infallible”
How is this position any different than that of the Roman Magisterium, which *infallibly* interprets the Scriptures for us?
You asked: “So what? People do this with all sorts of things every day.”
You don’t see the dicrepancy between judging whether you can get up out of bed every morning and judging whether other Christian churches are “true churches of Christ”? Wow. Well, for starters you’re making eternal judgments regarding churches Christ built. Seems like there would be a little more care involved.
You asked: “Maybe they’re just being grown-ups?”
Mature grown ups are those aware of their own faults and short comings. Confidence without love and humility IS arrogance.
You said:
“But remember that the Reformed and Presbyterian world has seen fit to edit their confessions in their histories as they have been deemed wanting.”
Wait a second, I thought the confessions were infallible? Hmmm. All those poor Christian folks who disagreed before the editing sure got the short end of the stick…
“Reformed and always reforming.â€
Are you kidding? Reformed–past tense. Always Reforming? When? The few times editing has taken place?
Raja,
I don’t think any confessionalist argues for the infallibility of the confessions. In my denomination (PCA), many teaching elders take exceptions with various portions of the WCF. That doesn’t necessarily mean that these pastors denigrate the value of our confession, or the prominent place it holds in the church. You’re whipping up on a straw-man here. And why is it wrong to hold a strong confessional stance anyway? Churches outside of the Reformed tradition still hold to doctrinal statements that ultimately determine who can and cannot be part of the congregation. Are they being nit-picky and pedantic?
If I am hearing you right, it seems like one of your biggest points of contention is that Reformed Confessionalists are not inclined to acknowledge other non-Reformed churches as true churches, or individuals belonging to these denominations as true believers. The problem is that I am not seeing DGH or Zrim making those sort of arguments. I do see them exercising more caution in whom they would welcome as a brother than you (or I for that matter) are inclined to. What’s the rub here though, aren’t they free to hold these convictions that they derive from their reading of Scripture and the confessions?
This protracted conversation, however, has proved Ortlund wrong on this account. As I have observed, I have seen a lot of strong disagreement, but none of the incivility the Ortlund lays at the Reformed doorstep. It really makes me wonder if the real motivation in alleging the Reformed inclination to arrogance and myopic sectarianism stems less from the real presence of these character flaws (since Christians of any tradition are equally vulnerable to this), and more from the fact that evangelicals simply don’t like the severity of confessionally Reformed convictions because they fall short of the evangelical insistence upon being nice.
I don’t know, Raja, you sure seem to do a lot of nasty fighting for such a lover.
So sacramentology is secondary, while soteriology and Christology are primary. But if you hold to the confessions, as you say you do albeit in an unbinding manner, what do you make of Belgic 29 and WCF 25:4 which seem to make it clear that it is primary?
You seem to suggest that to have the sort of confidence in the confessions as a confessionalist does is to also be without love or humility. This seems awfully close to the revivalist critical method of the confessionalists. The former said of the latter that they were unconverted. Sorry, but it’s virtually impossible to honestly engage someone who presumes that by virtue of his views he’s as good as pagan or morally bankrupt.
But, no, the confessions are binding and authoritative, not infallible. You’ve lost me–when did I say they were infallible? My point all along has been to contrast the confessional views from not only evangelical views but also Romanist views.
Raja, so what part of Ortlund’s post to actually identify with (sorry for the dangling preposition)? Let me try Ortlund on you:
“My anti-confessional friend, can you move among confessional groups and really enjoy them? Do you admire them? Even if you disagree with them in some ways, do you learn from them? What is the emotional tilt of your heart – toward them or away from them? If your theology has morphed functionally into Galatian sociology, the remedy is not to abandon your theology. The remedy is to take your theology to a deeper level. Let it reduce you to Jesus only. Let it humble you. Let this gracious doctrine make you a fun person to be around. The proof that we are loving will be all the wonderful confessional Christians we discover around us who are committed to being Reformed. Amazing people. Heroic people. Blood-bought people. People with whom we are eternally one – in Christ alone.”
Is your conscience burning, Raja? Remember, you’re the second-mate on the Love Boat.
Jed,
I don’t think most confessionalists argue for the infallibility of their confessions either. However, in reality, when churches and/or people are judged in light of them what can we conclude? Pronouncing another church as “not a true church of Christ” because they don’t meet your confession’s criteria is serious business.
You said:
“The problem is that I am not seeing DGH or Zrim making those sort of arguments.”
Have you been reading their comments? DGH flat out said that he doesn’t consider non-Reformed churches to be true churches of Christ.
You said:
“This protracted conversation, however, has proved Ortlund wrong on this account. As I have observed, I have seen a lot of strong disagreement, but none of the incivility the Ortlund lays at the Reformed doorstep. It really makes me wonder if the real motivation in alleging the Reformed inclination to arrogance and myopic sectarianism stems less from the real presence of these character flaws (since Christians of any tradition are equally vulnerable to this), and more from the fact that evangelicals simply don’t like the severity of confessionally Reformed convictions because they fall short of the evangelical insistence upon being nice.”
Sure, it has been civil here. There are other places where it’s not so civil, trust me. This is not necessarily about being nice, it’s about telling Christians that disagree with you their church is not the real deal–when everyone there loves Jesus, has repented of their sins, their pastor opens the Bible to preach God’s word, and they practice church discipline and administer the sacraments (just not according to your convictions, of course).
Zrim,
You said: “I don’t know, Raja, you sure seem to do a lot of nasty fighting for such a lover.”
Hey, this subject makes me cranky. Sorry
You asked:
“So sacramentology is secondary, while soteriology and Christology are primary. But if you hold to the confessions, as you say you do albeit in an unbinding manner, what do you make of Belgic 29 and WCF 25:4 which seem to make it clear that it is primary?”
I disagree with them.
You said:
“You seem to suggest that to have the sort of confidence in the confessions as a confessionalist does is to also be without love or humility. This seems awfully close to the revivalist critical method of the confessionalists. The former said of the latter that they were unconverted. Sorry, but it’s virtually impossible to honestly engage someone who presumes that by virtue of his views he’s as good as pagan or morally bankrupt”
I was not making a blanket statement about confessionalists who have confidence in their confession. I was also not suggesting you or anyone else here is a pagan or morally bankrupt–no way. Confidence in the confession should also be accompanied by love and humility as a Christian. You have nothing you have not received from God. Perfection of doctrinal understanding is not a requirement of individual Christians or of churches.
As far as the infallibility issue, I misread you on this comment: “if I actually take the confessions seriously this means I think they are infallible.” You did make a qualifying statement about me making this a false dilemma. I thought you were making a statement. My apologies.
DGH,
“My anti-confessional friend, can you move among confessional groups and really enjoy them? {YES} Do you admire them? {YES} Even if you disagree with them in some ways, do you learn from them? {YES} What is the emotional tilt of your heart – toward them or away from them? {Toward them} If your theology has morphed functionally into Galatian sociology, the remedy is not to abandon your theology. The remedy is to take your theology to a deeper level. Let it reduce you to Jesus only. Let it humble you. Let this gracious doctrine make you a fun person to be around. The proof that we are loving will be all the wonderful confessional Christians we discover around us who are committed to being Reformed. Amazing people. Heroic people. Blood-bought people. People with whom we are eternally one – in Christ alone.â€
Amen. Whoever said I didn’t? This is a “disagreement” discussion. Even MMA fighters hug after a sparring match. I’m just asking you to consider the fact that your *convictions* may be wrong in some aspects, and that they are not necessarily right just because they’re your convictions.
with love,
RD
Raja,
I think you need to re-read the comments, DGH has asserted, “Raja, I do not view non-Reformed churches as true churches. Neither do I regard them necessarily as false. It’s a case by case thing.” (6/18, 8:34PM). I don’t read this as blasting away at all of the Baptist congregation as necessarily false churches. While it may seem harsh, maybe the state of some of the churches in N. America would be better served to be evaluated with more scrutiny. The message and role of the church is too crucial for deference for the sake of getting along. The eternal destiny of countless congregants are at stake, and if the confessions are correct in identifying the marks of the true church (I believe they are), then it is nothing less than a loving act to assert that certain churches are false, so that parishioners can take part in churches that do faithfully maintain the marks of the church.
Like I have said earlier, as well as in other posts, I am more inclined to receive baptist churches as true churches than some others here, so you are preaching to the choir here. I do, however value some of the more stringent critiques here because they are warranted even if I am not inclined to hold the same convictions as some of my brothers who by biblical and confessional reflection hold their convictions in good conscience.
As to the militancy you have encountered elsewhere, that is a shame, but these guys (and most confessionalists) aren’t guilty of that here and shouldn’t be lumped in with those who cannot maintain civility in the face of strong disagreement. If the Reformed and belligerent were who Ortlund had in mind, he would have been better off to be more specific, rather than impugning an entire confessional community. And, if the confessionalists believe they are right, and that they are heralding the Christian faith in its purest and most biblically faithful form, then shame on them for not trying to get everyone they possibly can on board.
Jed,
I appreciate your comments.
Just this one point about this quote from DGH, ““Raja, I do not view non-Reformed churches as true churches. Neither do I regard them necessarily as false. It’s a case by case thing.†(6/18, 8:34PM).
If you’re going to assert your Confession is the true expression of biblical teaching (binding and authoritative), you are not allowed to stand in the middle of the see saw like DGH is attempting to do here. Is DGH asserting that *some* Baptist churches are true churches? Then he is refuting himself, because he also said that correct administration of the sacraments is one of the marks of a “true church”. Well, which is it? Are the true churches those that hold to the Reformed Confessions AND the ones DGH determines fit the bill?
This is not necessarily about being nice, it’s about telling Christians that disagree with you their church is not the real deal–when everyone there loves Jesus, has repented of their sins, their pastor opens the Bible to preach God’s word, and they practice church discipline and administer the sacraments (just not according to your convictions, of course).
But there are those who will tell you they love Jesus, have repented of their sins, their pastor opens the Bible to preach God’s word and practice church discipline and teach a Christology (just not according to your convictions, of course). They’re called Mormons. I can hear you gasping for air, but my point isn’t so much to say that Baptists are closer to Mormons than to Presbyterians as it is to say that the criteria you set up here just isn’t good enough to stake out true from false.
I know you think sacramentology isn’t nearly as important as soteriology or Christology (!), but do you understand that to emphasize heart religion over sacramentology makes things that much safer for Arians, which is to say Christological heretics, which is the very criterion you get confessionalish about? And Arians who are also credo’s, by the way. Under my scheme, Mormons are even further off the reservation because they miss on Christology and sacramentology. What I think this all turns on, of course, is sacramentology: it’s either a test for orthodoxy (Belgic 29, WCF 25:4) or it isn’t. And if it isn’t then Belgic 29/WCF 25:4 need to be revised. I think your views represent the larger, informal balance of Reformedville. But the formal view places sacramentology way up high, and until you all revise these confessional I stand by what I have said here. But, then again, to revise would require a high view of the confessions in the first place because that would suggest that they actually matter. So that brings us back to square one again.
Zrim,
“I think your views represent the larger, informal balance of Reformedville.”
Right. Why would that be? Because we all really know sacramentalology is a secondary matter. You keep trying to elevate it in your examples (i.e. make it of equal importance to Christology) but it just won’t get off the ground.
I agree. The Confessions need to be revised.
Zrim,
“I think your views represent the larger, informal balance of Reformedville.”
Right. Why would that be? Because we all really know sacramentalology is a secondary matter. You keep trying to elevate it in your examples (i.e. make it of equal importance to Christology) but it just won’t get off the ground.
I agree. The Confessions need to be revised on this point.
sorry for the double comment, I tried to add to my original for clarification…
Raja, methinks thou doth comment too much for you to qualify as loving as Ortlund understands it. I can’t believe you’re still after this. Good for you. I appreciate the fight. But in the name of love that anathematizes? Yikes.
As for your thought that my view waffles like a see saw, have you not heard of grades? Where I teach you can take a course pass/fail, but most students opt for A, B, C, D or F. The analogy with the churches follows from what the Westminster Confession teaches about true and erroneous churches. Rome gets an F. Baptists get a C. But to be a church of like faith and practice you need to get an A or A-. That means, following through on the love connection, that Baptists are not in fellowship with Presbyterians. Does that mean I’m happy about that like most meany Reformed confessionalists? You’ll have to take my “no” as genuine. But this is what was at stake for some of us in Ortlund’s post. If we disfellowship other Christians we are not loving and have de-centered Jesus. Wrong. We only disfellowship other believers with regret out of allegiance to our Lord, must like Paul “disfellowshiped” the Judaizers.
Right. Why would that be [that your views represent the larger, informal balance of Reformedville]? Because we all really know sacramentalology is a secondary matter. You keep trying to elevate it in your examples (i.e. make it of equal importance to Christology) but it just won’t get off the ground. I agree. The Confessions need to be revised.
Raja,
You are familiar with parliamentary procedure, yes? Majority and correctness don’t always go together. It’s pretty awesome when they do, but it doesn’t happen nearly as often as most of us would like.
Still, the formal Reformed view is that sacramentology is a standard for orthodoxy. So it’s a matter of being in accord with our formal standards. And, until those with low views of sacramentology can change the standards, rendering Baptist churches as false isn’t being unduly divisive as much as being thoroughly and consistently Reformed. Indeed, as thoroughly Reformed as a Baptist church is thoroughly Baptist, for any respectable Baptist pastor, when asked to baptize a child will flatly refuse. What would you say if I suggested Ortlund was being Galatian for not being more inclusive toward covenant children?
You do realize, of course, that to change the standards per your views is to be Evangelical Free, right? Sure seems a whole lot easier, to say nothing of respectable, for an individual to just to change denominations than to try and make Reformed something we’re not.
At least the Rev. Dr. Ortlund confesses:
“I believe in the sovereignty of God, the Five Points of Calvinism, the Solas of the Reformation, I believe that grace precedes faith in regeneration. Theologically, I am Reformed.â€
Hopefully, these continue to inform his and his congregation’s views on Jesus!
See my concerns in posts at his site.
Yours,
Hugh
DGH,
We can let this drop if I have exhausted you with my comment count.
One final point, your grade scale analogy contradicts your confessional position. For a strict confessionalist, a church is either an A or an F, either a pass or fail. A church either biblically administers the sacraments or it doesn’t, and if it doesn’t it does not have all the marks of a true church. There is no middle ground. There is no C grade.
You said:
“We only disfellowship other believers with regret out of allegiance to our Lord”
Yes, disfellowship other believers for Jesus. Certainly regrettable.
love,
RD
Zrim,
Thanks for the interaction.
I wouldn’t expect a Baptist pastor to baptize children, that was never my point. My point was to recognize non-Reformed churches as true churches of Christ.
I think we have furthered this discussion as far as we can.
best,
RD
Raja, sorry to burst your ever so loving bubble, but a strict confessionalists who subscribes the Westminster Confession needs to allow for D’s, C’s, and B’s. According to the Confession:
“This catholic church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.
“The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a church on earth, to worship God according to his will.” (WCF 25..4-5)
Again, you have this odd tick of rushing in to tell me what is biblical and now what is confessional when I’m not sure you’ve considered all the options for what is biblical or what is confessional.
DGH,
So, are you now admitting Baptist and other non-Reformed churches are indeed true churches of Christ? It’s a yes or no question, not A, B, C, or D.
Thank you, Pope Raja.
And so I guess Ortlund’s point was that if you’re not fun you must be mean and vile because in Pope Raja’s world its all black and white.
I wouldn’t expect a Baptist pastor to baptize children, that was never my point. My point was to recognize non-Reformed churches as true churches of Christ.
I realize you think we’re done here, but you either need to wrench my hip, or explain why a Baptist pastor who refuses to baptize a child gets a pass on the divisive scale but not a Reformed layman who doesn’t recognize non-Reformed churches as true. (But you do realize, don’t you, that to reckon the visible status of a church false isn’t the same as reckoning the invisible status of one of its members the same? Somehow I think that might be at play here.)
DGH,
Why the consternation? *You* assert, along with the Confession (que the lights and angels singing) that one of the marks of a true church is the biblical administration of the sacraments. Why are you flinching now? There’s no grey area here…
BE consistent. You’re trying to soften your stance without contradicting the confession. If Baptist churches aren’t true churches, just say so. Don’t give them a “C” to make it sound better…
from the Vatican,
RD
Zrim,
I never denied the right of Presbyterian churches to practice their convictions regarding the sacraments, nor have I denied non-Reformed churches the same right. My assertion, once more, is that Reformed and non-Reformed churches should consider one another “true churches of Christ” and brethren in the Lord.
I didn’t say Presbyterian, Baptists, etc. should all go to the same church and practice anything they want…
Raja,
I understand you don’t deny the right of Presbyterians churches to practice their convictions regarding the sacraments, nor non-Reformed the same. My question had to do with your apparent antagonism toward Reformed believers speaking their confessions’ convictions that to practice incorrect administration of the sacraments (i.e. credobaptism) means the church is less-than-true. And yet no apparent antagonism toward those who would say that my childrens’ baptisms were false (and need to be “repeatedâ€). It’s not that I want to fault Baptists for speaking their convictions (because I respect it even as I reject it), it’s that I want to know from you why my speech/actions is unduly divisive and the Baptist’s isn’t?
Zrim,
They’re only unduly divisive when they (or you) start calling one another’s churches “false”. I don’t place the validity of a church upon it’s correct understanding of the unity or disunity of the covenants. One can be wrong and the other right on this issue, but both are true churches of Christ.
Are you so immersed in your confessions that you can’t see this?
Ah, but Pope Raja, I’m being biblical just like my confession is. Some churches are more in error than others. Paul condemned the Judaizers but praised the Phillipian pastors who preached out of envy and strife. You want consistency where Scripture doesn’t give it.
Ultramontanists never understand that subtlety. It’s either black or white, unless the pope says that black is white.
DGH,
Is this where the “TR” in you starts to show itself? Where’s the love?
You said that the proper administration of the sacraments was one of the marks of a true church. Now is that true or not? Or is inconsistency one of the marks of a true Christian?
ex cathedra,
RD
Raja,
So, calling another’s church false based on an understanding (and subsequent praxis) of the unity or disunity of the covenants is unduly divisive, but calling another’s baptism false on the same grounds isn’t?
9 Trackbacks