Bryan Cross’ response to Nick Batzig on the Reformed view of imputation has kicked up a little dust over at Green Baggins and for good reason, though I plan to go in a direction different from many of the Protestant complaints. Cross contends that Roman Catholics understand justification through the lens of agape while Reformed Protestants use a list paradigm:
From a Catholic point of view, as I explained in “Why John Calvin did not Recognize the Distinction Between Mortal and Venial Sin,” there are two different paradigms here regarding what it means to keep the law. Call one the list paradigm, and call the other the agape paradigm. In the list paradigm, perfect law-keeping is conceived as keeping a list of God given precepts. According to this paradigm, perfect law-keeping requires perfectly and perpetually keeping (and not in any way violating) every single precept in the list. In the New Covenant, we are given more gifts for growing progressively in our ability to keep the law, but nevertheless, nobody in this life keeps the list perfectly. All fall short of God’s perfect standard of righteousness. That’s the paradigm through which Batzig views God’s requirement of righteousness for salvation.
In the agape paradigm, by contrast, agape is the fulfillment of the law. Agape is not merely some power or force or energy by which one is enabled better to keep the list of rules, either perfectly or imperfectly. Rather, agape is what the law has pointed to all along. To have agape in one’s soul is to have the perfect righteousness to which the list of precepts point. Righteousness conceived as keeping a list of externally written precepts is conceptually a shadow of the true righteousness which consists of agape infused into the soul. This infusion of agape is the law written on the heart. But the writing of the law on the heart should not be conceived as merely memorizing the list of precepts, or being more highly motivated to keep the list of precepts. To conceive of agape as merely a force or good motivation that helps us better (but imperfectly, in this life) keep the list of rules, is still to be in the list paradigm. The writing of the law on the heart provides in itself the very fulfillment of the law — that perfection to which the external law always pointed. To have agape is already to have fulfilled the telos of the law, a telos that is expressed in our words, deeds, and actions because they are all ordered to a supernatural end unless we commit a mortal sin. The typical Protestant objection to the Catholic understanding of justification by the infusion of agape is “Who perfectly loves God? No one.” But this objection presupposes the list paradigm.
This is rich given the recent news out of the Vatican that Rome has added to the Church’s list of deadly sins. (Look for the words list and agape.)
After 1,500 years the Vatican has brought the seven deadly sins up to date by adding seven new ones for the age of globalization. The list, published yesterday in L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, came as the Pope deplored the “decreasing sense of sin” in today’s “secularized world” and the falling numbers of Roman Catholics going to confession.
The new deadly sins include polluting, genetic engineering, being obscenely rich, drug dealing, abortion, pedophilia and causing social injustice.
So the communion that originally gave us a list of sins is adding to the list. Agape indeed.
And to underscore the point — which is that Bryan Cross has remarkable intellectual gifts that have little purchase in reality — consider that the little, old (not ancient, of course) Orthodox Presbyterian Church, with all of its alleged list mentality, resisted mightily producing lists of sins. One occasion came in 1950 when the church, through a study committee of the General Assembly, concluded that belonging to the Free Masons was a sin. But contrary to some in the church who wanted a constitutional amendment to list Masonry as a sin, the committee opposed the composition of lists of sin:
Although it is unwarranted to condemn all cataloguing of sins by the church, history shows that it ma easily be carried so far as to become fraught with undesirable consequences. This danger becomes especially great when the church in its official book of discipline seeks to enumerate the precise sins which render their doers subject to ecclesiastical censures. . . .
It is obviously impossible for the church to draw up a complete catalogue of sins. Any list is certain to be a partial one. The almost unavoidable result will be that the members of the church will receive an unbalanced view of the Christian life. For example, let us suppose that a church catalogues as offenses certain types of worldliness, as gambling, the performance or viewing of immoral or sacrilegious theatricals, and many forms of
modern dancing. The danger is far from imaginary that the psychological effect of such partial cataloguing will be that other forms of worldliness, which in the sight of God are no less reprehensible, such as the love of money, the telling of salacious jokes by toastmasters and other speakers at banquets, the display of wealth in a palatial dwelling, and the stressing of the numerical rather than the spiritual growth of a church, to name no more, will be condoned and even overlooked. In another respect too the cataloguing of sins is liable to result in an unbalanced conception of the Christian life. It may easily impart the impression that Christian living is essentially negative rather than positive. Church members will be led to stress the separated life at the expense of the consecrated life. Very plainly put, they will conclude that merely not to do this and that and a third thing is the essence of Christian living and is proof of the Christianity of him who abstains from these things. (1950 GA Minutes, 26)
In case you didn’t notice, the church allegedly characterized by the agape paradigm makes lists of sins. And one of the churches that you might expect to draw up a list of sins, given its supposed reliance on the list paradigm, has tried not to make lists.
In which case, I am not sure what Bryan Cross’ point is other than to show the inadequacies of Protestants always in the peace of Christ.
Postscript:
The Baltimore Catechism on sin:
52. Q. What is actual sin? A. Actual sin is any willful thought, word, deed or omission contrary to the law of God.
The Shorter Catechism on sin:
14. Q. What is sin? A. Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God.
We print, realists decide.
365 Comments
Ted Bigelow: Did anyone notice that all the converts to Rome at CTC come out of infant baptizing church traditions?
RS: I have noticed that the vast majority seem too.
Erik Charter: Ted – That’s because most evangelicals today are more into looking good, rocking out, and living their best life now.
RS: As opposed to looking bad and living their worst life now? Not so serious on that one. But could there be others who are between the modern flavor of evangelicals and the confessing Reformed?
Erik Charter: Thinking about serious theological issues is not high on the list. I don’t agree with the CTC guys, but at least they are thinking.
RS: You have raised a rather pointed question or made a real point here. Are the CTC guys really thinking? Is it thinking when the mind is in slavery to a conclusion? While the modern evangelical types have dismissed theology from their thinking, there are those who are not confessionalists who do so because of serious theological issues.
Ted – I think it’s 90% a case of a temperment that wants “certainty”. They think they have found that in apostolic succession. Unless they think they can trace everything back to the beginning they are not satisfied. Once they are convinced they have done this nothing else matters to them.
Ted – If you search I’m sure you can find a version of CTC for evangelicals who have become Catholics. We’re just not interacting with them here. I’m undermining my previous post, but I was obviously being a wise guy.
Terry M. Gray: Does anyone here think that Christ’s imputed righteousness extends to doctrine–that false or erroneous doctrine that we embrace is substituted with Christ’s perfect doctrine and that before God we are all equally orthodox in Christ before God. Would a mustard seed of faith give us Christ’s orthodoxy?
RS: A fascinating question, even one that McMark might have more trouble answering than I do. I would argue that those who have Christ in truth are taught by Christ and gradually move (or quickly to a degree) more and more to the truth as found in Christ. Part of sanctification is to love God with all of our minds more, so we begin to grow in truth and love in truth. Those with Christ in them have His Spirit illuminating them to wonderful truths. But then again, truth is something more than propositions and facts in the brain.
John 7:17 “If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself.
Sean – HA!
I would have thought RCC would smell and feel so ancient and yet so emergent to these emergents that they would have done the breast stroke faster than Phelps across the Tiber. Oh yeah. Rome claims epistimological authority. My bad.
Anyhow, I guess I’ve been surprised that more of you reformed guys haven’t stepped up on Green Baggins or here and taken Cross on at the very issue of visible church/invisible church. Is that a tough nut for reformed guys?
IMO he is winning the day on that one.
Eric – “I think it’s 90% a case of a temperment that wants “certainty”.”
yep, me too. But I think we all do.
“If you search I’m sure you can find a version of CTC for evangelicals who have become Catholics”
Nah. A Bryan Cross for non-doctrinal types? Shirley you jest.
Good point on worship, Brad.
But if Israel could not stand before her enemies, because of an accursed thing in her midst Josh. 7:13, perhaps the P&R are a little compromised themselves on worship.
One Prof. Frame has done more than anybody else in our day to subvert and remodel the reformed doctrine of worship without any real ecclesiastical censure. Further, the claque of Jordan, Meyers, Schlissel, Leithart and Wilson all pretty much sharpened their chops as his understudies on worship taking potshots at the RPW before moving on to the big time with the FV.
And since we can’t seem to get any real traction practically speaking on the FV in regard to actually disciplining someone within our midst, well connect the dots. Worship is not a high priority, but at best a confused hodge podge for the P&R at the moment.
Besides the romanists are sincere idolaters which makes it a done deal for evangelicals.
Ted,
That’s all we’ve done here for two weeks. He claims it, we ask him what color the sky is where he lives, and he responds that we can’t play the game because we’re skeptics and skepticism is right out as a starting point. Darryl has tried to tell him there’s a whole world of reality beyond the circles on the chalkboard and words actually have to bear some resemblance to actuality and history much less Vatican II in Bryan’s case…………..Crickets. Though I was hoping to see the dueling ECF combox showdown……………..No Joy. Plus, some of us have jobs. Thirty seconds to 5 minutes(every once in a while), if it’s longer you’re trying to hard and it’s better had in a book or journal article, or blog post.
Well ok, more than crickets lots of ‘question-begging’ flag throwing as well. And yes, sometimes more than 5 minutes but I feel bad about it when I do.
The extreme opposite of the temperment that demands certainty is the temperment of Lloyd Christmas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqdNe8u-Jsg
Yet, there seem to be at the present time more than one or two men who believe infant baptism is corrupt who take doctrine as seriously as reformed men. Yet, you don’t see them crossing the Tiber.
Not a one.
Actually, I count several friends now in communion with Rome or Constantinople (?) who are former Baptists or Anabaptists.
Likewise, there are several in our own PCA church who are former Catholics.
The world is fluid place.
Ted, there you go again with the latent Romanism in confessional and paedobaptistic Protestantism. But have you noticed the scores of Protestant PBists pushing back on the Catholics and their converts? And have you noticed how most of the “30K denoms” that Catholics love to use to show how Protestantism undermines the catholicity of the visible church are credo-baptist?
Erik – “so you’re telling me there’s a chance?”
gulp, that the RC is the True Church in apostle-land (TM)? And I thought it was SGM all this time.
Sean – too funny! Then there’s DGH telling BC “my epistemology is more humble than yours. What are you gonna do about it?”
BC to DGH: Oh no, mine is much more humble than yours since I do not use private judgment as you do (if I do say so myself). And you can place that in the apostolic deposit.” Peace in you know Who.
DGH to all: “sue the ban – que”
Zrim, does my familiarity bred content yet?… I’m just saying I haven’t seen anyone (whom BC’ll answer on here or Green Baggins) slash his tires for calling the Catholic Church the visible church of Christ. I mean, if RC baptism is valid in Reformed churches then maybe he’s only pointing out what you guys are a little shy to admit: that his view of visible/invisible church really is in connection through the sacraments with you guys.
Jeff – Any baptist types who swam the Tiber who were as theologically educated as the ex-reformed types at CTC? Love your posts, btw.
Ted, by slashing his tires do you mean pointing out how Belgic 27-29 condemns the RCC and bids all pious souls to come out of her and cleave to the true church as defined specifically by 29? But that would also seem to give credo-baptists something to think about as well. But maybe you’ve missed the exchanges I’ve had with Andrew and Jeremy about the fact that their communion doesn’t raise the ecclesiastical stakes the way Reformed Protestantism does. V2 says we’re brethren, but Belgic doesn’t. Is that slashy enough?
But RC baptisms are valid in Reformed churches for the same reason Baptist baptisms are. Does accepting yours mean we’re slouching toward Muenster? But Baptists and Catholics seem agreed that the Protestant Reformation was a compromised thing, what with both mistaking Prots for an undeveloped version of the other.
Zrim,
But Baptists and Catholics seem agreed that the Protestant Reformation was a compromised thing, what with both mistaking Prots for an undeveloped version of the other.
Good point. Maybe the Reformed are doing something right!
I noticed someone mention about the 30k denominations that Roman Catholics love to bring out; they bring that out as a criticism of Sola Scriptura, if I remember correctly. James White has responded to that over and over again on his blog; even recently when someone else expressed a desire to go to Rome about a month ago.
Notice the reaction you find in some Romanists when you mention James White, a Baptist. I remember one thoughtful Roman Catholic student mentioning personally to Mr. White that he is the man that Rome’s apologists seem to place the most attention to refute. I think he has challenged the people at Called to Communion to a debate.
Oh, and if Jason Stellman reads this, can you seriously consider what James White told you? Can you seriously consider his debate challenge to you specifically? Some of us would like to know in a public setting why we should also go to Rome. I am assuming that Mr. Stellman believes that we should all go to Rome. So please Mr. Stellman, I would seriously consider your objections if that were to happen, particularly since you were an ordained minister in the PCA.
Zrim,
I hear your rhetoric (in the right sense) and appreciate Belgic 29 (Belgic 34, not so much).
But isn’t there a reason for reformed men finding refuge acorss the Tiber, and doesn’t it boil down to this matter of who is the visible church?
Two questions:
Belgic 29 says “Neither does she [the RCC] administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in his Word.” Why do reformed churches accept RC baptism, claiming that baptism as valid when BC 29 says it isn’t?
Second, in 34 it says, “ministers… administer the sacrament [of baptism], and that which is visible, but our Lord gives that which is signified by the sacrament, namely, the gifts and invisible grace;…”
Wouldn’t that statement of visible sign / invisible grace work pave the way across the Tiber by fitting Bryan Cross’ view of the one and only visible church that passes along invisible/saving grace?
Zrim: “Baptists and Catholics seem agreed that the Protestant Reformation was a compromised thing, what with both mistaking Prots for an undeveloped version of the other.”
Brilliant point! But ultimately unhelpful. Catholics say Prots are undeveloped for entirely different reasons that Baptists. Baptists say Prots compromised the Word of God, Catholics say Prots compromised their own traditions.
And isn’t that always the ultimate issue – the Word of God? Lumping Baptists in with Catholics might be clever and funny (I think it is, anyway), but Baptists don’t accept RC religion like Prots do.
And isn’t that why so many more reformed men swim the Tiber?
Ted, re Belgic 29, the validity of baptism does not depend on the validity of the church within which it is administered (nor even the piety of its administrator, for that matter). It must simply be Trinitarian. Re 34, it’s not unusual for a memorialist to think the Reformed visible/invisible distinction paves the way to sacerdotalism. But Reformed will still hold that the Spirit is really and spiritually present to make his means of grace efficacious and confirm faith previously created by the Word. The bread stays bread and wine wine, if that helps.
Yes, the Word of God is the issue. But what the Biblicist has in common with the Romanist is the blind spot for the complication whose name is interpretation. The former depends on private judgment, the latter on the church. Protestantism employs both with a healthy dose of limitation of each and checks and balances of one for the other to discern what the Word of God is saying. It’s not an easy task, which is what makes both Biblicism and Romanism seem sort of lazy, frankly.
Hi Zrim,
Maybe you can clear up this confusion further for me.
On the one hand, Belgic 29 says “Neither does she [the RCC] administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in his Word.” Yet reformed churches accept it exactly as “appointed by Christ in his word.”
Is your answer, “because they use the Trinitarian formula rightly?” or is there more?
Re. Belgic 29 – Maybe because the RCC doesn’t limit the sacraments to 2 and because of the doctrine of transubstantiation? Re. accepting Catholic baptisms – Think about the context of when the Reformed Churches started – Wouldn’t most people in that first generation been baptized in the Roman Catholic Church? Luther and Calvin certainly would have been. They most likely would have advocated a new, Protestant baptism if they thought that was important, no?
Ted, my own understanding is that there has been disagreement in P&R history on this question. Some say a Roman baptism is invalid for the reason you seem to be driving at (i.e. false churches administer false baptisms), others affirm for the reason I suggested (i.e. Trinitarian baptisms are valid and do not depend on the validity of the communion within which they are administered). Local P&R communions must decide for themselves in particular cases which way to go.
Even so, I’m not sure the point of Belgic 29 is to open the way for re-baptism, given the language of 34 which reads in part: “For that reason we detest the error of the Anabaptists who are not content with a single baptism once received and also condemn the baptism of the children of believers.” The Protestant reformers themselves came up in the Roman church and weren’t re-baptized, unlike the Radicals who did. Which seems to suggest that they saw no problem with Roman baptism.
Zrim, I wan’t suggesting the BC opened the way for “rebaptism” – although it is interesting that BC is harsher on us Baptists than it is on the Catholics (IMO). Again, this goes to my larger point.
I think Eric’s comment to be spot on. You can’t separate the times from those living in them.
Baptismally speaking, the reformers and their Prot followers never left Rome. Which is to really to say that ecclesiastically the Prots never left Rome since baptism is the initiatory rite into the ecclesia. And yet we agree Rome’s initiatory religious rite comes a midst all the priest-craft and Tridentine non-gospel heresy.
You may not think you share communion with her, but you really do. You Prots will embrace them ecclesiatically, and us, perhaps begrudgingly, soteriologically (but not ecclesiastically).
And in the end, ecclesiastically wins because keeping the machine running is survival of people’s livelihoods. Jus’ sayin.
Ted, if it’s strong language against the Roman communion you want then why not try HC 80 on the other sacrament:
What difference is there between the Lord’s supper and the popish mass?
Answer: The Lord’s supper testifies to us, that we have a full pardon of all sin by the only sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which he himself has once accomplished on the cross; and, that we by the Holy Ghost are ingrafted into Christ, who, according to his human nature is now not on earth, but in heaven, at the right hand of God his Father, and will there be worshipped by us. But the mass teaches, that the living and dead have not the pardon of sins through the sufferings of Christ, unless Christ is also daily offered for them by the priests; and further, that Christ is bodily under the form of bread and wine, and therefore is to be worshipped in them; so that the mass, at bottom, is nothing else than a denial of the one sacrifice and sufferings of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry.
I don’t know how an honest reader reads that and maintains the things you do about Reformed Protestantism having not shaken off all the Romanism. How in thee heck does maintaining that the Roman Mass is “an accursed idolatry” lead to Rome?
Zrim,
I feel your pain, really I do. I’m not saying that Prots embrace the mass, or the priest-craft. I wrote above, “we agree Rome’s initiatory religious rite comes a midst all the priest-craft and Tridentine non-gospel heresy” – which heresy covers all their sacramentarian whiffle dust.
Except that Prots embrace the most important RC whiffle dust (ecclesiastically speaking) – a view of baptism that we find to be “an accursed idolatry” – as is all their mass and holy orders and the whole schmeer.
We just find the Prot position inconsistent, unbiblical, and leaning toward Vatican City. And CTC confirms it.
Ted – I think the Reformed view of Baptism is an extension of covenant theology and can stand on its own apart from Rome (and I was a Baptist until my mid-30s). Once you understand the idea of the Covenant and the role of circumcision in the OT it is not hard to embrace infant baptism as the NT sign and seal that replaces circumcision. It all makes sense if you can get out of the baptist mindset that’s it’s something that the believer does as an act of devotion.
I think the reason so many non-Reformed people struggle with the Reformed understanding of the sacraments is they have trouble separating the visible church from the invisible church. Federal Vision types have the same struggle. Not every Covenant memer of Israel was elect, not every baptized child is elect. Nonetheless God commanded all Israelite males to be circumcized and he commands every Christian child to be baptized. By the grace of God many of these baptized children will have true faith and be saved.
Baptists seem to want some kind of certainty that the only ones who are baptized are “real Christians”. The problem is that some of these people will not continue in faith for their entire lives. What does one do with the doctrine of perseverance of the saints at that point? Were they truly saved and lost their faith? (which can’t happen under the doctrine of perseverance of the saints) or were they not saved in the first place, which makes it an “unbeliever’s baptism” vs. a “believer’s baptism” in retrospect? I think it’s a real problem for the “Reformed Baptist”.
Ted, in other words it all turns on the one sacrament of baptism (and never mind the Reformed understanding that, while it does indeed initiate covenantal membership, it is a sign and seal of the covenant made efficacious by the Spirit alone and not a magical or superstitious ex opere operato act). I suppose that’s consistent from those who identify themselves baptismally. But that sure seems to be elevating the sacrament of baptism to a height prone to over-realize its importance. Let me guess: you also celebrate the Supper infrequently.
Erik – “It all makes sense if you can get out of the baptist mindset that’s it’s something that the believer does as an act of devotion.”
Ted – If that’s the same thing as an act of obedience to the command of Christ in Mat. 28:19 then I’m all for it.
“I think it’s a real problem for the “Reformed Baptist””
I guess it is for some, but for all my years in ministry and knowing hundreds of baptistic pastors I’ve never known one to have this problem. It could be we’re all too ashamed to admit it. Or it could be that its only a problem supposed on us from others.
As one who has baptised far too many who have fallen away from Christ and now serve Satan, I still baptise on profession of faith and a pledge of a good conscience toward God. And i imagine I still baptize people who will fall away later, and I’m not losing any sleep over it.
Erik – “Nonetheless God commanded all Israelite males to be circumcized and he commands every Christian child to be baptized.”
We maintain that this commanding He does this through the word of God alone (Mat. 28:19), but not through the church, which is the point of concinnity between RC and Reformed in this matter of baptizing those without a credible profession of faith. Or to put it less delicately, you share the same authority in infant baptisms as does the RCC. Your church tells you to go for it.
But then you have to rework the promise of the New Covenant from “they will all know me,” to “only some of them will know me.”
Zrim: “Let me guess: you also celebrate the Supper infrequently.”
About once per month. And its memorial. But hey, if I don’t tell the people the presence of Christ is spiritually in the elements, they are anyway from your perspective. Ex opere operato, right?
Zrim – “while it does indeed initiate covenantal membership”
But baptism is also the means by which the children of the faithful are brought into church membership. And if their RC baptism grants them entrance into the church and the covenant, and the Reformed baptism does the same, its hard to visibly see the difference. And that what Bryan Cross is trying to get you guys to accede to (in 10,000 words or more, which ever comes first).
Zrim – “But that sure seems to be elevating the sacrament of baptism to a height prone to over-realize its importance”
I like where you’re going here.
Ted – How do you view the unbaptized children in your church? The same as or different than the guy on the street? If different, then why? If you do “dedications” what is your biblical authority?
Matthew 28:19
New International Version (NIV)
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
How does this preclude infant baptism? If you make a disciple as an adult, then baptize them as an adult. Where does this say anything one way or another about children?
Being that Jews were coming out of a background of circumcision why did Jesus not make it explicit that infants should not be baptized?
What do you make of Colossians 2.9-12 linking circumcision and baptism?
9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority. 11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh[b] was put off when you were circumcised by[c] Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Ted – Have you known “hundreds of baptistic pastors” or hundreds of REFORMED baptistic pastors? I totally agree that believer’s baptism is no problem at all for an Arminian.
Ted – “We maintain that this commanding He does this through the word of God alone (Mat. 28:19), but not through the church, which is the point of concinnity between RC and Reformed in this matter of baptizing those without a credible profession of faith. Or to put it less delicately, you share the same authority in infant baptisms as does the RCC. Your church tells you to go for it.”
You post here enough to know this is not true. Reformed people (at least the Reformed people who post here) believe in infant baptism because they believe it’s biblical, not because the Church says to do it. We also share a belief with Rome in the Trinity. Should we disbelieve it because Rome believes it?
Ted, the point about infrequency (which I take once a month to be) is that it seems to be a function of the same over-realizing of the Supper that Baptists make of baptism. There are various reasons to neglect the regular use of the means of grace, but one tends to be that the Supper is so special it shouldn’t be done regularly. But routine has a way of bringing sobriety and modest perspective to a ritual. Sure, many Reformed are anymore practitioners of infrequency, but this seems to be a reflection of just how victorious and influential low church evangelicalism has been.
Likewise, on top of identifying by a particular baptismal doctrine betraying an over importance on that doctrine (again, where are the “Communionists”?), thinking that baptism should only be applied to those who profess credible faith seems to betray an over-wrought correspondence between faith and baptism. I wonder if it helps to know that the Reformed look for credible profession before admitting to the table? Paedo-baptism and credo-communionism are the correct bookends.
Still like where this is headed?
And you’re not seeing the difference because you lack the in/visible church distinction. When we baptize we are marking children as outward members of the church, not inward and not as presumptively regenerate. After baptism, and through the slow process of catechesis and the means of grace in regular worship, etc., we wait until a credible profession of faith is made, at which time they join us at the table. It’s not at all unusual for this to look Roman-esque to memorialists who think there’s Romanism and then there’s orthodoxy, but not only are there principled differences, but Protestants have never been shy to admit we inherited plenty of unassailable doctrines and practices from the early church. The Reformation was organic. Just because Catholics believe or practice something doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
Nice post, Zrim. What is your critique of the paedocommunion folks?
Erik, in a word: it’s the mirror error of credo-baptism.
Eric – do you reformed guys sneak up on people, rip them off the street, sprinkle water on them, and tell them they are now externally in the covenant? No? How ’bout your neighbors kids? No?
Of course not. So why do you do it to infants?
You teach people before you sprinkle ‘em, in part, because to do otherwise is to violate the part of Jesus’ words you left off: “teaching them to obey me in all things” which command is written with the expectation that those who embrace Jesus commands will obey Him by being baptized.
The fact that reformed folks do it one way with their own kids (but won’t with other kids), and another way with adults shows an inconsistency with Mat. 28:19-20. Speaking of consistency, when Jesus commanded that those baptized should obey him in all things, did that include the taking of communion?
And I’m not a reformed Baptist, and most pastors I know are not reformed baptist guys either. I’m not even a baptist, if by that you mean congregational, single elder church guy. I am all for churches with a plurality of elders through, like the kind Titus established on Crete.
We don’t do children dedications, but will occasionally have parents come down to dedicate them publicly to the raising of their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. We all are so needy for the prayers of God’s people on that front.
“You post here enough to know this is not true. Reformed people (at least the Reformed people who post here) believe in infant baptism because they believe it’s biblical, not because the Church says to do it. We also share a belief with Rome in the Trinity. Should we disbelieve it because Rome believes it?”
OK. Show me the text that commands, or exemplifies infants being baptized.
And as for Col. 2:9ff, the baptism spoken of there is like the circumcision spoken of there – “without hands” – iow, by Christ.
Zrim – infrequency of the Lord’s supper “seems to be a function of the same over-realizing of the Supper that Baptists make of baptism”
Or, it is simply the same point I keep trying to make with the Catholic guys over at Green Baggins. The church relies on both example and precept to establish a practice a binding. In communion, we have daily example (Acts 2:41) weekly (Acts 20:7) and “when you meet together” (1 Cor. 11:20) which was linked to the weekly meal together. But we have no precept that binds us to once per week, or every time we meet. One PCA church nearby went to it every week as part of a move to help bring revival. Gee, why isn’t that a compelling reason? And whom have we but the Presby’s to thank for the specter of revivalism in our land (not low church evangellyism)?
Zrim – “you’re not seeing the difference because you lack the in/visible church distinction”
could you direct me to some online resources that could teach me? thanks.
Ted Bigelow says,
“But then you have to rework the promise of the New Covenant from “they will all know me,” to “only some of them will know me.””
And he says it right after having said,
“As one who has baptised far too many who have fallen away from Christ and now serve Satan, I still baptise on profession of faith and a pledge of a good conscience toward God. And i imagine I still baptize people who will fall away later, and I’m not losing any sleep over it.”
Finally, he accuses,
“Or to put it less delicately, you share the same authority in infant baptisms as does the RCC. Your church tells you to go for it.”
My response:
From the first two quotations listed above, I’d say, you just shot yourself in the foot, Mr. Bigelow. On top of that, infant baptism, like the doctrine of the Trinity, is arrived at by good and necessary consequence from Scripture alone. Your “Rome” mudflinging missed its target and left its throwers hands covered in the mud trying to be flung.
All throughout church history, this doctrine has been upheld by Scripture and thoroughly taught from scripture. Rome errs in falling back on traditions that are destroyed by Scripture. All the Reformers, from Luther, to Calvin, to Zwingli (and others) recognized this doctrine of infant baptism in Scripture and they clearly draw it out and defend it against the heretical wiles of the anabaptists using Scripture alone. (Baptists mainly use their own personal concerns about possible twisting of the truth by covenant children regarding the necessity of confessing the faith signified in baptism as a scripturally unwarranted aversion to the commands given by God).
Credo-baptists, though no friends of the anabaptists in almost all respects, err with regard to the proper position of covenant children in the church. We know they are holy to the Lord, even on account of a single parent being of the church. We know from Proverbs 22:6 that we are called to raise a child in the way that he should go that he might not depart from that way (note, he is raised IN the way). Indeed, Ephesians 6:1-4 affirms that the children of believers are children of the covenant. To whom was the law given? Was it to those outside? No! It was given to God’s covenant people that they might put to death the deeds of the flesh and look to the Christ for their salvation. Here, in the New Testament, it is confirmed that children of believers belong to the church. That baptism is the new sign of the covenant replacing the old sign of circumcision (which was for male children only [pointing to Christ]) is shown to be a fuller sign than circumcision in Acts 8:12 where it is noted that both men and women alike were being baptized. Nevertheless, Colossians 2 clearly shows the covenantal tie between circumcision and baptism. And furthermore the Lord Jesus Christ promises of infants (belonging to parents who brought them before Him) that to them belong the kingdom of heaven after rebuking his disciples for trying to hinder them from coming to Him.
I think the following quote from Zwingli is appropriate here (note he is confessing his faith in the teachings of Scripture). He writes, “I, believe also that the universal, visible Church is one, while it maintains that true confession, of which we have already spoken. I believe also that all belong to this Church who give their adherence to it according to the rule and promise of God’s Word. I believe that to this Church belong Isaac, Jacob, Judah and all who were of the seed of Abraham, and also those infants whose parents in the first beginnings of the Christian Church, through the preaching of the apostles, were won to the cause of Christ. For if Isaac and the rest of the ancients had not belonged to the Church, they would not have received the Church’s token, circumcision. Since these, then, were members of the Church, infants and children belonged to the primitive Church. Therefore I believe and know that they were sealed by the sacrament of baptism. For children also make a confession, when they are offered by their parents to the Church, especially since the promise offers them to God, which is made to our infants no less, but even far more amply and abundantly, than formerly to the children of the Hebrews.
These are the grounds for baptizing and commending infants to the Church, against which all the weapons and war engines of the Anabaptists avail nothing. For not only are they to be baptized who believe, but they who confess, and they who, according to the promise of God’s Word, belong to the Church. For otherwise even the apostles would not have baptized anyone, since no apostle had absolute evidence regarding the faith of one confessing and calling himself a Christian. For Simon the impostor, Ananias, Judas, and no one knows who, were baptized when they declared their adherence to Christ, even though they did not have faith. On the other hand, Isaac was circumcised as an infant without declaring his adherence or believing, but the promise acted in his behalf. But since our infants are in the same position as those of the Hebrews, the promise also declares their adherence to our Church and makes confession. Hence, in reality baptism, like circumcision (I am speaking of the sacrament of baptism) pre-supposes nothing but one of two things, either confession, i.e., a declaration of allegiance or a covenant, i.e., a promise.” -this passage is taken out of a letter entitled, “From Ulrich Zwingli, An Account of the Faith of Huldereich Zwingli Submitted to the Roman Emperor Charles (3 July 1530)”. It can be read here, http://pages.uoregon.edu/sshoemak/323/texts/zwingli.htm
We confess that in baptizing our infants, the sacrament of baptism signifies that the promise of God is for those who believe and for their children (Acts 2:39). Thus, we give them the sign in faithful obedience to Christ. Should they grow to deny their baptism, how is that any different than your own instance listed above where you give the sign to those to whom the promise applies, namely, those who confess Christ. I will admit, though, that much sleep is lost over said covenant children and also all others who are baptized only to eventually deny their baptism; much inward groaning and many hopeful prayer is given on their behalf that they might repent and believe; much like Paul wished that he were accursed on account of his fellow Israelites to whom rightly “…belong[ed] the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises (Romans 9:4).” But our faith is always in God who secretly elects, knowing that (though it is painful and discouraging when anyone denies their baptism) it is no failure of His promise when one who has received the sign of the covenant proves to be outside. Indeed, “God knows those who are His” (Numbers 16:5, 2 Timothy 2:19) as He always has, nevertheless, the sign of the covenant is given.
Ted says – “do you reformed guys sneak up on people, rip them off the street, sprinkle water on them, and tell them they are now externally in the covenant? No? How ’bout your neighbors kids? No?
Of course not. So why do you do it to infants?”
Erik says – None of the people you describe are my kids, the children of Christian parents.
1 Cor. 7.14 – “For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”
The last 4 paragraphs of Belgic 34:
“For that reason we detest the error of the Anabaptists who are not content with a single baptism once received and also condemn the baptism of the children of believers. We believe our children ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as little children were circumcised in Israel on the basis of the same promises made to our children.
And truly, Christ has shed his blood no less for washing the little children of believers than he did for adults.
Therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of what Christ has done for them, just as the Lord commanded in the law that by offering a lamb for them the sacrament of the suffering and death of Christ would be granted them shortly after their birth. This was the sacrament of Jesus Christ.
Furthermore, baptism does for our children what circumcision did for the Jewish people. That is why Paul calls baptism the “circumcision of Christ.”^77″
^76 Matt. 28:19 ^77 Col. 2:11
Ted says – “You teach people before you sprinkle ‘em, in part, because to do otherwise is to violate the part of Jesus’ words you left off: “teaching them to obey me in all things” which command is written with the expectation that those who embrace Jesus commands will obey Him by being baptized.”
Erik says – Why do you assume the teaching has to be prior to baptism? Why can’t you teach them after – throughout the 18 years you have them at home? Do you honestly think you have taught someone to obey Jesus in all things before you baptize them as a believer? I’ve seen 8, 9, 10 year old kids receive believer’s baptism.
Ted says – “The fact that reformed folks do it one way with their own kids (but won’t with other kids), and another way with adults shows an inconsistency with Mat. 28:19-20. Speaking of consistency, when Jesus commanded that those baptized should obey him in all things, did that include the taking of communion?”
Erik says – How does a church baptize someone else’s kids? What does that even mean? If someone comes to faith as an adult and is not baptized a Reformed Church will baptize them. We can’t make them revert to infancy and baptize them, duh. Let’s stick to baptism for now. Zrim had some comments on the Reformed take on communion above that I will refer to.
Ted says – “OK. Show me the text that commands, or exemplifies infants being baptized.”
Erik says – I’ll provide that single proof text when you provide the one for the Trinity. You really don’t have a single proof text to prove that infant children of believers should not be baptized. If it were that simple there wouldn’t be an argument.
You keep hanging around here and we’ll win you over!
Ted, though I think there is plenty of biblical precedent for frequency, my point wasn’t about its prescription. It was how infrequency seems to make more out of the sacraments than is warranted, and conversely how regularity and routine lend more sobriety. I think of the Scottish Highland Presbyterians who practice a communion season much like the medieval church observed once a year (or even my own URC which practices quarterly with a preparatory service). There is a load of fanfare and hype that seems not only unbecoming but tends also to exalt the sacraments in a way that is unbiblical and un-Reformed.
As far as an on-line resource for the in/visible church distinction, I don’t have anything readily at my fingertips. I know it’s intramural, but if you can locate any literature on the Federal Vision debate you’ll find this distinction being made by the anti-FVs. FVs tend to also be PCs.
P.S. the PCA we attend when visiting our hometown practices weekly. The evangies who visit find it, and every other aspect of the worship, “too Catholic.” A sure sign that something is being done right. But it’s not a move to “bring revival.” It’s an effort to build up the saints and to take advantage of what God has designated
…to nurture and sustain our faith. Why anybody would want to neglect God’s bounty is beyond me.
Zrim –
PCA BCO, 56—4, g says:
That children by Baptism, are solemnly received into the bosom of the Visible Church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers; and that all who are baptized in the name of Christ, do renounce, and by their Baptism are bound to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh.
If I can apply the BCO of the PCA to your statements, one outside your visible church (like myself) reads the last statement “to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh” as only being done by regenerate people, because we are thinking Scripturally. Yet you say that in baptism “When we baptize we are marking children as outward members of the church, not inward and not as presumptively regenerate.”
I assume you all don’t intentionally want to frustrate these dear little ones, but your system seems fraught with temptation. These little ones are *bound* by baptism to do something they can’t since you admit they aren’t regenerate. And to make matters worse, you all believe communion to be a means of grace to help “fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh,” but this you also deny these little ones who by baptism are to be taught to observe all the Lord teaches, including the obedience of communion, Mat. 28:19-20.
This is why I say in the reformed system they are baptized out of obedience to the church, not out of obedience to Scripture, which is analogous to Rome, whose baptism reformed folks regard as valid.
Zrim says – “As far as an on-line resource for the in/visible church distinction” – I would recommend the OPC paper responding to the Federal Vision. It is an excellent document. I know it is online.
Ted – Not to butt in, but Reformed people don’t regard Rome’s baptism as valid because we agree with them about the meaning of baptism, but because it is Trinitarian.
You raise good points about baptism binding people to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh. Keep in mind that we believe that God owes no one salvation. He requires all people to obey His perfect law, but only those that He has given the gift of faith will be able to do it (and it is actually Christ who does it for them). The starting point is not a world in which everyone starts on a level playing field and can either choose Christ or reject Him. It is a world in which all are born into sin and God graciously saves some.
When it comes down to it Reformed people are not big believers in the concept of free will. At least not free will to do the right thing.
Erik – ” Reformed people are not big believers in the concept of free will” – except in infants who have been enabled to fight sin, world, and devil through baptism but not regeneration?
BTW, Steely Dan forever. Um, sorta.
Can you fetch me a link to the OPC paper?