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
But, Ted, what is the alternative? To treat children of believers like little pagans? Even when credos perform their dedications they demonstrate the intuitive sense that they aren’t and so thankfully don’t actually treat them the way their system seems to demand. So while I understand your concern here, I also wonder if you see how it cuts both ways. From my experience, credos may not formally and sacramentally mark their children as specially set apart like paedos, but otherwise treat them as if they have. On what grounds do you treat your children this way? By so-called “dedications”? You ask paedos where the Bible explicitly commends baptism for them, but where o where pray tell is there any explicit or implicit biblical warrant for that special act?
I also wonder if you can see how the Reformed understanding of how the sacraments have different functions makes room for the complexities of being human at different stages in redemptive history: baptism marks but doesn’t save, is a lifelong signal of God’s grace and initiative toward a completely helpless and sinful creature, requiring nothing on his behalf, which then compels him to consider himself specially set apart and thus responsible, with the help of God’s continual grace, to take personal ownership of what God has declared of him at birth and respond in either affirmation or rejection. In other words, the sacraments function in such a way as to recognize both the frailty and responsibility of being human in the face of God.
Ted, you asked, “So why do you do it to infants?”
Because Jesus told us to.
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?
mcmark: I am not going to talk about water baptism on this blog, nor even about the contrast between the Abrahamic and the new covenants. And I am not interested in the genealogy of Protestant converts to Rome. A guy like Sungenis came from Campbellite (an extreme Arminian, worse than Sandemanian form of credobaptism) through Westminster East and Harold Camping and out on the other side as a Roman Catholic. At best, a genealogy question concerning Sungenis would not be so much about the subjects of water baptism but about the ancient tradition of “baptismal regeneration.”
I do want to respond a bit to Terry’s questions. Mainly I don’t understand the questions. Is Terry asking if we have to know about the doctrine of justification in order to know the God who justifies? Is Terry asking if we have to know the gospel in order to be justified by God’s sovereign grace? Is Terry saying that the doctrine of justification is not part of the doctrine of the gospel? I ask these questions because I don’t know what he’s asking.
Of course, none of us judges who is justified and condemned in an infallible way. Not even Romanists, with the anathemas of Trent, want to say with absolute certainty that anybody is condemned (even though they do want to say that some are “saints”) None of us is infallible in our exegesis, in our posts, in our friendships, etc. We all know these things.
Some of us delight in the role of Socrates: I know nothing for certain, but I know for certain that that you know nothing….My point is that we all make judgments, even if we don’t claim to be infallible about. them. We don’t content ourselves with “the invisible church”, unless we are “spiritualists” (the left wing, the revivalist opponents of the anabaptists). Is at least one mark of a church the gospel? What then is the gospel? Is the gospel something different from “orthodoxy”.
To talk about “equally orthodox” denies the antithesis and makes everything relative, a continuum. Orthodoxy implies that which is un-orthodox (heresy, a choice against the agreed truth). Every inclusion is also an exclusion. Every excluding is already an including. If you insist that God saves elect sinners apart from the gospel, then you set yourself apart from us who teach that God uses His word as a means in regeneration/effectual call. The gospel is the power of salvation, according to I Corinthians 1.
Terry: 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
mark: Nobody identifies the imputed righteousness with doctrine. 1. But in the gospel doctrine the righteousness of God is revealed, according to Romans 1:16-17, 2, Nobody wants to substitute the righteousness with doctrine about the righteousness. Doctrine is not imputed. Doctrine is what the elect are delivered to when they become servants of righteousness (Romans 6), and there is no conversion without “belief in the truth” (II Thess 2:13) 3.
Not doctrine but righteousness is what God imputes. We learn that God does not simply declare some sinners righteous without any basis for doing so. God does not simply give a new status, without any forensic basis. God places the elect into Christ’s death, credits them that death , that doing, that righteousness, that blood (the Bible doesn’t use the same word all the time to teach the same truth)
The Holy Spirit of truth does not use lies and falsehoods (notice the antithesis, not “less orthodox”) in conversion but rather teaches the truth so that the sheep hear the voice of the Shepherd and do not follow strangers. There is no faith without an object of faith, and thus no faith without some knowledge of who Christ is and what Christ did. Faith in Mormonism is not tiny faith or inadequate faith, such that one can gradually grow into orthodoxy without ever repenting of Mormon.
Sure did write a lot words, Terry, for not really knowing what you were trying to say! Help me out.
Ephesians 3:14-19 “For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts (minds) through faith – that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to COMPREHEND with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to KNOW the love of Christ that SURPASSES KNOWLEDGE, that you be filled with all the fullness of God”
There is a difference between knowing something,and knowing everything. If we have to know everything to know anything, then we know nothing. But Romanism is knowing and believing the opposite of the truth. There is a big difference between growing IN faith, and the idea of growing into faith without ever learning to be ashamed of past idolatry.
II Thessalonians 2::10 “and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to LOVE THE TRUTH and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may BELIEVE WHAT IS FALSE, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not
BELIEVE THE TRUTH but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the first-fruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and BELIEF IN THE TRUTH. 14 To this He CALLED YOU THROUGH OUR GOSPEL, so that you will obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were TAUGHT BY US, either by our spoken word or by our letter.”
“The entrance of thy word giveth light” — Psalm 119:130.
“The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” John 6:63.
“In Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel” — 1 Corinthians 4:15.
“Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we would be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures” — James 1:18.
“Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever” — 1 Peter 1:23.
“He that received seed into the good ground, is he that heareth the Word, and UNDERSTANDS it; which also beareth fruit” — Matthew 13:23.
“Ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you” — John 15:3.
“Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth” — John 17:17.
“God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed, from the heart (mind), the standard of DOCTRINE into which ye were delivered”— Romans 6:17.
“The gospel of Christ — is the power of God unto salvation, to as many as believeth” Romans 1:16.
“The gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved” — 1 Corinthians 15:1, 2.
“The word of the cross is to us who are saved the power of God” — 1 Corinthians 1:18.
Ted – We need to keep working on this. You miss the point by using the word “enabled”. The one thing you are still missing is that we are not saying that baptism enables just any child to fight sin, world, and devil.
Look at it this way: Baptism is a “sign” for all covenant children – those who are part of the visible church by way of their believing parents. It is a “seal” for those who are elect, those who have true faith in Jesus Christ. This is where the visible/invisible distinction is important. All children of believers receive the sign. For some it is a seal.
You don’t have to agree because all of this is an outgrowth of a Reformed understanding of Scripture. You should try to accurately understand us, though. I think you are trying.
If you have time you should read through the whole Belgic (and Heidelberg). They aren’t that long and after reading them you really can understand basic Reformed theology pretty well. There is a lot of beautiful stuff there even if one is not Reformed. There are also a lot of shots at Rome which I know you will like (ha, ha!)
Here is the OPC paper: It’s a really nice piece of work.
http://www.opc.org/GA/justification.pdf
A way I think about it that makes it really clear is that in the OT all of Israel (males, anyway) were physically circumcised but only some had circumcised hearts (had faith in God and were saved). Today in the church it is the same with baptism. All covenant children receive the sign of baptism but it is only a seal for those who have faith in Christ and are saved.
The covenant people are always a mixed body visibly.
Ted says, “…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.”
The little ones must be kept from the Lord’s table because unlike baptism, Scriptures command that communion requires discernment of the body (1 Corinthians 11:27-29).
As per your objections regarding the clarity of the covenant child’s standing, I should think you might be more cautious. Doesn’t Paul say in Romans 9 that those who were the children of Israel, having necessarily received the sign of the covenant, were not necessarily of Israel? He further says that to them should have rightly belonged all the blessings of the covenant but for the election of God. Are you objecting to God’s command in giving this covenant sign to all of Israel? Might you call Him unjust for commanding that the sign be given to them and that they would, by right of being born of parents who were of Israel, have every reason to hope to receive all the blessings of God? I should think there to be the same parallel for those born of parents who are of the new covenant. The church gives them the visible sign of baptism before the whole assembly that they might be raised in the instruction of the Lord. Nonetheless, though those who are in the church are visible to our eyes even as Paul’s fellow Israelites were visible to his eyes, we know and teach that God’s secret election, according to His will alone, is not visible. This is apparently in your view already with adults because you said before that you baptize folks who later leave and live in sin, though for a time you certainly must have considered them to be members of the church.
DGH: “Ted, you asked, “So why do you do it to infants?” Because Jesus told us to.”
OK. I’ll bite. Where did he tell us to baptize infants? The Bible, the Magisterium, or the Confessions?
Nice post, Luke. Very solid.
Zrim – “But, Ted, what is the alternative? To treat children of believers like little pagans?”
We raise them to believe God is their Father and Christ is their Savior, not because the ecclesia has claim on them, but because God does. We don’t do baby dedications, because it teaches people, implicitly, that their little ones are saved by a churchly act. Reformed people expect their members to be skilled exegetes of their church documents. We don’t.
Zrim – “the sacraments function in such a way as to recognize both the frailty and responsibility of being human in the face of God”
That’s all fine on paper, but it isn’t true to the way unbelief works in the human heart. Infant baptisms and “presence” communions have convinced millions they are going to heaven, are God’s favored, and can live in sin while being assured of heaven.
Ted, Acts 2:38-39 for starters.
Erik – “You miss the point by using the word “enabled”.
OK. “responsible”
Erik – “The covenant people are always a mixed body visibly.”
There is no “visible covenant people” today. This because in the New Covenant ALL have their sins removed, and ALL know the Lord. You are either in the covenant, or you ain’t, and there aren’t any x-ray specs to see who is and who isn’t. Its a tension of invisibility established by Christ that Baptists live with and Reformed and RC try to control.
Baptists refuse to bring people into the church whom we know aren’t (yet) meant to be members of the visible ecclesia, precisely because we believe in the New Covenant. While Reformed and Catholic claim to be the visible church, we don’t. We’re just a local church like the kind Christ assayed in Rev. 2-3.
Ted, the book-length argument is found in Christian Baptism by John Murray. I think … oooh, it’s on You Tube … Richard Pratt has a book and now a YT video entitled “Why We Baptize Our Children.”
I always love free resources.
Anyways, here’s the command:
And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.” — Gen 17.9 – 10.
Now here’s the reasoning.
(1) The command was given to Abraham as a part of the Abrahamic Covenant (not, as many Baptist and anabaptist apologists mistakenly argue, as part of the Old Covenant).
(2) The sign was a sign of cleansing from sin (Rom 2.28 – 29 et al)
(3) We who are in Christ have been adopted as Abraham’s children, and have therefore been brought under the terms of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gal 3.29).
(4) The sign of our inclusion into that covenant is baptism, because that is the sign of our inclusion in Christ (Gal 3.27) that makes us Abraham’s children by consequence.
(5) The proper obedience to the command in Genesis is therefore to baptize our children.
(6) And we baptize both male and female because of the broadening of the Abrahamic covenant indicated in Gal 3.28.
I would argue that the most natural reading of Acts 16.15 and 16.31 – 34 is to understand those as examplars for the readers’ households.
In other words, the debate over “were there really kids in Lydia’s household?” is less important than Luke’s intent: Lydia baptized her household; so should you.
Objections:
(1) Obj.: The children don’t have faith; how can they receive the sign of faith?
Resp.: Abraham’s children did not have faith, yet they received the sign of faith. Signs are given from God to us to represent an objective truth: Believe and you will be cleansed. It is neither necessary nor possible to restrict baptism to ‘those who believe’; rather, we should obey God’s command and baptize all those who profess faith, and their households.
(2) Obj.: All of the baptisms in the NT are of adults.
Resp.: Actually, this is not proved. But even if it were, it would not prove that all baptisms should be of adults. For the apostles were proclaiming the Gospel to the first generation of Christians. It is not therefore remarkable in the least that all those whom they baptized were adult converts. And their households.
What now of the second generation?
—
But about that Reformed — conversion to Rome connection. Do you have actual numbers to show that Reformed folk are more likely to convert to Rome?
Ted – “Baptists refuse to bring people into the church whom we know aren’t (yet) meant to be members of the visible ecclesia, precisely because we believe in the New Covenant.”
Erik – Are you an Arminian who believes that people can be genuinely saved for a time and then through their own unfaithfulness lose their salvation? If you are, then I think you are being logically consistent with all you are saying.
I don’t think you are right, though, if you are an Arminian, because you are having to ignore a lot of really inconvenient passages about election that are all over the Old & New Testament. If you think Al Gore identified “An Inconvenient Truth” lets talk about election…
Luke – “I should think there to be the same parallel for those born of parents who are of the new covenant. The church gives them the visible sign of baptism”
Which church? The Roman Catholic? The New Covenant is markedly different than the Old, and necessitates ecclesial practices submitted to it, not the Old.
Great point on 1 Cor. 11:27-29. Now apply that discernment to baptism.
DGH: “Ted, Acts 2:38-39 for starters.”
Great. How many Presby infants are repenting of their sins?
Ted – As a non-Reformed guy you also see more radical discontinuity between the OT & NT. One of the things that won me over to Reformed theology is the continuity between the OT & NT. I never encountered a non-Reformed minister who handled the OT in a way that made sense to me. Mostly just talk about “Bible Heroes” (ignoring the fact that those people were really no better than us for the most part).
Ted – You ignored verse 39:
39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off —for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
The adults hear the call to repentance (it was just gibberish to the baby’s ears) and then apply what they have heard to themselves and their families.
Ted – As a minister with such low-church views, why would I want to come to your church? What if I could learn all I need to learn about Jesus on blogs and I could find Christian friends online. That’s another place where individual Christians come together. Plus, it’s free. Supporting a visible chuch and paying a minister’s salary is quite expensive. I would rather save the money AND sleep in on Sunday mornings!
Jeff – “We who are in Christ have been adopted as Abraham’s children, have therefore been brought under the terms of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gal 3.29).”
That’s not what Paul says. He never mentions terms which Christ fulfilled), but rather realized inheritance (nothing left to earn, iow). What’s more, Gal. 3:27, includes that New Covenant word ALL, “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” This has to be the spiritual baptism “without hands” performed by Christ Himself at the moment of inclusion into His body. Unless you want to argue all baptized infants are full members (3:28) in the body of Christ and then some/many get thrown out later upon unbelief?
I’ll hold off on the discussion of household baptisms. But thank you for such a logical and cogent explanation of the Reformed (and RC) position on infant baptism.
Jeff – “But about that Reformed — conversion to Rome connection. Do you have actual numbers to show that Reformed folk are more likely to convert to Rome?”
Go to CTC web site and read through the bios of the contributors. All come from infant baptist backgrounds just prior to breast-stroking the Tiber. That was my original point. But moreover, who are CTC reaching out to for new converts, Baptists, or Prots? And they are being successful (Stellman).
Consider: Rome ever calls upon itself for moral reform but never doctrinal reform. Prots ever call on Rome for doctrinal reform, not realizing that Rome returns the favor and snags some of her best and brightest. Why?
Erik- “The adults hear the call to repentance (it was just gibberish to the baby’s ears) and then apply what they have heard to themselves and their families.”
Does that not mean then the promise and the command were aimed at 2 different audiences? Then why does the command for adults and not infants go beyond repentance to baptism?
Jeff – my comment should be: “He never mentions terms (which Christ fulfilled)”
Ted, you may not do dedications, but what you said was that you “will occasionally have parents come down to dedicate them publicly to the raising of their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” So where is the biblical warrant for this act of worship? And Reformed don’t expect their people to be skilled and erudite exegetes. They expect them to fulfill the vows they took, one of which is: “Do you agree to submit in the Lord to the government and discipline of this church and, in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life, to heed its discipline?” You keep saying that we baptize because our church compels us to as if this is a bad thing. But we are institutional Christians, and some of us are unashamed of our high view of the church. God works through her authority for own good. And the minute two or more of you get together and counsel one of your people, you’re doing the same thing. Why are you more spiritual when you do it but we’re latent Romanists?
You say, “Infant baptisms and “presence” communions have convinced millions they are going to heaven, are God’s favored, and can live in sin while being assured of heaven.” And your parental dedications don’t have the potential to yield the same thing? Please, Ted. I cut my spiritual teeth in your tradition and could easily point to plenty of sanctified and extra-biblical activities that promote spiritual externalism. The question is whether anything has biblical warrant. Baptism is all over Scripture as a category. Where is anything remotely resembling dedication?
Go to CTC web site and read through the bios of the contributors. All come from infant baptist backgrounds just prior to breast-stroking the Tiber. That was my original point. But moreover, who are CTC reaching out to for new converts, Baptists, or Prots? And they are being successful (Stellman).
Ted, between you laying Roman conversions at the feet of paedobaptism and Trueman blaming 2k, you both have a remarkable way of missing forest for trees. When I read those conversionist stories it’s all about discovering that the RCC is the church that Jesus founded. It’s a ecclesiology on uber-steriods. Stellman is a little different, in that he is using a Protestant method to come to Catholic conclusion about salvation. But never do I see anything about sacramentology, particularly baptism.
Zrim – “Where is anything remotely resembling dedication?”
Have you not read about the baby Jesus in the temple? Or Hannah and Samuel?
Just kidding.
We do parent dedications in the evening, which is essentially a time of prayer for them and their children, accompanied by some teaching from Scripture on parental responsibility (Eph. 6:4). That’s how it fits into worship, and I think even the toughest regulative critic could be OK with that.
Zrim – “Why are you more spiritual when you do it but we’re latent Romanists?”
It’s not about who is more spiritual but about embracing an ecclesiology that promotes the gospel and protects the sheep from bad men and bad doctrines.
Ted, in case you missed it, plenty of ex-Baptists or non-denominational Protestants are also Roman Catholics. They just don’t have a website. But when they become aware of how think low-church Protestantism is and how silly its worship can be (they may receive a wake up call when they hear the bad liturgical music in RC parishes), they don’t just swim but take a power boat ride across the Tiber. You should get out more.
Zrim – “But never do I see anything about sacramentology, particularly baptism.”
Here’s a guy who went to WTS Escondido and ended up in Rome:
“I ended up rejecting Dispensationalism; further study led me to the writings of Michael Horton, who emphasized the centrality of the preached Word as well as the regular administration of the Sacraments (which were, in good Protestant form, two: baptism and communion). I came to greatly appreciate the sacraments as well as the liturgical form of worship in contrast to the often inconsistent and subjectivistic tendencies of the majority of evangelicalism….
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/05/joshua-lims-story-a-westminary-seminary-california-student-becomes-catholic/
“When my professors or the minister would point to the benefit of the Lord’s Supper, it was hard to convince myself that it had any value since it was the visible Word, but nothing more or less than that. Yes, one is strengthened in faith by partaking of the Lord’s Supper–but it is not literally Christ’s body and blood, only sacramentally so, which is only further explained through vague terms such as ‘sacramental union,’ which no one actually seems to know the meaning of, only that it is neither Catholic nor Zwinglian. Issues such as this caused me to question the notion that confessional Reformed Protestantism was somehow more ‘traditional’ than broader evangelicals. If there was historical continuity with the early Church, for instance, it seemed to be purely superficial. Yes, the sacraments were celebrated, baptism was administered to children, but the reasons why they were celebrated or administered differed substantially from that of the early Church. In other words, even if there was seeming continuity with tradition, the reasons behind such a continuity were just as innovative and arbitrary as the rest of evangelicalism.”
Down in the comments Burton writes: “I have also come to the conclusion that Baptism and communion probably mean and do a lot more sacramentally than I ever thought they did, and are more than the “covenantal sign” that my reformed elders tell me they are.”
Joshua L, also in the comments, writes: “There is no salvation outside of the Church, but through baptism those who are not in communion with the Catholic Church can be said to participate in the graces of the sacrament; and in this way, they are saved through the Church. I would not say that I was never a ‘true believer’ until I entered the Catholic Church, rather, I would say that apart from the Sacraments and the Church I was a believer deprived of the fullness of grace.”
IB greases the slide to one day believe the “RCC is the church that Jesus founded.” As does considering RC IBs valid. Restricting baptism to those who give a credible profession of faith doesn’t. One ancient Baptist theologian wrote a book, “Infant Baptism: A Part and Pillar of Popery.”
Ted, yes, it is about embracing an ecclesiology that promotes the gospel and protects the sheep. And as Geoff has pointed out to you in the other thread about the three marks, that’s only a Protestant church and not the Roman church. Still, compared to the Reformed apologetic for infant baptism, your biblical defense for parental dedication is less than thin, and pretty folksy. This irony, of course, of Biblicism. You accuse Protestants of unduly esteeming tradition at the expense of Scripture, but you have your own practices that seriously lack any biblical support.
DGH: ” they don’t just swim but take a power boat ride across the Tiber. You should get out more.”
I would have guessed so too but we won’t see it. The average non-regenerate type in evangelical-land already resents ecclesial authority. Why would a religious consumer addicted to free choice buy more of what he/she already disdains?
And I am a single digit handicapper on the links. I get to speak to all sorts out there.
Zrim – “You accuse Protestants of unduly esteeming tradition at the expense of Scripture, but you have your own practices that seriously lack any biblical support.”
Zrim, who claims dedications in any form convey grace or include somehow in the New Covenant? These things are not similar. You’re slashing my tires with a wisp of grass.
Prayer for parent’s child-raising, and teaching them what Scripture says about the same, “seriously lack any biblical support?
Ted,
Rom. 4:11 tells us that Abraham received “the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had”.
What did he do then? He applied the same to all the male members of his household.
Were they all believers, even if they weren’t infants? No. Yet they received the seal of righteousness by faith – again even though they didn’t necessarily believe. More to the point, God told Abraham to circumcise his seed because it was the sign of the everlasting covenant that God would be a God unto Abraham and his seed in their generations Gen. 17:7.
The reformed baptize their infants because it is the non bloody sign of the covenant of grace that replaces the bloody sign of circumcision for the covenant of grace in the OT. No more, no less, and popery doesn’t have anything to do with it, but rather NT continuity in the covenant of grace that God established with Abraham and his children in the OT.
The argument that IB is popery by baptists – I speak as an ex baptist – is superficial. One might as well ask baptists why they don’t inconsistently believe what Rome teaches about “This is my body” since the baptist argument it that they see no literal command in Scripture to baptize anybody but adult believers.
Ted, dedications (parent or child) are typically presented by credos as some sort of parallel to child baptism as an act of worship, in which case I’m still waiting to hear where the biblical warrant, as opposed to a proof-text, is for it. But if all you’re saying is that you pray for your parents to raise their children in the fear of God, ok, so do we in conjunction with baptism. Still, you seem to admit by this that children of believers have a special status and their folks have a corresponding burden to treat them not like pagans. So when Paul calls them holy do you flinch?
Bob S., and don’t forget the other discontinuity: not only male children now but also female.
Ted, you don’t know what’s going on among the students of western civilization. Maybe you should read more and play golf less.
Ted – If you become Reformed I’ll get you a free round on my boss’s golf course.
http://www.harvestergolf.com
Erik, beautiful photos of that course. But greens fees must be compensating the photographer who took them. I can play 10 rounds of golf in Michigan for that price. You’d think Iowa was on Long Island.
Ted, thanks. I’ll give this poke, then a testimony, then a defense, then leave off.
You write, That’s not what Paul says. He never mentions terms which Christ fulfilled), but rather realized inheritance (nothing left to earn, iow).
Paul says this: And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
I notice that you don’t really accept the literal meaning of these words — that those who are in Christ are considered Abraham’s offspring. Given that this is repeated in Romans 4 (“Abraham is the father of us all”), it would seem that this point is important to Paul.
Here’s the testimony. Coming out of a Baptist then anabaptist background, I was convinced that Presbyterians were those folk who ‘didn’t take the Bible seriously.’ And I poked and prodded at my Presby friends on several grounds, infant baptism being the last.
They didn’t particularly put the hard sell on me, but just asked me questions and let me work out the Scriptures for myself. Gal 3.29 was one of those.
So here’s my question to you: Why does Paul affirm, in two different places, that we are children of Abraham because of belonging to Christ? How does that affirmation fit into his argument to the Galatians?
—
You also wrote, What’s more, Gal. 3:27, includes that New Covenant word ALL, “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” This has to be the spiritual baptism “without hands” performed by Christ Himself at the moment of inclusion into His body. Unless you want to argue all baptized infants are full members (3:28) in the body of Christ and then some/many get thrown out later upon unbelief?
I would argue that baptism and circumcision both are outward signs that point to the promise of God for an inward change (cf. 1 Peter 3). Those who are ‘baptized into Christ’ in God’s eyes are those who possess that reality; those who are ‘circumcised of heart’ have that same reality.
So, outward water baptism is the sign of our inclusion; the baptism of the Spirit is the reality of that inclusion.
But if want to argue that only those who have the reality should receive the sign, then you must go back to Genesis 17 and tell God that He was mistaken to command Abraham to circumcise Ishmael.
Bob S – “He applied the same to all the male members of his household.”
Abraham had something you don’t – a command to circumcise the males, Gen 17:10ff. As a Jew, it was also commanded (Lev. 12:2-3). But in the church we require both example and precept for a mandated practice from Jesus Christ: in infant baptism we have neither. This is why some of your best and brightest are susceptible to Catholicism. They get it.
BTW, whatever blood is produced in circumcision was never considered propitiatory or sacrificial. The connection of circumcision’s blood to the blood of Christ, even when read in the reformed confessions, is just weird. The point of circumcision was not that it produced blood (a cut on the finger could have done that) but that it was the male sex organ being cut, likely displaying that sin is nowhere more evident in man’s sexual proclivities.
Bob S – “ One might as well ask baptists why they don’t inconsistently believe what Rome teaches about “This is my body” since the baptist argument it that they see no literal command in Scripture to baptize anybody but adult believers.”
Could be the fact that with His literal body he was holding in His hand something that wasn’t.
Zrim – “you seem to admit by this that children of believers have a special status and their folks have a corresponding burden to treat them not like pagans. So when Paul calls them holy do you flinch?”
Not at all. They are special in that they are in the circle of blessing of a believing parent, even when defiled by divorce (there is no mention of covenant in the context, just divorce). We just don’t want to communicate to them that church membership is a birthright and that God is their grandfather because of Mommy and Daddy’s faith in church dogma.
DGH – “Ted, you don’t know what’s going on among the students of western civilization. Maybe you should read more and play golf less.”
I call on all elders in the OPC to immediately bring Darryl up on heresy charges. And I call as my first witness Bubba Watson.
Erik – “Ted – If you become Reformed I’ll get you a free round on my boss’s golf course.”
Slope of 140… 7300 yards. Dude, I’m sleeping with the 3 forms of unity under the pillow tonite.
Jeff – “Why does Paul affirm, in two different places, that we are children of Abraham because of belonging to Christ? How does that affirmation fit into his argument to the Galatians?”
Because Jew or Gentile alike comes into spiritual connection to Abraham’s example and Christ’s body by faith, and not by receiving symbols of covenant inclusion.
Jeff – “But if [you] want to argue that only those who have the reality should receive the sign, then you must go back to Genesis 17 and tell God that He was mistaken to command Abraham to circumcise Ishmael.”
Why would I want to submit the New Covenant to the Abrahamic Covenant? One is far superior than the other, and it’s not the one you want to send me to for allegorical obedience, i.e., baptism for circumcision.
Jeff – “outward water baptism is the sign of our inclusion; the baptism of the Spirit is the reality of that inclusion.”
I agree. Which is why Gal. 3:27 “has to be the spiritual baptism “without hands” performed by Christ Himself at the moment of inclusion into His body” and not infant baptism.
D.G. – You have a lifetime free pass. I can play for free whenever I want but I have neither the skill nor the time. That is a tremendous shame.
Zrim – “you seem to admit by this that children of believers have a special status and their folks have a corresponding burden to treat them not like pagans. So when Paul calls them holy do you flinch?”
RS: But they are no more holy than the unbelieving spouse is made by a believing spouse. For you to use I Cor 7:14 (see below for the text) as a reason for baptism of an infant would provide the same reason to baptize an unbelieving spouse. The word for “sanctified” is a verb in both instances in terms of the unbelieving spouse being sanctified by a believing spouse. The word “holy” in terms of the child is an adjective. Both come from the same root word. In centuries past some have seen this as simply declaring the child as legitimate rather than illegitimate. But whatever the case, until people start baptizing unbelieving spouses based on this text they should not baptize infants on the basis of this text.
1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.
Ted,
If the baptist position is correct in light of Rom 4:11, circumcision would be a believers only affair.
It’s not. Why not?
Two, we have the OT command/precept and example and then the substitution of baptism for circumcision in the NT. IOW for the P&R, if it is commanded in the OT, it is commanded in the NT, unless it is repealed. The baptist paradigm is that if a OT command is not repeated in the NT, it is repealed. Those are the respective presuppositions being brought to the table are they not?
IB is why some of the P&R’s “ best and brightest are susceptible” to Romanism? Man, that is below the belt. Longwinded and loquacious, verbose and voluminous, yes. The best and the brightest, no.
Bryan couldn’t even answer the Mormons that came to his door, which event provoked his search for the necessary infallible apostolic authority – just like the Mormons – in the papacy/magisterium of Rome. That the canon had closed; that God providentially has preserved his written Word in his church that was preached into existence through the spoken word/traditions of the apostles; that Joseph Smith was neither prophet or apostle; that the Book of Mormon contradicts Scripture on the doctrine of God and Christ; all these elementary truths and doctrines eluded Mr. Cross, the protestant par excellent which then necessitated his confession of the truth of Romanism. We think not.
Rather we think the CtC is more of a theological fraud and floozy affair, if not boob bait for the bubbas. Time and time again these supposed ex protestants reveal great ignorance of the reformed protestant faith, as well as a marked inability to frame an argument, never mind distinguish between a fallacy or factual error. IOW Rome is a vicious wicked and stupefying fideism that tramples on Scripture, reason and history whenever it gets a chance.
One could make a better case that since both Rome and arminianism affirm free will, that evangelicalism is already half way to Rome, but without all the window dressing and pomp. Add to that evangelicalism like Rome has violated the Second Commandment regarding worship and either hierarchy or one man rule reigns in independent community churches and what you have again is romanism in principle, much more that the natural religious man is a papist at heart.
While a genuine reformed church is reformed in doctrine, worship and government, the CtC bunch don’t seem to demonstrate that they ever understood that.
While circumcision was a bloody sign, as was the passover, it is true that circumcision never represented the atonement. Its significance was also more about original sin and corruption which was inevitably passed on to man’s offspring, much more that his seed was corrupt to begin with rather than proclivity to sexual sin, which takes a back seat to man’s real proclivity, which is idolatry.
Erik, I’m free to speak at your congregation any month between April and Oct.
D.G. – I’ll tell Rev. Lucero. He’ll be thrilled! ha, ha!
You can bring Dave Van Drunen with you. He has something in the beginning of “Living in God’s 2k” about always being willing to accept free golf.
Bob – “Ted, If the baptist position is correct in light of Rom 4:11, circumcision would be a believers only affair.” It’s not. Why not?”
Because the Abrahamic Covenant is not the New Covenant. Progressive revelation, my friend.
Bob – “Two, we have the OT command/precept and example and then the substitution of baptism for circumcision in the NT.”
Where? If that’s how you want Col. 2:11-12 to dance for infants, then you better embrace the FV since Col. 2:13 attaches regeneration to the baptism of Col. 2:12. And FV is a just a slow doggy paddle across the Tiber, no? See, we’re all becoming Roman now.
Bob – “The best and the brightest, no.”
Who better to lead the Leithart investigation than Stellman?
Richard – Problem is, a lot of unbelieving spouses tell you to get lost when you try to baptize them, infants not so much. Or maybe holy but unbelieving spouses do worse. They say the wife of Diocletian, the all time persecutor of the faithful, was a Christian.
Bob S: If the baptist position is correct in light of Rom 4:11, circumcision would be a believers only affair. It’s not. Why not?
RS: The context of Romans 4:11 demonstrates that the real subject Paul is speaking of has to do with the timing of Abraham’s faith and then circumcision. The nation of Israel was the physical seed of Abraham (the continuance of the promise in Genesis 3 of the seed of the woman who would crush the serpent’s head) intended to bring forth the Messiah. Now the real seed of Abraham is Christ and all those who are in Christ. One must be in Christ to be the seed of Abraham, that is, the true and spiritual seed of Abraham. To get at the issue of baptism one can simply ask who the children of Abraham are. Then ask how the Gentiles are brought in and are considered to be true Jews.
Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.
Romans 4:16 For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,
Rom 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.” 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
Galatians 3:7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.
Galatians 3:29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.
Bob S: Two, we have the OT command/precept and example and then the substitution of baptism for circumcision in the NT. IOW for the P&R, if it is commanded in the OT, it is commanded in the NT, unless it is repealed. The baptist paradigm is that if a OT command is not repeated in the NT, it is repealed. Those are the respective presuppositions being brought to the table are they not?
RS: You might consider that there is now a New Covenant. When the Old Covenant is done away, then the command/precept of the Old is also done away. This is why we can have a different high priest as set out in Hebrews. It is not that circumcision has been replaced by baptism, but one issue is that circumcision pointed to the need for a new heart and baptism points to those who have been born from above and have a new heart.
Hebrews 8:13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
Hebrews 9:15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Hebrews 12:24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.
Ted Bigelow
Old Post by RS: But they are no more holy than the unbelieving spouse is made by a believing spouse. For you to use I Cor 7:14 (see below for the text) as a reason for baptism of an infant would provide the same reason to baptize an unbelieving spouse. The word for “sanctified” is a verb in both instances in terms of the unbelieving spouse being sanctified by a believing spouse. The word “holy” in terms of the child is an adjective. Both come from the same root word. In centuries past some have seen this as simply declaring the child as legitimate rather than illegitimate. But whatever the case, until people start baptizing unbelieving spouses based on this text they should not baptize infants on the basis of this text.
Ted Bigelow: Richard – Problem is, a lot of unbelieving spouses tell you to get lost when you try to baptize them, infants not so much. Or maybe holy but unbelieving spouses do worse. They say the wife of Diocletian, the all time persecutor of the faithful, was a Christian.
RS: Yes, but the command for Abraham to circumcise was to circumcise all those in his household. He circumcised slaves, servants, and all he had authority over whether they believed or not. I would think that if baptism simply replaced circumcision that employees and all those should be baptized as well.
Ted, Reformed paedobaptists also worry about the dangers of externalism, which is why good paedobaptists are also credo-communionists. A covenant child who presumes upon his baptism still has to grapple with why he’s not admitted to the table until a credible profession of faith is made.
So it remains puzzling as to why you lay so much on paedobaptism as a reason for Roman conversion among the Reformed. I’d second Bob’s suggestion that it is makes more sense to see broad evangelicals going to Rome for an assortment of possibilities.
Richard, there is no OT precept for spousal circumcision, so the point is moot in the new covenant. Discontinuity only goes so far, and for the P&R the discontinuities are from bloody ordeal to watery marking and from male children only to female children also.
Jefff: if you want to argue that only those who have the reality should receive the sign, then you must go back to Genesis 17 and tell God that He was mistaken to command Abraham to circumcise Ishmael.
mark: In context, the “old covenant” is not the Abrahamic covenant but the Mosaic covenant. But many mono-covenantalists don’t want us to ask which covenant is which. They want to read the Abrahamic covenant as if it were the new. So if God commanded something in one covenant, God must still command it. Except of course there is “ceremonial law”, which is also given by our holy God as a reflection of God’s unchanging holy nature. And so what they don’t want to keep (seventh day for example) is put in the “ceremonial” category (the accidents, not the essence).
Who are the children of Abraham? Are they “as many as He shall call”? Are they “your children”? Or are they “your chidren as many as God shall call”?
Since the sign of the Abrahamic covenant was purposely given to the non-elect, the argument from circumcision ASSUMES that the new covenant also includes the non-elect. And then it assumes that the sign of circumcision is fulfilled by water baptism, and not by the bloody death of Christ and the justified elect’s legal identification with that same one death (cut off from Adam’s body of the guilty and put in the body of Christ’s by imputation of Christ’s death.)
Who is “us all”? Dispensationalists can’t see that the land promise was a temporary part of a covenant with Abraham. Covenant theology can’t see that the genealogical priniciple was a temporary part of a covenant with Abraham. Is the “us all” our children? Are “we” promised that we shall have children?
Are our children promised that they are elect and that Christ died for them? Certainly not, and nobody here is saying that, because even in God’s covenant with Abraham, God never promised Abraham that his children would be justified. The promise of the one elect seed (Christ) wasnot a promise to Abraham’s children that they would be given grace and eternal life. The circumcision sign could go either way (covenant curse), and if the sign of water baptism is the fulfillment of that sign (signifying the same realities) why do we take comfort in a conditional promise? Those who are circumcised are obligated to do the entire law. Those who are not circumcised are also obligated to do the entire law.
ps: This would be another big discussion, but I would not assume that the fulfillment of circumcision in Colossians 2 is the same as that in Romans 2. The context of Colossians 2 (and Romans 6) is NOT about the Holy Spirit or regeneration, even though “through faith” is very much part of the picture. Faith in what? Faith in faith? Faith in the Holy Spirit? Faith in regeneration?
Not saying we need to have the Col 2 discussion here, but I am saying we need to exegete Col 2, and not simply give the reference. If Scott Hahn (Roman Catholic) can be wrong about “covenant”, so can Mike Horton. Also the pope.
Zrim – “I’d second Bob’s suggestion that it is makes more sense to see broad evangelicals going to Rome for an assortment of possibilities.”
But what can Rome sell to religious consumers that they can’t already purchase for cheaper in Colorado Springs, or Houston, or Seattle, etc.? At least RC evangelists can make a “principled argument” (to quote Mr. Tu Quoque) with P&R folks that builds on the common ground of sacramentology and “we are the true visible church founded by Jesus Christ” (TM).
That stuff just plays better in Escondido than Colorado Springs, as I’ve already shown you.