And it is going to build at the corner of South Endwright and West Gifford Roads, just down the street from where Tim Bayly struts his stuff as a godly, manly promoter of praise bands.
Actually, this is a fabrication, but I do wonder what Tim, who wonders where the Escondido men are — here’s one answer — would think of a rival church right down the road from his congregation. Tim recently tried again to tarnish the reputation of two-kingdom folks by asserting that someone like me would oppose Archbishop of Nigeria’s recent decision to form a diocese in Indianapolis.
Anglican bishops from Africa are violating parish boundaries here in these United States, planting orthodox Christian parishes where the presiding Anglican/Episcopal authorities have betrayed the faith. Is this good or bad?
Ask Darryl Hart and his fellow Escondidoites and it’s bad… Right? After all, this is the sort of thing that was done by Anglicans like Whitefield during the Great Awakening, and Darryl and his fellow Orthodox and Old Light Presbyterians oppose such violations of proper ecclesiastical boundaries. . . .
For myself, though, I’m not holding my breath waiting for Old Presbyterians to mount a campaign against men like Nigeria’s Anglican Archbishop Nicholas Okah for trampling on the proper local Anglican authorities here in Indianapolis.
Unlike Tim, I believe that the United States is and should be a free country. Unlike Tim, I don’t pine for the days of Calvin’s Geneva when civil magistrates would have run out of town priests and pastors who had come ministering without an invitation. Unlike Tim, I know what my response would be to this situation — which is, what happens in the Anglican church stays in the Anglican church.
And unlike Tim, I know that the Old Siders he disparages actually reacted the way that Tim Bayly would if a new church started right down the road, and if the new pastor said that members at Clearnote Fellowship should leave their congregation to worship at Clearword Church because Tim Bayly was an unregenerate hypocrite (which is what Gilbert Tennent said about Old Siders). I don’t know for sure, but I suspect Tim would exhibit some of his manliness and not sit by while a fellow minister called him names or took away his flock.
Funny how if you look at something you thought you understood, you end up identifying with the people whom you denigrate.
Old Life 
Thanks for the link. I like the ring also. Available at the bookstore, ding ding.
I just noticed that Darryl’s bio at Amazon says that he is working on a book on the global history of Calvinism. Will it include Calvinism in Latin America and Spain? I’m guessing Brazil might have more history connected to Calvinism.
LikeLike
“What happens in the Anglican church stays in the Anglican church.” sounds like a bumper sticker to me.
LikeLike
He does realize you’re a Machen specialist, right? Isn’t Machen the guy who formed the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions and a whole new denomination when the Mainline Presbyterians went liberal? What in the world is Bayly talking about?
LikeLike
But don’t forget the manly promotion of baptismal latitude from Clearnote of Bloomington (something Calvin’s Geneva wouldn’t have tolerated).
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: And unlike Tim, I know that the Old Siders he disparages actually reacted the way that Tim Bayly would if a new church started right down the road, and if the new pastor said that members at Clearnote Fellowship should leave their congregation to worship at Clearword Church because Tim Bayly was an unregenerate hypocrite (which is what Gilbert Tennent said about Old Siders).
RS: But then again, there was some disparagment coming toward the Tennents from the other side. Who knows, maybe some of those men were unregenerate. Remember what Jesus (New Sider) said to the Old Siders of His time. “Woe to you hypocrites.” Just because something is old does not make it true or false as well as just because something is new and exciting does not make it true or false.
I just read Tennent’s sermon on the Danger of an Unconverted Ministry. I read it quickly, but could not find where he specifically mentioned the Old Side or Old Lights. He spoke of Pharisee minsters and unconverted ministers, but a specific application to a particular group I did not find. Again, I read it quickly. But could it be that the Old Siders or Old Lights were just too sensitive in all this? Jesus told us that we would be mocked and made fun of, not to mention that we would be hated.
LikeLike
Richard Smith wrote: “Remember what Jesus (New Sider) said to the Old Siders of His time. “Woe to you hypocrites.””
GW: So, let me get this straight. Jesus is to be compared to men like Tennent (the “New Sider” and promoter of parachuch revival), who slandered sound, orthodox “Old Side” ministers of the Word by uncharitably judging them to be unregenerate (a judgment which even he later recognized to be uncharitable and, to his credit, thankfully apologized for); whereas the hypocritical Pharisees are to be compared to the orthodox Old Side Ministers who were simply defending their sheep from the pastoral encroachments of revivalists and revival-promoters like Tennent. (Yea, slander and lack of charity toward the brethren, those are real fruits of regeneration, eh? And defending the flock against potential wolves? That must be a real sign of hypocrisy.) I would suggest that you have this in reverse. Maybe you should have said: “Remember what Jesus (Old Sider) said to the New Siders of His time: “Woe to you, hypocrites.””
LikeLike
Geoff Willour: GW: So, let me get this straight. Jesus is to be compared to men like Tennent (the “New Sider” and promoter of parachuch revival),
RS: I would not say that Jesus is to be compared to anyone as that is not the point. Jesus did call many hypocrites and as such it is not necessarily wrong in all cases to call people that.
GW: who slandered sound, orthodox “Old Side” ministers of the Word by uncharitably judging them to be unregenerate (a judgment which even he later recognized to be uncharitable and, to his credit, thankfully apologized for);
RS: Why do you think that he slandered them? Why do you think that all the “Old Side” ministers were unorthodox? Could it be that he is being slandered to some degree in this?
GW: whereas the hypocritical Pharisees are to be compared to the orthodox Old Side Ministers
RS: So you do think that the Pharisees were hypocritical. Was Nicodemus hypocritical? Could it be that Tennent was correct about some and just not all? In his famous sermon on the subject, did he really call all the Old Side hypocrites?
GW: who were simply defending their sheep from the pastoral encroachments of revivalists and revival-promoters like Tennent.
RS: I suppose that would be putting a real positive spin on the situation. Wouldn’t the Pharisees (from their view) have thought of Jesus and the apostles as encroaching on their territory? Biblically speaking, what is pastoral encroachment? Is preaching the Gospel within ten miles of a church encroachment?
GW: (Yea, slander and lack of charity toward the brethren, those are real fruits of regeneration, eh? And defending the flock against potential wolves? That must be a real sign of hypocrisy.)
RS: Did Tennent really slander people? Are you so sure he had lack of charity? Were all the men really defending the flock against potential wolves or could it be that some of them, under the guise of orthodoxy, simply didn’t want the true Gospel preached in the area? Perhaps Tennent’s sermon was unwise in a few regards, but there just may be more to the story.
I would suggest that you have this in reverse. Maybe you should have said: “Remember what Jesus (Old Sider) said to the New Siders of His time: “Woe to you, hypocrites.””
LikeLike
Richard: Remember what Jesus (New Sider) said to the Old Siders of His time.
Erik: This is where you went too far, and Geoff called you on it.
It’s as if I said: Remember what Jesus (Osteen) said to the Old Siders (Richard) of His time.
I would be careful associating Jesus with any movement or cause. He had away of pointing out everyone’s unrighteousness.
I’m sure Bryan Cross would have some fancy name for what you did.
LikeLike
Richard Smith wrote: “Did Tennent really slander people? Are you so sure he had lack of charity? Were all the men really defending the flock against potential wolves or could it be that some of them, under the guise of orthodoxy, simply didn’t want the true Gospel preached in the area? Perhaps Tennent’s sermon was unwise in a few regards, but there just may be more to the story.”
GW: Brother Richard, my response to your questions will involve quotes from D.G. Hart and John Muether’s book “Seeking a Better Country: 300 Years of American Presbyterianism” (P & R Publishing) (which I highly recommend you read if you have not already done so).
“In effect, Whitefield threatened Presbyterian propriety. His methods also contravened Presbyterian decorum and order. Whitefield’s preaching could be highly emotional and theatrical. To some it looked manipulative…The popularity and fanfare of the Great Awakening, consequently, shifted the ongoing debate within the American church over ministerial qualifications from subscription and formal education to religious experience…the controversy over the awakening among Presbyterians was pivotal for upsetting an already fragile harmony. Indicative of the increasing antagonism was Gilbert Tennent’s abusive sermon, “The Danger of an Unconverted Ministry,” preached on March 8, 1740, close to the peak of Whitefield’s popularity in the middle colonies and the nadir of intransigence within the Synod of Philadelphia…In this sermon Tennent argued sensibly that unregenerate ministers should not be tolerated. Less plausible, however, was his identification of the revivals’ opponents as unregenerate ministers. In fact, Tennent followed the highly partisan tactic of conceiving of his own position as the only legitimate expression of Presbyterian faith and practice. That position included a new conception of conversion as a deep and abiding experience that transformed believers, a requirement that ministers demonstrate having experienced such a conversion, and a suspicion of ecclesiastical rules and policies that might become a barrier to the spiritual influences rippling out of the awakening…With some understatement, Charles Hodge commented on the “unhappy violence” of this sermon as “one of the principal causes of that entire alienation of feeling, which soon resulted in an open rupture.”” (pp. 60-61)
Of course, old siders would not have denied the need for repentance uno life and saving faith (conversion), since the confessional standards they adhered to (and which were based upon the teachings of Holy Scripture) taught the necessity of these saving graces. As I understand it, what they objected to were the experiential/experimental excesses advocated by pro-revivalists like Tennent, his advocacy of a crisis conversion experience being added as a qualification of ministerial ordination in addition to a credible profession of faith, good standing in church membership and sufficiency of learning.
How did the old siders react to Tennent’s abusive sermon and elitist stance? Did they respond in kind by heaping abuse and derision upon him? No. On the contrary, according to Hart & Muether: “Despite Tennent’s inflammatory sermon, the opponents of revival, who had a clear majority, sought a compromise to which both sides might agree. Tennent and his party refused such a conciliatory effort because he argued that compromise was impossible.” (p. 61) And, “…Synod demonstrated remarkable patience with the advocates of revival by passing a resolution that called on its members to contemplate the seriousness of Tennent’s and Blair’s charges “as they will answer it at the great day of Christ” and for presbyteries to make sure their members were acting appropriately with regard to the awakening. Webster observed that “it is difficult to conceive” why Tennent and Blair “were not rebuked or suspended for their representations” since the ministers against whom the revivalists inveighed were not only present but “respectable for their number, age, long-tried fidelity, and admitted ability.”” (p. 62)
If the above historical accounting is accurate, it sounds to me like Tennent and his ilk were sowing seeds of discord among his brethren. His stance on the revival question, while no doubt well intentioned and sincerely held, was (in effect at least) elitist, divisive, immature and deeply uncharitable — the opposite of the fruit of the Holy Spirit; whereas, ironically, the patience and longsuffering of his old side brethren (whom he had in effect abusively accused of being unregenerate) seems to me to have manifested much for fully the signs of true regeneration — namely the fruit of the Spirit (“love…peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, self control…”).
LikeLike
a newly minted Roman Catholic sets us straight on Pharisees:
“Sproul’s argument assumes that believing the Catholic doctrine regarding infusion entails the
error of the Pharisee in the parable. Of course a Catholic could, like the Pharisee, fall into the sin of pride. So could a Christian of any tradition, including those in the Reformed tradition. But because the sin of pride is not entailed by the Catholic doctrine of infusion, therefore the conclusion of Sproul’s argument does not follow.
The person who has received righteousness by infusion knows that he still possesses concupiscence (see the section “V. Errors Regarding the Removal of Sin Through Baptism” in “Aquinas and Trent: Part 7.”), that in comparison to the saints and angels (and God Himself) he is an unrighteous, unworthy sinner, and that he has a long, long way to go in growing in sanctification. He knows that he sins venially at least seven times a day. In the lives of the saints we find that the greater the saint, the more clearly he sees his remaining sinfulness.
That’s the paradox. And yet, that does not entail the Lutheran or Reformed notion of simul iustus et peccator, precisely because of the Catholic distinction between mortal and venial sin (see comment #58 in the “St. Augustine on Faith without Love” thread for an explanation and defense of that distinction).
In the Reformed picture, all sin (both mortal and venial) is compatible with having received extra nos imputation. Hence a person can be simultaneously justified and in mortal sin. But the Catholic
distinction between mortal and venial sin explains why mortal sin is incompatible with being in a state of grace and righteousness, while venial sin is compatible with being in a state of grace and
righteousness. And so the person who has received Christ’s righteousness by infusion is, at the same time, truly righteous (because he has agape in his soul — see Romans 5:5), and yet still in
continual need of conversion and repentance in turning away from venial sin, and asking daily for the forgiveness of such sins. (See “Reformed Imputation and the Lord’s Prayer.”) He has no ground for the pride exhibited by the Pharisee; he has every reason like the Publican to beat his chest in contrition and humility, asking the Lord to have mercy on him.
The difficulty, from the Reformed point of view, is understanding how a person can be truly righteous internally, while still having concupiscence and venial sin. In baptism, the sanctifying grace and
agape merited for us by Christ on the cross are infused into our souls; we have the spirit of the law in our hearts, even while concupiscence remains in our lower passions and appetites, and even
when we commit venial sins. Agape is the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:8, 10, Gal. 5:14, James 2:8), because agape is the standard of the law. And agape is in the will. Therefore righteousness in its essence is in the will, while concupiscence is not in the will, but in the lower appetites. Just because a person has disorder in his lower appetites, it does not follow that he is not righteous before God, because as long as he has agape in the will (i.e. he loves God with the supernatural love by which God loves Himself), he is truly a friend of God, even if he has disordered lower appetites which he resists with his will, because of his love for God. That is why if we have agape in our soul, we are truly righteous, even though we still have concupiscence. We grow in agape not by moving from some percentage of agape (and hence from unrighteousness or enmity with
God) to a higher percentage of agape, but by growing in our participation in agape, from a state of friendship with God, to a state of deeper friendship with God.
So, in short, the mistake in Sproul’s argument is assuming that the difference between the Pharisee and the Publican is that the Pharisee believes that God’s grace has “made him whole” while the Publican knows that he is an unrighteous sinner. According to the Church Fathers, the difference between the Pharisee and the Publican is not fundamentally a doctrinal or difference, but that the
former had the sin of pride, while the latter possessed the virtue of humility. And for that reason, Sproul’s conclusion that believing the Catholic doctrine of infusion grants one an eternal destiny of weeping and gnashing of teeth along with the Pharisee, does not follow. However, Catholics can agree with Sproul that we all should put on the humility Christ reveals in the parable, beating our breasts and crying out, “Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner.”
mcmark: got it. It’s not something we know about a “doctrinal difference”. Would it make me a Pharisee if I were to say that I am not buying how this Roman Catholic Pharisee explains Pharisees?
LikeLike
mr bob dylan: show me your moral virtues first
LikeLike
I read the post over at the BaylyBlog and felt like he is comparing apples and oranges. Whitfield was not starting a denomination, planting churches, or under the oversight of any particular ecclesiastical body. He was free-lancing. This African bishop is in this country under the oversight of his sending body from Africa, to start a new denomination (new to this country) and start new churches. Whitfield was drawing from viable, faithful churches: This bishop is here to call straying Episcopalians (Anglicans) back to their historic beliefs. Unless I’m mistaken Bayly’s analogy fails at this point.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard: Remember what Jesus (New Sider) said to the Old Siders of His time.
Erik: This is where you went too far, and Geoff called you on it.
It’s as if I said: Remember what Jesus (Osteen) said to the Old Siders (Richard) of His time.
I would be careful associating Jesus with any movement or cause. He had away of pointing out everyone’s unrighteousness.
RS: I was not associating Jesus with any movement or cause. I am simply saying that just because there is a group that has been around for a longer period of time and just because they call themselves orthodox does not mean that they are right. Jesus called that group hypocrites so it is not necessarily wrong to call a group of people hypocrites. I cannot see how it is going too far to point to the words of Christ in a certain situation.
LikeLike
Richard, sure, Jesus and the apostles were encroaching. But the encroached were supposed to be looking for the Messiah, right? Were Old Side ministers supposed to be looking for the Second Coming? Sure. Were Whitefield or Tennent Jesus? Doubtful.
LikeLike
GW: Brother Richard, my response to your questions will involve quotes from D.G. Hart and John Muether’s book “Seeking a Better Country: 300 Years of American Presbyterianism” (P & R Publishing) (which I highly recommend you read if you have not already done so).
RS: First, then, you call forth a hostile witness. What I mean by that is not a slam but simply pointing out that the authors of the book (though highly esteemed and very intelligent men) do have a viewpoint that they are coming from (as all do).
GW: Quoting Hart and Meuther: “In effect, Whitefield threatened Presbyterian propriety. His methods also contravened Presbyterian decorum and order.
RS: What is Presbyterian propriety? Whitefield was not Presbyterian and did not believe that Presbyterianism was the biblical way of church government. I might add for something to chew on, Whitefield came from a country that basically had the Presbyterians trying to take over things at one point. They wrote a great confession and then within a century Presbyterianism had all but disappeared. Whitefield was around the time of almost a century after the WCF was published.
Not all see the council of Jerusalem as constituting a synod. There were elders who were also apostles from Jerusalem and then those from Antioch. Some would see the authority of that council as being from the apostles rather than from a Presbyterian view of it. But even if the Presbyterian view of the Church is correct, how is it a violation to go into the surrounding areas to preach the Gospel? I don’t view the Great Commission as commanding us to preach the Gospel to all people groups as long as they are not in the area of a Presbyterian church.
Quoting from Hart and Muether continued: Whitefield’s preaching could be highly emotional and theatrical. To some it looked manipulative…
RS: Yes, that is what one man wrote about Whitefield’s preaching. But others thought of the man as being a powerful preacher filled with the Spirit of God (in a non-charismatic way). Some think that writing books is nothing but a ploy to gain money, but that does not make it so in Muether’s case.
Quoting from Hart and Muether continued: The popularity and fanfare of the Great Awakening, consequently, shifted the ongoing debate within the American church over ministerial qualifications from subscription and formal education to religious experience…
RS: I simply don’t think that is 100% accurate. It is true that there was a debate on ministerial qualifications, but some of that had to do with Tennent’s father and his Log College. I am not sure that we can recreate what they thought of the liberal influence going on in the colleges at the time, but after starting the colleges and seeing them all go liberal, Tennent’s father started his own ministerial training location. Indeed some looked down on that. But that is hardly moving to replacing formal education to religious experience.
Quoting from Hart and Muether continued : the controversy over the awakening among Presbyterians was pivotal for upsetting an already fragile harmony. Indicative of the increasing antagonism was Gilbert Tennent’s abusive sermon, “The Danger of an Unconverted Ministry,” preached on March 8, 1740, close to the peak of Whitefield’s popularity in the middle colonies and the nadir of intransigence within the Synod of Philadelphia
RS: I would protest the calling of this an abusive sermon. Most of what he says in this sermon is absolutely true. It is wrong to have unconverted men in the ministry. In it he said that the Pharisess were ignorant of the new birth. By the way, Whitefield preached a lot about how men must be born again. That is precisely what Jesus told Nicodemus who was a ranking man among the Pharisees.
Quoting from Hart and Muether continued: …In this sermon Tennent argued sensibly that unregenerate ministers should not be tolerated. Less plausible, however, was his identification of the revivals’ opponents as unregenerate ministers.
RS: But did he say that all those who opposed revival in all ways were unregenerate ministers?
Quoting from Hart and Muether continued: In fact, Tennent followed the highly partisan tactic of conceiving of his own position as the only legitimate expression of Presbyterian faith and practice. That position included a new conception of conversion as a deep and abiding experience that transformed believers, a requirement that ministers demonstrate having experienced such a conversion, and a suspicion of ecclesiastical rules and policies that might become a barrier to the spiritual influences rippling out of the awakening
RS: Highly partisan tactic? He did think that all should be born again. I was not aware that this was new or that it was a new belief that conversion was something that transformed or at least led to a transformation of those who were born again. If one thinks of the Great Awakening in terms of what an Awakening was thought of, perhaps this whole situation could be seen a little differently. A sinner was awakened when s/he saw his or her lost condition and that s/he was in the hands of God in that lost condition. A truly awakened sinner knew that s/he must be born again. As people were awakened like this in a larger area, they needed to hear about the need to be born again. But this is not a new teaching at all, no more than Luther’s justification was a new teaching. But it was an unsettling teaching to those who wanted people to act calmly at all times. But we must remember that the jailer in Phillip was not exactly calm. When spiritual realities come home to the soul calmness is not always the most rational response. The battle in that time period, then, as Tennent points out or at least alludes to in his sermon, over the new birth. A soul that is under conviction of sin wants to hear someone preaching about the new birth. When a minister will not deal with souls under conviction, the people wanted to hear someone who would preach about the real and true Physician.
GW: Of course, old siders would not have denied the need for repentance uno life and saving faith (conversion), since the confessional standards they adhered to (and which were based upon the teachings of Holy Scripture) taught the necessity of these saving graces. As I understand it, what they objected to were the experiential/experimental excesses advocated by pro-revivalists like Tennent, his advocacy of a crisis conversion experience being added as a qualification of ministerial ordination in addition to a credible profession of faith, good standing in church membership and sufficiency of learning.
RS: Yes, but understand that while all are required to subscribe to the 39 Articles in England in our day only about 1% really believe them. Could it have been the same during the Great Awakening?
GW: How did the old siders react to Tennent’s abusive sermon and elitist stance? Did they respond in kind by heaping abuse and derision upon him? No. On the contrary, according to Hart & Muether:
RS: Abusive sermon? It is hard for me to think of that as an abusive sermon. But again, maybe there is more to the story. This sermon is a result of a longer battle that had to do with other things as well. They certainly thought that others heaped abuse on them.
Quoting from Hart and Muether continued “Despite Tennent’s inflammatory sermon, the opponents of revival, who had a clear majority, sought a compromise to which both sides might agree. Tennent and his party refused such a conciliatory effort because he argued that compromise was impossible.” (p. 61) And, “…Synod demonstrated remarkable patience with the advocates of revival by passing a resolution that called on its members to contemplate the seriousness of Tennent’s and Blair’s charges “as they will answer it at the great day of Christ” and for presbyteries to make sure their members were acting appropriately with regard to the awakening. Webster observed that “it is difficult to conceive” why Tennent and Blair “were not rebuked or suspended for their representations” since the ministers against whom the revivalists inveighed were not only present but “respectable for their number, age, long-tried fidelity, and admitted ability.”” (p. 62)
RS: Again, a very favorable presentation of one side.
GW: If the above historical accounting is accurate, it sounds to me like Tennent and his ilk were sowing seeds of discord among his brethren.
RS: Some might consider the historical accounting as rather one-sided. Jesus was thought of as sowing seeds of discord as well.
GW: His stance on the revival question, while no doubt well intentioned and sincerely held, was (in effect at least) elitist, divisive, immature and deeply uncharitable —
RS: But again, if you look at it from one side, perhaps so. All Christians are thought of as elitist if they stand for Christ alone. All true doctrine divides. All Christians will be thought of a uncharitable if they stand for the exclusivity of Christ.
GW: the opposite of the fruit of the Holy Spirit; whereas, ironically, the patience and longsuffering of his old side brethren (whom he had in effect abusively accused of being unregenerate) seems to me to have manifested much for fully the signs of true regeneration — namely the fruit of the Spirit (“love…peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, self control…”).
RS: I am certainly not so sure that all on the old side were united and that all were so filled with the fruit of the Spirit. As with most issues, not all one one side are right and not all on one side are wrong. Perhaps Tennent was speaking to one part of the old side and all were offended. Perhaps there is no reconciliation with those who have reconciled with those who were bitterly opposed to the teaching of the new birth even though not all in the group are. Again, there may be more to the story.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, sure, Jesus and the apostles were encroaching. But the encroached were supposed to be looking for the Messiah, right? Were Old Side ministers supposed to be looking for the Second Coming? Sure. Were Whitefield or Tennent Jesus? Doubtful.
RS: Which is not exactly to the point. Why do you think that Whitefield and Tennent were encroaching? Did the men of that day have a Divine right over a certain area? I live in a town where there are a few Presbyterian churches. They are quite liberal. One in particular thinks of Christ alone as an archaic doctrine. Does that minister have a Divine right of some sort over the whole town? Yes, he has the Westminster Confession of Faith as his standard (in theory). He wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper talking about how he had counseled a man who was in prison for murder. The man said he was a Christian when he murdered the person and the “minister” thought that was true. The Bible says that no murderer has eternal life in him. So are those who attend that church with the WCF as their standards off limites in terms of hearing the Gospel from me?
LikeLike
RS: Remember what Jesus (New Sider)
Jesus was a New Wine guy, and a New Covenant guy, but He wasn’t a New Side guy.
There’s a lot of baggage there that Jesus would have had no part of. For example: New Side-rs required evidence not merely of faith (confession) and sanctified life, but of a definite dramatic conversion experience.
Jesus did not require this. He said rather “If anyone believes in Me, he shall live even though he dies.”
Jesus — and the Old Siders — made faith central. The New Siders made conversion central, and demanded evidence of that conversion.
LikeLike
Richard, a guy like Tennent was in the same communion with Old Siders. This is not divine right. It’s simple civility and courtesy. If you want to add the fruit of the Spirit, it’s not very loving either.
Why is it born-againers can be so oblivious to simple ways of relating?
LikeLike
I should say, though, that the Old Siders had their issues, too. What’s up with tolerating Unitarianism while rejecting revivalism?!
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: Remember what Jesus (New Sider)
Jeff Cagle: Jesus was a New Wine guy, and a New Covenant guy, but He wasn’t a New Side guy.
RS: Which is exactly the point (New Wine and New Covenant) I had in mind when I said that he was a New Side. The point is simply that the old standard is not always correct.
Jeff Cagle: There’s a lot of baggage there that Jesus would have had no part of. For example: New Side-rs required evidence not merely of faith (confession) and sanctified life, but of a definite dramatic conversion experience.
RS: Why do you think a confession is evidence of faith? They required evidence of a conversion experience, but I am not sure that “dramatic” is part of the requirement.
Jeff Cagle: Jesus did not require this. He said rather “If anyone believes in Me, he shall live even though he dies.”
RS: Yes, but let us also not forget many other things that He taught. He taught the new birth. He taught that one must be turned and become like a little child in order to enter the kingdom. Jesus teaches us through James that faith without works is dead. Jesus teaches us through James that true religion watching after orphans and widows in their distress. Jesus teaches us through James that a mere profession of faith is not a sign of real faith.
Jeff Cagle: Jesus — and the Old Siders — made faith central. The New Siders made conversion central, and demanded evidence of that conversion.
RS: There is no faith apart from a new heart and there is no true faith apart from works. That sounds like more than a mere profession. There are many things that Jesus taught that did not sound like those who simply took a profession as faith.
Jesus also taught this:
Matthew 7:13 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
and this:
Mat 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’
Paul taught us that wolves would come from our number (speaking to the elders from Ephesus) and would arise and mislead many. A mere profession of faith is not enough to determine if a person is saved and being a minister is not enough to say that the sheep or even the goats should follow that person to the exclusion of those who preach the Gospel.
LikeLike
Richard,
Have you ever given thought to your own blog. You could call it; ‘Yea, but what about revival……..’ and you could link to each new post of Darryl’s and offer your ‘Yea, but what about revival………’ at your site. And you could make illusions to old-siders being pharisees and judaizers and just base heretics and such without getting so much blow-back and mischaracterization of your opposing view.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, a guy like Tennent was in the same communion with Old Siders. This is not divine right. It’s simple civility and courtesy. If you want to add the fruit of the Spirit, it’s not very loving either.
Why is it born-againers can be so oblivious to simple ways of relating?
RS: Jesus taught that a person must be born again and He said a few things that were not civil or according to simple courtesy. Being civil and courteous can at times hide the truth from sinners and that is certainly not love for their souls. A few thoughts from Jesus (given below) who at the time could not have followed our rules of civility and courtesy. However, He was love incarnate ao He said this in accordance with perfect love. Was Jesus also guilty of being oblivious to simple ways of relating?
Mat 23:13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.
14 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
16 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is obligated.’
17 “You fools and blind men! Which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold?
18 “And, ‘Whoever swears by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by the offering on it, he is obligated.’
19 “You blind men, which is more important, the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering?
20 “Therefore, whoever swears by the altar, swears both by the altar and by everything on it.
21 “And whoever swears by the temple, swears both by the temple and by Him who dwells within it.
22 “And whoever swears by heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it.
23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.
24 “You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence.
26 “You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.
LikeLike
sean: Richard, Have you ever given thought to your own blog. You could call it; ‘Yea, but what about revival……..’ and you could link to each new post of Darryl’s and offer your ‘Yea, but what about revival………’ at your site. And you could make illusions to old-siders being pharisees and judaizers and just base heretics and such without getting so much blow-back and mischaracterization of your opposing view.
RS: But why would I say that all old-siders were Pharsiees and base heretics and so on when I don’t believe that? Remember, the Presbyterians in the old country (England) were basically gone by that time and many had become Unitarians. As Jeff pointed out, that was happening here as well. But not all of them.
LikeLike
Richard, I wonder if you have ever read Edwards’ sermon on censoriousness. http://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/charity10.htm
Is it not the height of censoriousness to declare an orthodox minister to be unregenerate?
LikeLike
Dave, bingo. But keep in mind that the purpose of the Bayly post was to portray confessionalist 2kers as giving cover to Protestant liberalism, so certain details don’t really matter.
LikeLike
Richard, I always wonder what makes you think Scripture doesn’t apply to semi-revivalism. And you may not believe that all old-siders were Pharsiees and base heretics, but you’re still on record as saying that those who esteem and privilege the categories of faith, creed, institution, decorum and order, and the means of grace are given to laze and disobedience. That seems like a soft version of unregenerate.
LikeLike
RS: But why would I say that all old-siders were Pharsiees and base heretics and so on when I don’t believe that?
RS: Remember what Jesus (New Sider) said to the Old Siders of His time(Pharisees). “Woe to you hypocrites.”
Sean; That’s a good question Richard. I’m probably being too sensitive. Another good reason to have your own blog where you wouldn’t have to endure the continuous mischaracterization.
LikeLike
RS, I don’t feel that you really heard me here. I was talking about conversion narratives and you responded with good works. Apples and oranges.
So again:
JRC: the New Siders demanded evidence not merely of faith (confession) and sanctified life, but of a definite dramatic conversion experience. (emph add)
A conversion experience is not a good work.
The New Siders weren’t content with the very criteria you laid out above, good works as evidence of faith. They wanted something even more.
While you’re thinking along these lines, reflect on this also: if you really believe that no-one can come to faith apart from being regenerated, then a confession of faith is evidence of having been born again.
Ah, you say, talk is cheap. Sure. But talk about a conversion experience is just as cheap as talk about what one believes. And actually, it’s cheaper. If you confess what you believe, I can ask questions to find out whether you understand what you confess. If you talk about a conversion experience, you are in the mushy world of subjective experiences.
LikeLike
mikelmann: Is it not the height of censoriousness to declare an orthodox minister to be unregenerate?
RS: What do you mean by orthodox? One that says he upholds the WCF? Is orthodoxy the standard that Jesus and the apostles used to determine what a Christian really was? Have you ever known of a conservative and orthodox minister who later left the faith?
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, I always wonder what makes you think Scripture doesn’t apply to semi-revivalism.
RS: Of course it applies.
Zrim: And you may not believe that all old-siders were Pharsiees and base heretics, but you’re still on record as saying that those who esteem and privilege the categories of faith, creed, institution, decorum and order, and the means of grace are given to laze and disobedience. That seems like a soft version of unregenerate.
RS: However you want to use and use again that statement, there was a context to it. I also did not say anything quite like what you just said I was on record as saying.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: RS, I don’t feel that you really heard me here.
RS: I know the feeling, but I am surprised that you are talking about feeling. I thought I was the one that was supposed to do that.
Jeff Cagle: I was talking about conversion narratives and you responded with good works. Apples and oranges.
RS: Not really, from my vantage point, but I can see how you would think so. I was responding to the idea of a profession of faith and how it has to be more than that.
Jeff Cagle: So again:
JRC: the New Siders demanded evidence not merely of faith (confession) and sanctified life, but of a definite dramatic conversion experience. (emph add)
A conversion experience is not a good work.
RS: Allow me to say something which is not what you are meaning, but it does have something to do with the discussion. A conversion is a good work but it is the good work of God. A soul that is converted experiences (it actually happens to that person) the good work of God.
Where do we see them demanding evidence of something dramatic? I have read Edwards warn that while some people have “dramatic” conversions others don’t. He did not demand a dramatic experience.
Jeff Cagle: The New Siders weren’t content with the very criteria you laid out above, good works as evidence of faith. They wanted something even more.
While you’re thinking along these lines, reflect on this also: if you really believe that no-one can come to faith apart from being regenerated, then a confession of faith is evidence of having been born again.
RS: I would argue that true faith is evidence, but that a profession of faith is not sufficient evidence. As in the parable of the sower or of the soil, there is much joy with some at first but then they fall away.
Jeff Cagle: Ah, you say, talk is cheap. Sure. But talk about a conversion experience is just as cheap as talk about what one believes. And actually, it’s cheaper. If you confess what you believe, I can ask questions to find out whether you understand what you confess. If you talk about a conversion experience, you are in the mushy world of subjective experiences.
RS: I would argue that your concept of conversion experience (focus on the experience part) is quite a bit different than that of those in the Great Awakening. The word “experience” is not a nasty word that is limited to the world of charismania. It can refer to practical knowledge such as one that gains knowledge by practice. That is how you get experienced mechanics. When God acts on a soul, that soul experiences what God is doing versus not experiencing it. It is something that happens to the soul. When I say that I experience pain, I am speaking of something that is really happening to me. What God does to the soul is not in the ” mushy world of subjective experiences.” It is God working and it is objective truth.
If I go to court and testify before a jury that person X (most likely an old lifer) used a bat to break my leg, I am testifying to an objective fact and what actually happened. It can be spoken of as an experience, but it is still an objective fact. When God wounds a soul and humbles it, the person experiences that but it is an objective work of God as well. So when Jesus taught us that we must be converted/turned and become like little children to enter the kingdom, a person must really and truly become like a little child to enter the kingdom. If it did not happen to the person, then they did not really experience it and it is not an objective fact. The work of the Spirit is joy (just one mentioined here). Is the joy of the human soul an experience (happened to them) of the soul and an objective work of what God has done in them? I say yes. One cannot have one without the other.
LikeLike
Richard, I’ve known revivalists who left the faith.
BTW, you keep assuming that the Old Side was flawed. Why? Because they didn’t care for another pastor telling their church members to find another church? You know, Tennent did eventually apologize. Jesus didn’t.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, I’ve known revivalists who left the faith.
RS: Thanks for more evidence that a mere profession is not enough.
D.G. Hart: BTW, you keep assuming that the Old Side was flawed. Why?
RS: Because anything with “old” in the name has got to be wrong? I guess I have read more from the other side. Some wanted all men to be trained in their schools even though they were considered liberal. Some of them resisted the Awakening to a great degree.
D.G. Hart: Because they didn’t care for another pastor telling their church members to find another church?
RS: But if Tennent was right in the sermon, some of the men in the pastorates were unconverted. Would you have a problem telling a person going to a church with an unconverted minister to go to a church with a converted minister?
D.G. Hart: You know, Tennent did eventually apologize. Jesus didn’t.
RS: I have heard that he did, but I have not found a record of it. There are apologies that are limited to portions of what was said, there are general apologies, there are specfic apologies, and then there are apologies for everything. I would be interested in reading the actual apology. So if Tennent apologized and Jesus didn’t apologize for what Tennent did, I guess that means Tennent was right in the sermon and wrong in the apology.
LikeLike
But, Richard, I cannot think of an ordinary context in which a confessionalist would suggest impiety on the part of a semi-revivalist. Misguidance, imprudence, immaturity, to be sure, but short of actually demonstrating it, not disobedience and unregeneracy. And if Scripture applies critically to semi-revivalism, I wonder how.
You also tell Jeff that true faith is evidence, but that a profession of faith is not sufficient evidence. This is puzzling. When I publicly made vows to my wife, it was sufficient evidence for her of inward reality. And the sound marriage that has ensued seems to only confirm that the previous profession was indeed sufficient at the time. But the semi-revivalist demand for extra evidences beyond profession and good works seems like the wife who is not content with vows followed by faithfulness and wants some adolescent put-ons along the way. Confessionalism seems like the adult form of faith, semi-revivalism the juvenile form. Doesn’t the Bible call for a mature faith, as opposed to immature?
LikeLike
Zrim: But, Richard, I cannot think of an ordinary context in which a confessionalist would suggest impiety on the part of a semi-revivalist. Misguidance, imprudence, immaturity, to be sure, but short of actually demonstrating it, not disobedience and unregeneracy. And if Scripture applies critically to semi-revivalism, I wonder how.
RS: It has been suggested over and over again that revivalism in any form was nothing more than experience oriented and quite foreign to true Christianity.
Zrim: You also tell Jeff that true faith is evidence, but that a profession of faith is not sufficient evidence. This is puzzling.
RS: Allow me to put a few of the pieces together. A profession is nothing more than words and can come from a heart that is or is not regenerate. True faith is more than words.
Zrim: When I publicly made vows to my wife, it was sufficient evidence for her of inward reality.
RS: Yes, and how high is the divorce rate these days? Simply saying that the words themselves are not enough. But then if person A kept telling your wife that he loved her and then continued to run around on her and beat her (as is rather common I hear), what does that say about the profession?
Zrim: And the sound marriage that has ensued seems to only confirm that the previous profession was indeed sufficient at the time.
RS: But the sound marriage is evidence of something that the words were not.
Zrim: But the semi-revivalist demand for extra evidences beyond profession and good works seems like the wife who is not content with vows followed by faithfulness and wants some adolescent put-ons along the way.
RS: Then Jesus and Paul wanted some adolescent put-ons. They certainly wanted far more than mere words. Again, on that day there will be many who call out to Him saying “Lord, Lord.” There is a profession and there is correct theology. But the will be told to depart.
Zrim: Confessionalism seems like the adult form of faith, semi-revivalism the juvenile form. Doesn’t the Bible call for a mature faith, as opposed to immature?
RS: Sorry, but I think you have it backwards yet again. I suppose I should not say too much on this because you will misquote me again and again. The Bible does indeed call for a mature faith, but it does not give us confessionalism as what a mature form is.
LikeLike
Richard,
You seem to assume that an appeal to ‘formalism(confessionalism as championed at this blog)necessarily and/or potentially entails a denial or obfuscation of ‘spiritual’, ‘invisible'(The spirit blows where it wills…) work. Confessionalists deny any such necessary or even secondarily considered, dichotomy between the two. The general principle at play is that we’re compelled by scripture to seek God through his ‘ordinary’ means(word preached, sacraments rightly administered). God Himself is FREE to work and do as He wishes. We, Church visible and militant, are NOT FREE to seek Him outside of the ordinary means listed prior. Think RPW. The argument really is nothing more than this. So, although one may hide behind his confession to the damnation of his soul (tare), scripture does not then offer an alternative to avoid such a conclusion, considered ecclesially(new word). Still, the mandate goes out to make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the triune God and elevates the preaching of the word as the preeminent means for doing so. And then enjoins converts/faithful to submit themselves to the polity of the faith community(elders and deacons given for their building up) and see to their rightly partaking of the Lord’s supper. Does God work outside these means? Yes. In such a way as to constitute a prescriptive counsel to pursue Him outside those means? No. Did the revivalism of the first and second great awakening often seek pursuit of God outside of these God-ordained polities and means? Undeniably so. The second more aggregious than the first.
LikeLike
RS: Where do we see them demanding evidence of something dramatic? I have read Edwards warn that while some people have “dramatic” conversions others don’t.
Edwards is not your best example. Religious Affections is written to warn people *off* of the idea that dramatic conversions are necessary for genuine religious affection, while carving out space for legitimate affections of various sorts.
Edwards was to the old side of the New Side.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: Where do we see them demanding evidence of something dramatic? I have read Edwards warn that while some people have “dramatic” conversions others don’t.
Edwards is not your best example. Religious Affections is written to warn people *off* of the idea that dramatic conversions are necessary for genuine religious affection, while carving out space for legitimate affections of various sorts.
Edwards was to the old side of the New Side.
RS: But many consider him as the main figure of the Great Awakening. He also trained several men in his home.
LikeLike
Richard, it’s one thing to say revivalism is indeed foreign to Christianity, quite another to suggest its champions are unregenerate. And that was my point. Can semi-revivalists simultaneously bring their criticisms to bear on confessionalism and show enough restraint not to poison wells? It seems to be a challenge.
But in the marriage analogy you speak the way romanticists do—aren’t we supposed to be counter-cultural? It’s good for selling sentimentality in novels and movies, but it’s still not clear how it fosters either healthy expectations of marriage or maturity in faith. I didn’t say rote vows were sufficient. I said public vows are sufficient to indicate inward realities and that good works serve to affirm said words. How does the mistreatment of wives on the part of some diminish the sufficiency of vows and good works from others? And yes, goats and sheep will be separated, and some goats will include those who claim orthodoxy, but don’t you think they will also include those with orthoaffections?
LikeLike
sean: Richard, You seem to assume that an appeal to ‘formalism (confessionalism as championed at this blog) necessarily and/or potentially entails a denial or obfuscation of ‘spiritual’, ‘invisible’ (The spirit blows where it wills…) work. Confessionalists deny any such necessary or even secondarily considered, dichotomy between the two.
RS: I can only say that Confessionalism as such does nott seem to speak with a unified voice. Perhaps we could say that some do and some don’t.
Sean: The general principle at play is that we’re compelled by scripture to seek God through his ‘ordinary’ means (word preached, sacraments rightly administered). God Himself is FREE to work and do as He wishes. We, Church visible and militant, are NOT FREE to seek Him outside of the ordinary means listed prior. Think RPW. The argument really is nothing more than this.
RS: But there are other means and I think you would agree. Prayer, repentance, fasting, and things like that are means of seeking God. In seeking a true revival people pray and fast and seek God to do what only He can do. It is true that they may call for special seasons of pray and of preaching, but in the older times this was all done through the local church.
Sean: So, although one may hide behind his confession to the damnation of his soul (tare), scripture does not then offer an alternative to avoid such a conclusion, considered ecclesially (new word).
RS: But the Scripture never gives us a confession to hide behind in the first place. What it does is give us places like II Cor 13:5 and the book of I John (and others) to help us in developing biblical conclusions.
Sean: Still, the mandate goes out to make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the triune God and elevates the preaching of the word as the preeminent means for doing so.
RS: Without getting into the baptism issue, still what we have is a command to baptize disciples. Surely the New Testament gives us some things to help determine who those disciples are.
Sean: And then enjoins converts/faithful to submit themselves to the polity of the faith community(elders and deacons given for their building up) and see to their rightly partaking of the Lord’s supper. Does God work outside these means? Yes. In such a way as to constitute a prescriptive counsel to pursue Him outside those means? No. Did the revivalism of the first and second great awakening often seek pursuit of God outside of these God-ordained polities and means? Undeniably so. The second more aggregious than the first.
RS: The first Great Awakening had men who were solid and those who were not. I simply cannot see hardly anything wrong with the way they carried out what they did. Sure enough some went too far, but that is not to say that they went far out of the boundaries. The second GA was a mixture with men like Asahel Nettleton strongly opposing Finney and those on his side. At the risk of some calling me judgmental, I don’t consider Finney to have been a Christian. He was a clear Pelagian in denying original sin and thinking that he could convince men to be converted. The difference between Edwards and Finny is the difference between night and day. Might I add that had people examined Finney more closely perhaps he would not have been ordained so quickly. They accepted his profession of believing the WCF without asking any real questions to determine that.
LikeLike
RS, that’s fine, but you’re shifting ground. The issue on the table is the New Side, and Edwards is not a good representative of the New Side.
The specific thing that was objectionable about the New Side, and revivalists in general, is that they tried to use conversion narratives to make judgments about the genuineness of professions of faith.
Edwards had to write Religious Affections in part to push back against that practice.
Sorry, but I still think you aren’t listening carefully here. You seem to be reading me and Zrim as saying “A confession of faith is enough.”
That’s not what we’re saying.
We’re saying, “A confession of faith, followed by evidence of a sanctified life, is enough.”
A conversion account adds nothing to those things.
As an example of the “not listening”, take a look at this exchange again:
Zrim: But the semi-revivalist demand for extra evidences beyond profession and good works seems like the wife who is not content with vows followed by faithfulness and wants some adolescent put-ons along the way.
RS: Then Jesus and Paul wanted some adolescent put-ons. They certainly wanted far more than mere words. Again, on that day there will be many who call out to Him saying “Lord, Lord.” There is a profession and there is correct theology. But the will be told to depart.
What did Zrim say? words + deeds. vow + faithfulness. What did you translate him as saying? mere words.
Attention is to be paid.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, it’s one thing to say revivalism is indeed foreign to Christianity, quite another to suggest its champions are unregenerate.
RS: If a person is foreign to Christianity, then a person is foreign to Christ. All those who are foreign to Christ are unregenerate.
Zrim: And that was my point. Can semi-revivalists simultaneously bring their criticisms to bear on confessionalism and show enough restraint not to poison wells? It seems to be a challenge.
RS: If the wells are already poisoned…
Zrim: But in the marriage analogy you speak the way romanticists do—aren’t we supposed to be counter-cultural? It’s good for selling sentimentality in novels and movies, but it’s still not clear how it fosters either healthy expectations of marriage or maturity in faith. I didn’t say rote vows were sufficient. I said public vows are sufficient to indicate inward realities and that good works serve to affirm said words. How does the mistreatment of wives on the part of some diminish the sufficiency of vows and good works from others?
RS: Simply put, they took the vows and perhaps meant them at the time. But something changed. The same thing is true of those making professions of faith as the parable of the sower clearly shows us.
Zrim: And yes, goats and sheep will be separated, and some goats will include those who claim orthodoxy, but don’t you think they will also include those with orthoaffections?
RS: No. All with orthoaffections are truly converted. If the affections that person A has are orthodox affections, then they are the work of the Holy Spirit who will only work orthoaffections in the regenerate.. Since all who have true love are converted and regenerate (I John 4:7-8) and there is true affection in true love, all who have orthoaffections are regenerate.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: What did Zrim say? words + deeds. vow + faithfulness. What did you translate him as saying? mere words.
Attention is to be paid.
RS: I have to “run”, but for the moment a short answer. A mere profession followed by good works is not necessarily evidence of conversion. There must be good works, but the Pharisees did good works as well. A profession of faith is simply words. Good works can be a person working away trying to be good enough. What that can lead to is a person saying that he believes a creed and then doing good works to prove it. That is not what true conversion is about.
LikeLike
RS: Might I add that had people examined Finney more closely perhaps he would not have been ordained so quickly. They accepted his profession of believing the WCF without asking any real questions to determine that.
So in other words, if the presbyters of St. Lawrence Presbytery had actually considered the confession to be standards, rather than just one more voice among many, then they might have kept the church from Finney’s harm?
I agree. Confessions are a good thing.
LikeLike
So Richard, what other evidence would you point to? We have profession of faith and the evidence of life lived. Those aren’t enough, so…?
LikeLike
@Jeff
I should say, though, that the Old Siders had their issues, too. What’s up with tolerating Unitarianism while rejecting revivalism?!
Unitarians were old money, revivalists were poor?
LikeLike
Richard, conversion for some of the “old” men was not the dramatic, instantaneous kind that Whitefield and Tennent advocated. Remember, conversion is synonymous with sanctification. If someone grew up thinking about conversion as a life-long process and disagreed with Tennent’s novel definition, it’s a little rich for Tennent to tell him he is unregenerate.
LikeLike
Richard, so true doctrine is vulnerable but true affections are unassailable? How are these true affections demonstrated and measured?
You also seem to think that to be a Pharisee was to be unregenerate, thus even when they demonstrated good works it had to be out of hypocrisy. But have you considered the possibility that some weren’t hypocrites? If that’s true then Jesus’ point isn’t so much that confession and works are insufficient to indicate inward realities as it is to up the ante and say that all are natural hypocrites—some whitewash with doctrine, some with affections (think long and showy public prayers). Cover ups are always bad, but that doesn’t mean conventional religious structures and expressions are fundamentally flawed and need to be replaced by subjective religious experience. It means convention has to be accompanied with authenticity.
LikeLike
Jeff, my guess is that Richard means Finney needed to be examined for orthodox affections. At least, that’s what his words imply here about the superiority and unassailability of affections to doctrine.
LikeLike
RS:I have to “run”, but for the moment a short answer. A mere profession followed by good works is not necessarily evidence of conversion. There must be good works, but the Pharisees did good works as well. A profession of faith is simply words. Good works can be a person working away trying to be good enough. What that can lead to is a person saying that he believes a creed and then doing good works to prove it. That is not what true conversion is about.
MM: When you are done running, tell us, then, what we need beyond profession and good works. A dramatic conversion story? X-ray glasses? You speak of orthoaffections, but what makes an account of those any more reliable than a profession? You want to see the unseen, and that endeavor is one cause of censoriousness,among other horribles.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle wrote: “So Richard, what other evidence would you point to? We have profession of faith and the evidence of life lived. Those aren’t enough, so…?”
GW: Good questions Jeff. It seems to me that our pro-revival brother Richard just does not seem to grasp that no consistent confessionalist believes that profession of orthodox faith accompanied by a life of good works is, in itself, infallible proof that one is regenerate. (Either he doesn’t grasp it or he seems unwilling to take us at our word on this matter.) In terms of infallible proof of regeneration, credible profession of faith and good works are not sufficient. (For all I know the most outwardly godly servant of Christ I can think of with a track record of extraordinary good works and highly useful service to Christ’s gospel and church may in fact be an unregenerate hypocrite at heart, whose hypocrisy may not be exposed until the judgment day.) But then again, no man or church is equipped to make such infallible judgments about the souls of others, since the only ones who can know with infallible assurance that a person is regenerate is God and that person. Simon the Magician comes to mind in this connection. He was judged by the apostolic church to have made a credible, “sufficient” profession of faith and was thus welcomed into the church by baptism; but he soon showed his true colors as one who was still “in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity.” Were the apostles wrong in initially accepting his profession of faith? Did they baptize him too soon? Should they have applied more rigorous tests in an attempt to infallibly judge the state of his soul? I think not (though our brother Richard may disagree).
I can examine myself scripturally and prayerfully and thus (with the aid of Word and Spirit) judge of the state of my own soul (as per 2 Cor. 13:5; 2 Pet. 1:10; 1 Jn; etc.). But when it comes to others I am limited as both a creature and an imperfectly sanctified saint to judging the externals (i.e., a credible profession of faith and a life consistent with said Christian profession). Since I do not possess the attribute of omniscience, nor do I possess some special revivalist gift of spiritual ESP which enables me to read the minds and souls of others, I can only look at the outward fruit as a looking glass into the inward root. And even when looking at the fruits/evidences, I believe Scripture expects me to do so with the “judgment of charity” (i.e., believing the best about the one professing faith unless and until there are good, observable reasons to doubt that profession). After all, wasn’t that how the apostolic church dealt with the likes of Simon?
Requring extra-scriptural tests of regeneration (as promoters of revival and hyper-subjectivist puritan types do), such as intense experiences of conviction of sin, the discerning of lively religious affections, a crisis conversion experience, etc., has had (in my opinion) the effect of ministering doubt (rather than faith) to otherwise believing and obedient covenant children; of driving “bruised reeds” prone to a hyper-sensitive conscience into depression (and even to the brink of despair); of leading earnest believers to spiritual burnout; and in general of wreaking great havoc in the visible church. (Not that my own “experience” is the measure of truth, but I speak as a “recovering revivalist” who has himself had much personal experience maneuvering through the endless labyrinth of doubts and unsettling fears brought on by the subjectivist excesses of “experimental Calvinism” and hyper-introspective puritanism. My only hope is found in the objective biblical-historical Christ revealed in the gospel Word and symbols, and embraced by an “extraspective” faith alone; not in my introspective assesment of my own religious affections.)
LikeLike
This discussion makes me anxious to receive Hart & Muether’s 300 year history of Presbyterianism in the mail. That thing is really holding it’s value online. I paid over $20 including shipping for a used copy. Sorry, D.G.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, conversion for some of the “old” men was not the dramatic, instantaneous kind that Whitefield and Tennent advocated. Remember, conversion is synonymous with sanctification.
RS: If conversion at that time was thought of as synonymous with sanctification, then it had changed since the Puritans. For example, Baxter’s Treatise on Conversion.
D. G. Hart: If someone grew up thinking about conversion as a life-long process and disagreed with Tennent’s novel definition, it’s a little rich for Tennent to tell him he is unregenerate.
RS: Are you so sure that Tennent’s definition was novel? If I read things correctly, there were men who were on Whitefield and Tennent for teaching the new birth at all. Do you consider Charles Chauncey and Old Light guy?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted September 12, 2012 at 3:33 pm | Permalink
RS: Might I add that had people examined Finney more closely perhaps he would not have been ordained so quickly. They accepted his profession of believing the WCF without asking any real questions to determine that.
So in other words, if the presbyters of St. Lawrence Presbytery had actually considered the confession to be standards, rather than just one more voice among many, then they might have kept the church from Finney’s harm?
I agree. Confessions are a good thing.
RS: Touche.
LikeLike
RS, I hope I’m not being too aggressive here.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, so true doctrine is vulnerable but true affections are unassailable? How are these true affections demonstrated and measured?
RS: No, true affections are not unassailable in the sense you are using them. I am not sure affections can be measured, but one can generally know when they are high and when they are low. But again, if true affections are the work of the Holy Spirit, then they are the work of God in the soul of man and are not the same thing as mushy feelings.
Zrim: You also seem to think that to be a Pharisee was to be unregenerate, thus even when they demonstrated good works it had to be out of hypocrisy. But have you considered the possibility that some weren’t hypocrites?
RS: I am not aware of any pointed out in the NT other than Nicodemus and then Paul. These men prayed, gave alms, and fasted all the while doing it for the wrong motives and reasons. Jesus blasted them like no other and referred to them as hypocrites. I tend to think that His opinion should be the standard.
Zrim: If that’s true then Jesus’ point isn’t so much that confession and works are insufficient to indicate inward realities as it is to up the ante and say that all are natural hypocrites—some whitewash with doctrine, some with affections (think long and showy public prayers). Cover ups are always bad, but that doesn’t mean conventional religious structures and expressions are fundamentally flawed and need to be replaced by subjective religious experience. It means convention has to be accompanied with authenticity.
RS: If religious experience (something that happens to the person that is from the hand of God) is truly from the hand of God, then it is not just subjective but is an objective work of God. How is that substantially different from a person saying that s/he believes a creed or confession? They are having a rather subjective experience of reading and then the impression from reading the document.
LikeLike
Zrim: Jeff, my guess is that Richard means Finney needed to be examined for orthodox affections. At least, that’s what his words imply here about the superiority and unassailability of affections to doctrine.
RS: You guessed wrong for the most part. But again, please read what I wrote on that issue. I did not imply that affections are superior to doctrine and are unassailable.
LikeLike
mikelmann: When you are done running, tell us, then, what we need beyond profession and good works.
RS: Could it be true that a person could make a profession of faith and do many good things and not be converted? Beyond a profession one must have Christ and must have the imputed righteousness of Christ. Good works never saved anyone and a mere profession never saved anyone. A person must have Christ. The question, then, has to do whether a person has Christ or not. The focus is on Christ and not my profession or my good works.
MM: A dramatic conversion story? X-ray glasses?
RS: X-ray glasses are a must for determining true conversion. If one does not have those, then they are lost.
MM: You speak of orthoaffections, but what makes an account of those any more reliable than a profession? You want to see the unseen, and that endeavor is one cause of censoriousness,among other horribles.
RS: I believe that was Zrim who brought that one up. A profession can be nothing more than mere words, but true love for God (which has some affection) is something a person cannot have apart from the work of God in the soul. While the love itself is unseen to the physical eye, that it is totally guesswork. Believers are to walk by faith rather than sight. One aspect of faith is that it is the eye of the soul. Notice the language or word choices in the verses below. “Looking” and “seeing” are attributed to faith.
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Heb 11:24 By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, 25 choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, 26 considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward. 27 By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured, as seeing Him who is unseen.
LikeLike
Geoff Willour: Jeff Cagle wrote: “So Richard, what other evidence would you point to? We have profession of faith and the evidence of life lived. Those aren’t enough, so…?”
GW: Good questions Jeff. It seems to me that our pro-revival brother Richard just does not seem to grasp that no consistent confessionalist believes that profession of orthodox faith accompanied by a life of good works is, in itself, infallible proof that one is regenerate. (Either he doesn’t grasp it or he seems unwilling to take us at our word on this matter.)
RS: This is all I am being presented with so far. I am told that a profession is enough, but then that good works must be there as well. So far those are the the things that have been presented.
GW: Since I do not possess the attribute of omniscience, nor do I possess some special revivalist gift of spiritual ESP which enables me to read the minds and souls of others, I can only look at the outward fruit as a looking glass into the inward root. And even when looking at the fruits/evidences, I believe Scripture expects me to do so with the “judgment of charity” (i.e., believing the best about the one professing faith unless and until there are good, observable reasons to doubt that profession). After all, wasn’t that how the apostolic church dealt with the likes of Simon?
RS: GW, let me ask you a question in order to give you something to think about. In John 13:35 Jesus said that all men will know you are my disciples if you have love for one another (from memory, so maybe not exact wording). Is it possible for unbelievers to know the disciples of Christ apart from a profession and good works? Is is possible for believers to know others are believers apart from a profession and good works?
I John 4: 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us.
13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.
RS: In the passage just above, how did people know that they and others were believers?
1 John 5:1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him.
2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments.
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.
RS: In the passage just above, how can we know that we are true children of God? Is it by a profession of faith and good works?
1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
RS: In the passage just above it gives us at least one main reason that John wrote this book. It is so that people could know that they have eternal life. Notice the use of the phrase “eternal life” and the way it is used in this book. In 5:20 eternal life is identified as Jesus Christ. This is not a mere profession and it is not just good works.
1 John 3:10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.
RS: Could it be true that is is rather obvious who the children of God are if we know what to look for? Isn’t that what the text says? If that is not what it means, then what does it mean? I am not claiming it is obvious to me, but I am saying that the text is clear.
GW: My only hope is found in the objective biblical-historical Christ revealed in the gospel Word and symbols, and embraced by an “extraspective” faith alone; not in my introspective assesment of my own religious affections.)
RS: Fine, but realize what the verses in I John says above. Eternal life is something that dwells in you and is not just something out there. The love of God dwells in people and abides in them. It is not just something out there. What God works in the soul is not just something out there and is not just something subjective, but instead is an objective work that He does. A true religious affection is the work of God in the soul and is not just some subjective thing.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: RS, I hope I’m not being too aggressive here.
RS: Listen, I am not easily offended (which just means responding in anger). I have found that I learn from people in discussions like these. Discussions, even heated to some degree, are great ways of learning. You are not too agressive at all. Thanks for taking the time to be engaged in this discussion and ask provocative (in a good way) questions.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: This discussion makes me anxious to receive Hart & Muether’s 300 year history of Presbyterianism in the mail. That thing is really holding it’s value online. I paid over $20 including shipping for a used copy. Sorry, D.G.
RS: You confessionalists are always in violation of Scripture.
Philippians 4:6 Be anxious for nothing,
LikeLike
RS: GW, let me ask you a question in order to give you something to think about. In John 13:35 Jesus said that all men will know you are my disciples if you have love for one another (from memory, so maybe not exact wording). Is it possible for unbelievers to know the disciples of Christ apart from a profession and good works? Is is possible for believers to know others are believers apart from a profession and good works?
GW: Yes, love among professed disciples of Christ is how the world can “know” that we are His disciples. His point is that love of brethren is a sign of our discipleship before the world. I don’t think He is saying that we can infallibly “know” the heart condition of others. (After all, those in the flesh can manufacture what seems on the surface to be genuine Christian love; and tares can look a lot like wheat.)
Now let me ask you a question: What about my questions with respect to Simon the Magician? Was the apostolic church wrong in admitting him to the privilege of baptism?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: Sorry, but I still think you aren’t listening carefully here. You seem to be reading me and Zrim as saying “A confession of faith is enough.”
RS: You sound like my wife.
Jeff Cagle: That’s not what we’re saying. We’re saying, “A confession of faith, followed by evidence of a sanctified life, is enough.” A conversion account adds nothing to those things.
RS: Okay, I see what you are saying. I will see if I can be more clear, but it takes more typing to do so. Sigh. I have heard repeatedly here that if a person professes faith (in line with the confession) then a person is thought to be converted. If a person keeps coming to church and professing the confession, that person will be thought to be converted. Hence the thought that as long as they come to church they are converted. I am arguing that this is nothing more than words.
Now if we bring in good works, how do we know that the other person is doing good works? Zrim has argued that the Sunday meetings of the church are enough and nothing else needs to be done. In other words, we ask them about their good works and they say they have them. That is again nothing but words. But even if they did some works, does that really prove anything? Hence my use of the Pharisees as an example. They did a lot of works and certainly had a profession of faith, but they were unconverted men (for the most part).
I am not arguing that a person must have a dramatic conversion with all kinds of affectional highs, though I would argue that those can happen. I do argue that the Bible tells us that we must have Christ dwelling in us and that we must have eternal life in us. It tells us that we are to look for those things and not simply give a profession and not simply do a few (or many) good works that will buttress our profession. We are told that Christians share in the divine life (II Peter 1:3-4), are partakers of the Spirit (Phil 1:7), and we share His holiness (Heb 12:10). Surely this has something to do with eternal life and it is the life of God in the soul of man (Henry Scougal).
LikeLike
Geoff Willour: Now let me ask you a question: What about my questions with respect to Simon the Magician? Was the apostolic church wrong in admitting him to the privilege of baptism?
RS: I don’t know if they were wrong to immerse him or not, but he was a magician. The text says almost nothing about it so I am a bit reticent to go too far. It is clear that he believed the historical facts about Jesus and Phillip baptized him. I would assume that in such a context of that with a man being so well-known about his magic and all that some sign of repentance would have been immediate. I can only say that they were mistaken.
LikeLike
RS, it just now occurs to me that I look at this discussion as answering the question “What should/may a church look for in a candidate for membership?” As far as that goes, I can’t look beyond profession and observable conduct. But I’m less sure that is your quest(ion) here. Are you talking about what, in the abstract, a Christian is, regardless of whether an outsider can see it? I hope you have different answers to these two questions.
LikeLike
RS; If a person keeps coming to church and professing the confession, that person will be thought to be converted. Hence the thought that as long as they come to church they are converted. I am arguing that this is nothing more than words.
Sean: I see here an inherent discounting from you of an evangelical obedience of; not forsaking the gathering together of believer, an ordinary means, in favor of a more pietistic(in your scheme) affectation. You portray such behavior as rote and particularly given to fraudulence whereas as a passage such as Matt 7:21-23
22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
points to the more dramatic, and sensational as more susceptible to fraud than the ordinary.
BTW, for what it’s worth, this seems confirmed in my experiences as an officer in the church in dealing with marginal or false confessors. Generally, the first thing to falter is regular attendance or sincere appreciation for or valuing of ‘rote’ means.
LikeLike
Richard, I have not said “that the Sunday meetings of the church are enough and nothing else needs to be done.” What I have said is that worship is the principle good work of all believers (which means there are other necessary good works, even if they are secondary), and so a regular practicing of that work should actually count more toward evidence of true faith than to be cast as evidence of laze and disobedience. This casting plays well to an age that prizes affections and experience over faith and obedience, but the Bible actually does the reverse.
LikeLike
mikelmann: RS, it just now occurs to me that I look at this discussion as answering the question “What should/may a church look for in a candidate for membership?” As far as that goes, I can’t look beyond profession and observable conduct. But I’m less sure that is your quest(ion) here. Are you talking about what, in the abstract, a Christian is, regardless of whether an outsider can see it? I hope you have different answers to these two questions.
RS: It started off with my responding to one part of Dr. Hart’s post. I will give that just below.
D. G. Hart: And unlike Tim, I know that the Old Siders he disparages actually reacted the way that Tim Bayly would if a new church started right down the road, and if the new pastor said that members at Clearnote Fellowship should leave their congregation to worship at Clearword Church because Tim Bayly was an unregenerate hypocrite (which is what Gilbert Tennent said about Old Siders).
RS (original post): But then again, there was some disparagment coming toward the Tennents from the other side. Who knows, maybe some of those men were unregenerate. Remember what Jesus (New Sider) said to the Old Siders of His time. “Woe to you hypocrites.” Just because something is old does not make it true or false as well as just because something is new and exciting does not make it true or false.
I just read Tennent’s sermon on the Danger of an Unconverted Ministry. I read it quickly, but could not find where he specifically mentioned the Old Side or Old Lights. He spoke of Pharisee minsters and unconverted ministers, but a specific application to a particular group I did not find. Again, I read it quickly. But could it be that the Old Siders or Old Lights were just too sensitive in all this? Jesus told us that we would be mocked and made fun of, not to mention that we would be hated.
RS: That was the start of things. So it began with how can you call a professing believer a hypocrite or unregenerate and then went to how can you do that to an orthodox minster. But now it appears to be on how can one call anyone an unbeliever as long as they are attending church and confess the confession.
But as to your choice (mikelmann) of two possible questions:
Possibility 1: What should/may a church look for in a candidate for membership?” As far as that goes, I can’t look beyond profession and observable conduct.
Possibility 2: Are you talking about what, in the abstract, a Christian is, regardless of whether an outsider can see it? I hope you have different answers to these two questions.
RS: Depending on the person, it appears that it may be both. I would disagree, however, with your answer to P. 1. I would think that the leadership of the church would help the candidate examine his or her heart in the matter. Sure the person must have a profession, but that must be a credible profession and requires more than some simple answers to simple questions. The issues of the heart should be addressed rather than left unaddressed. I would think that the leadership would want to help the person in these things. If they don’t, then who will?
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, I have not said “that the Sunday meetings of the church are enough and nothing else needs to be done.”
RS: But remember my question (so long ago) was is making a profession, going to church on Sunday, and taking the sacrament enough? Your answer provoked my statement that you have twisted (I am not saying on purpose) and brought back to me a few different times. What I said was that if all a person did was confess the Confession, came to church on Sunday, and take the sacrament that person was spiritually lazy. That brought a reaction that continued. Now when I say that your position is ” that the Sunday meetings of the church are enough and nothing else needs to be done”, you react a bit. The only thing I left out from the original discussion was the confessing and the sacrament. I have noticed that you did not mention those below.
Zrim: What I have said is that worship is the principle good work of all believers (which means there are other necessary good works, even if they are secondary), and so a regular practicing of that work should actually count more toward evidence of true faith than to be cast as evidence of laze and disobedience. This casting plays well to an age that prizes affections and experience over faith and obedience, but the Bible actually does the reverse.
RS: But there is no true obedience apart from love and there is an affection that goes along with love. The Greatest Commandment is to love God with all of your heart, mind, soul, and strength. There is no obedience apart from that. So the Bible does not actually do the reverse, but instead never teaches us that we can be obedient apart from the Greatest Commandment. I am still puzzled why you continue to view experience as a bad thing. When God works regeneration in the soul, the soul experiences regeneration. If the soul does not experience regeneration, God has not worked it. To denigrate experience and the affections as much as you do sure seems to be an effort to prop up a form of rationalism and moralism. I know you don’t want to do that, but I am not sure what is left.
LikeLike
sean quoting RS; If a person keeps coming to church and professing the confession, that person will be thought to be converted. Hence the thought that as long as they come to church they are converted. I am arguing that this is nothing more than words.
Sean: I see here an inherent discounting from you of an evangelical obedience of; not forsaking the gathering together of believer, an ordinary means, in favor of a more pietistic(in your scheme) affectation. You portray such behavior as rote and particularly given to fraudulence whereas as a passage such as Matt 7:21-23
RS: But you see wrongly, then. I am arguing for a greater evangelical obedience. It means don’t for sake the gathering together of your bodies, but also bring your attention and your heart. Behavior apart from the heart is rote, but the actions need to be there as well.
22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
Sean: points to the more dramatic, and sensational as more susceptible to fraud than the ordinary.
RS: No, not so. Both are susceptible to the deceiving wiles of the evil one. Some are given more to impressions while some are given more to rationalism. I am trying to argue that both are necessary.
SEan: BTW, for what it’s worth, this seems confirmed in my experiences as an officer in the church in dealing with marginal or false confessors. Generally, the first thing to falter is regular attendance or sincere appreciation for or valuing of ‘rote’ means.
RS: I would argue that the heart was probably gone before the body stopped attending. You know, as Jesus said that where your treasure is that is where the heart is. But where the heart is, the body will follow. People get tired of rote attendance if their heart is not in it.
LikeLike
Richard, you know about Heidelberg on conversion, right? It’s mortification and vivification. Westminster doesn’t even mention conversion in the ordo. And Charles Chauncey was not and Old Side Presbyterian.
LikeLike
Richard and Erik, on be anxious for nothing, except if your an evangelist and trying to scare people into heaven, you know, as in the anxious bench or the terrors of the law.
LikeLike
Richard, you have used the phrase “mere words” several times in response to confessionalism. Why doesn’t mere words also apply to you? The point is that neither Whitefield nor John Thomson (an Old Sider) could see the heart. We are all only dealing with words and observations. Yet, you seem to think you have more insight into who is saved than anyone else.
I am not saying this about you, but I find this notion to be incredibly naive and have seen it breed amazing self-righteousness. Those aren’t fruit of the Spirit.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, you know about Heidelberg on conversion, right? It’s mortification and vivification. Westminster doesn’t even mention conversion in the ordo. And Charles Chauncey was not and Old Side Presbyterian.
RS: Nevertheless, the Puritans used the term conversion to speak of the turning from sin to Christ.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, you have used the phrase “mere words” several times in response to confessionalism. Why doesn’t mere words also apply to you?
RS: It could, which is why people need to go deeper than just words. A profession can be mere words in the sense that the person saying them can be self-deceived. In the 1700’s Jacob Helffenstein wrote a book on Self-Deception. In it he quoted a few people (one being Jonathan Edwards) as saying that once a person became assured of salvation and was not truly converted, it was incredibly rare if it ever did happen for a person like that to ever be recovered from their deception. True love for the souls of others (which is a fruit of the Spirit) would seem to want us to be aware of these things and strive to help others.
D.G. Hart: The point is that neither Whitefield nor John Thomson (an Old Sider) could see the heart. We are all only dealing with words and observations. Yet, you seem to think you have more insight into who is saved than anyone else.
RS: No, just that the Bible has more to say on this than we are willing to allow for the most part.
D.G. Hart: I am not saying this about you, but I find this notion to be incredibly naive and have seen it breed amazing self-righteousness. Those aren’t fruit of the Spirit.
RS: I John was breathed forth by the Spirit. It tells us more than just let someone make a profession and do good works. True enough this type of thing could breed an amazing self-righteousness, but so can the doctrines of election and definite atonement. My argument is, once again, that the Bible tells us to go beyond those things.
LikeLike
RS: The difference between Edwards and Finny is the difference between night and day.
Sean: That may be true theologically, but methodologically it is simply the case that much of the 2nd great awakenings new measures, in terms of modality and measuring progress of the newly ‘awakened’ sinner is directly tied to Edward’s formal developments of marking conversion, including measures such as the anxious bench, which have direct ties to the puritan’s doctrine and practice of preparationism.
LikeLike
sean
Posted September 13, 2012 at 8:46 am | Permalink
RS: The difference between Edwards and Finny is the difference between night and day.
Sean: That may be true theologically, but methodologically it is simply the case that much of the 2nd great awakenings new measures, in terms of modality and measuring progress of the newly ‘awakened’ sinner is directly tied to Edward’s formal developments of marking conversion, including measures such as the anxious bench, which have direct ties to the puritan’s doctrine and practice of preparationism.
RS: Edwards did not use the anxious bench. The practice of preparationism (as the Puritans and Edwards practiced it) would not allow for an anxious bench. I am not sure that they had a method of measuring progress. The practice of preparationism is not that the sinner can prepare himself for salvation, but that it is God working in the soul to strip the soul of all that it is trusting in. It was really a way that the soul could be broken and stripped of all that it held to that would keep the soul from resting in Christ. It was a way of using the means of grace which included prayer asking God to save the soul. But it would never allow for something like an anxious bench. Finney was a man with a completely different theology and so he had a different practice.
LikeLike
RS: I John was breathed forth by the Spirit. It tells us more than just let someone make a profession and do good works.
Where exactly does 1 John say this? I wonder what you have in mind by “good works”?
LikeLike
Richard, what you seem to be doing all the way through this conversation is set pure hearts against empty words, which is fine since confessionalism has no qualms whatsoever with having to be born from above. But that’s the point, born from above. I can’t help but think that you are reading Jesus’ words about being born again with something of an ought-implies-can hermeneutic. But when Jesus is telling us we must be born again he’s doing the same thing he’s doing when he summarizes the law—raising the bar to show how impossibly unable we are, not to spurn us to even higher levels of piety (which is what all your “go above and beyond” rhetoric implies).
Confessionalism agrees with you that sinners must be born again, but only by the power of the Spirit. It also diverges from semi-revivalism in how this is evidenced. Confessionalism says by an outward profession and obedience. You effectively say by having a pure heart. But how can inward reality evidence inward reality?
LikeLike
Richard,
I’m aware of what preparationism is, but you’re misinformed in your attempts to disassociate various methodologies of the 2nd great awakening from Edward’s more formal attempts at detailing out the process and progress of conversions. Nettleton, Porter, Bradley and others relied on Edwards’ conversion narratives in both counseling and modeling their own evangelistic efforts.
LikeLike
Richard, Edwards may not have used the bench but he did scare the bejeebers out of people with Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God.
What you don’t seem to recognize — Edwards aside — is that your relentless pursuit of authenticity makes people anxious. What do you say to someone who sins and claims to be a believer? Do you encourage them to question their faith, since how could they ever fall if they were in hot pursuit of holiness?
What Finney’s bench did, your high bar does. It gives me the willies.
LikeLike
Richard, I don’t know how you do it. You’re either an extremely fast thinker with lightning fast fingers on the keypad, or you live behind your computer screen. On this (and many other) threads your comments tend to be numerous and lengthy (and you always seem to want to get in the last word). No offense, brother, but as one who himself can sometimes be guilty of spending too much time lurking on old life (got to get the log out of my own eye before I address the speck in yours!), may I suggest that you may want to consider whether your voluminous interactions on old life are really good stewardship of your time. After all, hasn’t it become clear to you that you’re not going to convince us confessionalists to adopt your (semi) revivalist views (just as it does not seem likely that we will convince you to adopt our position)? Why then spend (waste?) so much time, energy and space here on old life? (Of course, I’m not saying old life is a waste of time; far from it. But it is possible to spend too much time even on a good thing, no?)
LikeLike
Hear the gospel and believe it. Rely on Christ for righteousness. Attend church and witness/receive the sacraments. The Holy Spirit will work to sanctify you. No morbid introspection or great enthusiasm needed. Just keep plodding along until the day you die.
LikeLike
Geoff & Richard, I think Richard is an excellent foil. (Foils for Christ?)
RS: “In it he quoted a few people (one being Jonathan Edwards) as saying that once a person became assured of salvation and was not truly converted, it was incredibly rare if it ever did happen for a person like that to ever be recovered from their deception. True love for the souls of others (which is a fruit of the Spirit) would seem to want us to be aware of these things and strive to help others.”
So then, I guess the minister’s job is to make his audience doubt their salvation lest there might be a false convert among them. And I suppose the Table should be guarded with crocodiles in a moat. Have you already answered anyone bringing up the wheat and the tares, as in, not trying to pull out every tare lest you pull up wheat? Or Jesus’ reluctance to break a bruised reed?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: I John was breathed forth by the Spirit. It tells us more than just let someone make a profession and do good works.
Where exactly does 1 John say this? I wonder what you have in mind by “good works”?
RS: I tried to explain this a couple of times, but I know that all people don’t read all the posts. However, I have also read what Geoff Willour says about this not being the best use of my time. So I will try to keep this short.
I John was written with a few different purposes, but one of them was so that people could know that they have eternal life (5:13). I John starts off with words about the Word of life, that is, Christ and speaks of fellowship with the Father and His Son. I John ends with telling us that Christ Himself is eternal life. All though the book, then, one of the main teachings is on how to know if one is in fellowship with God and if a person has eternal life or not. So it is not a matter of a profession and it is not just a matter of works (even if good) that follow. Anyone can make a profession of faith and anyone can claim that they believe a confession of faith and it may be true that they think that they do. Anyone can do works that are outwardly good. However, I John was written so that people may know if they have “eternal life.”
As to good works, it is a rather broad term. Many use it to simply refer to the works of a person that have some good that is done in the work. Yet I Cor 13 tells us that there is nothing we can do apart from love (I would add, true love as opposed to what Americans call love today) is of no benefit. So I would want to distinguish all outwardly good works with good works done out of true love for God and then for others.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, what you seem to be doing all the way through this conversation is set pure hearts against empty words, which is fine since confessionalism has no qualms whatsoever with having to be born from above. But that’s the point, born from above. I can’t help but think that you are reading Jesus’ words about being born again with something of an ought-implies-can hermeneutic. But when Jesus is telling us we must be born again he’s doing the same thing he’s doing when he summarizes the law—raising the bar to show how impossibly unable we are, not to spurn us to even higher levels of piety (which is what all your “go above and beyond” rhetoric implies).
RS: Indeed, the new birth is impossible with men. However, that does not mean that it should not be preached clearly and pressed on people. Call it rhetoric if you want, but you have set the foundation for what is needed in your words above. A soul that has been born from above also lives a life that is from above as well. Eternal life is something that people have now because people have Christ now. A person with King Jesus in the soul is going to be different inside and out.
Zrim: Confessionalism agrees with you that sinners must be born again, but only by the power of the Spirit. It also diverges from semi-revivalism in how this is evidenced. Confessionalism says by an outward profession and obedience. You effectively say by having a pure heart. But how can inward reality evidence inward reality?
RS: Again you are misreading. I am simply saying what I John says (along with other places) and that is that a person must have eternal life (Christ is life) and that the book is written to show us that we can know if we have it. The standards in I John are more than an outward profession and an outward obedience. You can say that I am setting a high standard, but the standard is set by Scripture. When you set the standards lower than Scripture, that is, by saying it is only an outward profession and an obedient life, then you have lowered the standards by dropping them far below what Scripture sets out. But again, Scripture sets them out and I am not making them up.
LikeLike
Philip Cary, Good News for Anxious Christians, 2010,p 80: “The new evangelical theology gets us worried about our own motivations, gets us asking about whether we’re being unselfish or loving or spiritual enough. Instead of learning to tell good from bad in the real world of God’s creation – where we and our neighbors live – we are supposed to figure out what to do by sorting out good
from bad in the shadowy inner world of our own motivations, where it’s often very hard to tell what’s real.”
p83: “To love your neighbors means to seek their good. So it would be perverse to wonder whether you had the wrong motivation for seeking their good. If what you’re trying to accomplish really is
good for your neighbor, then that’s good enough. For Christian love is about the good of your neighbor, not how good your heart is. ”
mcmark: I like a lot of Cary’s book, but the irony is that he sometimes seems so anxious about us not thinking about our motives that he….makes us think even more about our motives.
LikeLike
sean: Richard, I’m aware of what preparationism is,
RS: Perhaps, but I don’t know that. I also understand that just because you use a word and you understand it does not mean that all those who read it do.
Sean: but you’re misinformed in your attempts to disassociate various methodologies of the 2nd great awakening from Edward’s more formal attempts at detailing out the process and progress of conversions. Nettleton, Porter, Bradley and others relied on Edwards’ conversion narratives in both counseling and modeling their own evangelistic efforts.
RS: But Nettleton and those did not use the methodologies of Finney and in fact strongly opposed him. The 2nd Great Awakening was not a unified movement. It had Finney the heretic and then Nettleton, Porter, and so on who were strongly Reformed. On this list (OldLife) most people have seemed to think of Finney and the 2nd Great Awakening as synomymous. The methods of Finney were diametrically opposed to both the theology and practice of Edwards and those like Nettleton.
LikeLike
Philip Cary’s chapter on “why you don’t always have to experience joy” is good commentary on liberal patience with RS, even though Cary focuses mostly on the Job’s patience with his friends.
Cary, p84–“There is nothing more self-centered than the project of being unselfish. Why would genuinely unselfish people bother trying to be unselfish? Love is not about itself. We need to love our neighbors, not our motivations. Often people who try to do everything out of love are driven by guilt, not love, guilt that they are not properly motivated by love when they do stuff for neighbors”.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, Edwards may not have used the bench but he did scare the bejeebers out of people with Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God.
RS: But as Edwards said, he couldn’t possibly set out hell worse than it was. Perhaps he did scare the people, but Jesus did that as well. You cannot scare a person into heaven and really cannot scare hell out of a person, but you can yell fire, fire so that they will seek the Lord who alone can grant them life.
D.G. Hart: What you don’t seem to recognize — Edwards aside — is that your relentless pursuit of authenticity makes people anxious.
RS: So do you criticize those who are in a relentless pursuit to comfort people in their sin? Is it so bad to echo Paul when he says that people need to examine themselves to see if they are in the faith? Is it so bad to take the words of Scripture seriously that our hearts are deceptive beyond what we can understand and that the devil is the deceiver?
D.G. Hart: What do you say to someone who sins and claims to be a believer? Do you encourage them to question their faith, since how could they ever fall if they were in hot pursuit of holiness?
RS: The question, again, is if they have eternal life in them. All people sin and all sin to some degree all of the time.
D.G. Hart: What Finney’s bench did, your high bar does. It gives me the willies.
RS: But if the bar that I am speaking of, which I don’t set, is at more or less the same level Scripture sets it, then your willies are not of my making. Finney, on the other hand, is a far different story.
LikeLike
Good News for Anxious Christians, by Philip Cary, Brazos, 2010
p48–“do you normally have to make things real in order for them to be real?”
p 50 –“you’re supposed to make this unreal God real in your life.On the one hand, you’re supposed to make it look like God’s doing it all, but on the other hand it’s all up to you, because God can’t do anything unless you let him…So it seems there’s this special way of doing things–not using your own strength. It’s a weird game.”
p54–“there is an old strand of mysticism–the basic idea was that if you silenced your own being and doing, quieted yourself down inwardly, then there’d be nothing left in your heart but God, so then would do everything instead of you.”
LikeLike
Richard, and the confessions seek to tell us what Scripture says. You claim that “good works must be done out of true love for God and other.” You make it sound like our works must be perfect. But HC 62 seems to indicate that “our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with sin.” And 114 indicates that those who are truly converted cannot keep the law perfectly, that even the holiest amongst us have only a small beginning of obedience (let the reader understand how staggering these words are for the perfection-inclined).
It seems to me that the confessions make plenty of room for the abiding reality of our human frailty and imperfections, whereas your prescriptions don’t seem to take any of that into account.
LikeLike
Geoff Willour: Richard, I don’t know how you do it. You’re either an extremely fast thinker with lightning fast fingers on the keypad, or you live behind your computer screen.
RS: Well, not all think I am a fast thinker, but I don’t live behind this screen. I do type rather fast, or so I am told.
GW: On this (and many other) threads your comments tend to be numerous and lengthy (and you always seem to want to get in the last word). No offense, brother, but as one who himself can sometimes be guilty of spending too much time lurking on old life (got to get the log out of my own eye before I address the speck in yours!), may I suggest that you may want to consider whether your voluminous interactions on old life are really good stewardship of your time.
RS: No offense taken at all. But there is more to the story, though I will take your words to heart. I won’t simply profess to believe them and do good works, I will take them to heart.
GW: After all, hasn’t it become clear to you that you’re not going to convince us confessionalists to adopt your (semi) revivalist views (just as it does not seem likely that we will convince you to adopt our position)? Why then spend (waste?) so much time, energy and space here on old life? (Of course, I’m not saying old life is a waste of time; far from it. But it is possible to spend too much time even on a good thing, no?)
RS: It is possible to spend too much time on a good thing. However, there are a few things to bring up here. The Word of God can convince a person at any moment if the Spirit pleases. It is also the case that a lot more people read (I am assuming) this site than post. But it is also good just to discuss these things. With some it might drive them to the confession and hopefully while there they will read the Bible references. But with me it drives me to the Bible and the confessions. So there are positive things. Another positive thing is that it keeps me from wasting more money on the books of Dr. Hart, though I just recently obtained one. Actually, don’t tell my wife but it was actually two. Anyway, I can just read him on here for free.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Hear the gospel and believe it. Rely on Christ for righteousness. Attend church and witness/receive the sacraments. The Holy Spirit will work to sanctify you. No morbid introspection or great enthusiasm needed. Just keep plodding along until the day you die.
RS: It is not quite that simple. Remember from Ephesians 6 that we are in a spiritual battle, that is to say, we are in a war. The devil wars against our soul and desires and works to deceive us. We are not to be sleeping at the wheel thinking that we don’t need some degree of introspection or great enthusiasm. If the devil desires to deceive a soul, then that soul needs to be aware of that and seek the Lord heartily.
Mat 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
22 “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’
23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’
Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?
Ephesians 4:14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;
1 Timothy 4:1 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
Hebrews 3:13 But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called “Today,” so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.
1 Corinthians 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, he must become foolish, so that he may become wise.
Revelation 20:3 and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.
1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
2 Corinthians 11:3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.
James 1:16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.
James 1:26 If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless.
1 John 3:7 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; 8 the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.
Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.
2 Thessalonians 2:10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.
LikeLike
MikelMann: Geoff & Richard, I think Richard is an excellent foil. (Foils for Christ?)
MM Quoting RS: “In it he quoted a few people (one being Jonathan Edwards) as saying that once a person became assured of salvation and was not truly converted, it was incredibly rare if it ever did happen for a person like that to ever be recovered from their deception. True love for the souls of others (which is a fruit of the Spirit) would seem to want us to be aware of these things and strive to help others.”
MM: So then, I guess the minister’s job is to make his audience doubt their salvation lest there might be a false convert among them.
RS: Perhaps the job would include seeking to undeceive those who are deceived and in doing so make sure there is a proper foundation for true believers.
MM: And I suppose the Table should be guarded with crocodiles in a moat.
RS: Not a bad idea. After all, when people partake in an unworthy manner they are eating and drinking sickness and death to themselves. Maybe we should be more careful.
MM: Have you already answered anyone bringing up the wheat and the tares, as in, not trying to pull out every tare lest you pull up wheat? Or Jesus’ reluctance to break a bruised reed?
RS: Regarding the wheat and tares, you might want to read that whole (whole as in whole) context again. When the disciples asked Jesus what that meant, He said that the the field was the world. He did not say that the field was the church or Church. If we interpret that parable as meaning the church, then that would be the end of church discipline except in the most obvious and even extraordinary cases.
LikeLike
mark mcculley: Philip Cary’s chapter on “why you don’t always have to experience joy” is good commentary on liberal patience with RS, even though Cary focuses mostly on the Job’s patience with his friends.
Cary, p84–”There is nothing more self-centered than the project of being unselfish. Why would genuinely unselfish people bother trying to be unselfish? Love is not about itself. We need to love our neighbors, not our motivations. Often people who try to do everything out of love are driven by guilt, not love, guilt that they are not properly motivated by love when they do stuff for neighbors”.
RS: Perhaps, yet even the Pharisees would give alms. Since the 2nd Greatest Commandment flows out of the Greatest Commandment, it might be a good thing to check our hearts to see our motivation. “There is nothing more self-centered than the project of being unselfish.” The previous statement by Carey is absurd on one level. The project of being unselfish can be pursued in a selfish way, but if you see that Jesus commands us to deny ourselves (deny self) in order to follow Him, then it begins to be seen in a different light. Humility is the emptying of self. We are to humble ourselves so how is it self-centered to cry out for God to deliver us from selfishness which is sin?
LikeLike
Richard,
Ok. I dropped the Finney bit and went with those you more closely align yourself, so as to provide a better platform to show the extended use of preparationism and Edward’s ongoing contribution to even the 2nd awakening. But since you brought him back in, Finney’s anxious bench amounts to little more than a condensed version of preparationism squeezed into the confines and time constraints of a ‘tent revival’. Quite frankly, if I have to choose between extended, Haldol symptomatic, navel-gazing(preparation) or shock treatment(anxious bench), I’ll take that third option and go straight to the ‘ordinary’.
LikeLike
Richard, thanks for showing how semi-revivalism has given us infrequency of the visible gospel. But I wonder if it helps you to know that pro-frequency confessionalists also tend to be credo-communionists for the very reason you give. Frequency doesn’t mean the deconstruction of fencing.
LikeLike
mark mcculley: Philip Cary, Good News for Anxious Christians, 2010,p 80: “The new evangelical theology gets us worried about our own motivations, gets us asking about whether we’re being unselfish or loving or spiritual enough. Instead of learning to tell good from bad in the real world of God’s creation – where we and our neighbors live – we are supposed to figure out what to do by sorting out good from bad in the shadowy inner world of our own motivations, where it’s often very hard to tell what’s real.”
RS: Actually, it is simply the Bible that tells us to examine our hearts. But since it is very hard to sort out what is real, maybe the devil is the deceiver and does not want us to see what is real. Maybe that should drive us to prayer as David did and ask God to examine his heart and show him his hurtful ways.
McMark: p83: “To love your neighbors means to seek their good. So it would be perverse to wonder whether you had the wrong motivation for seeking their good. If what you’re trying to accomplish really is good for your neighbor, then that’s good enough. For Christian love is about the good of your neighbor, not how good your heart is. ”
RS: Nonsense (Carey’s statement): Atheists seek the external good of their neighbor and do it for nothing but selfish reasons though they say they are altruistic. If we don’t love God in our hearts, then we don’t love our neighbor and we are not seeking their truest and highest good. We must know our hearts to some degree if we are to do our neighbor real good.
mcmark: I like a lot of Cary’s book, but the irony is that he sometimes seems so anxious about us not thinking about our motives that he….makes us think even more about our motives.
LikeLike
mark mcculley: Good News for Anxious Christians, by Philip Cary, Brazos, 2010
p48–”do you normally have to make things real in order for them to be real?”
RS: No, what is real and lasting is eternal things and God alone can show them to souls through faith.
p 50 –”you’re supposed to make this unreal God real in your life.On the one hand, you’re supposed to make it look like God’s doing it all, but on the other hand it’s all up to you, because God can’t do anything unless you let him…So it seems there’s this special way of doing things–not using your own strength. It’s a weird game.”
RS: But it is not a game at all. It is part of the Greatest Commandment to do all for His glory in reality and not just pretend.
p54–”there is an old strand of mysticism–the basic idea was that if you silenced your own being and doing, quieted yourself down inwardly, then there’d be nothing left in your heart but God, so then would do everything instead of you.”
RS: It is actually biblical though not in that exact strain of thought. We are to die to self so that Christ would be our life. We are to deny self so that we can pursue Christ. We are to be emptied of self (humility) so that we would be filled with the Spirit (not in the charismatic way) so that like Paul we would labor more than all and yet not with our own strength but striving according to His power which mightily worked in him.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, and the confessions seek to tell us what Scripture says. You claim that “good works must be done out of true love for God and other.” You make it sound like our works must be perfect. But HC 62 seems to indicate that “our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with sin.” And 114 indicates that those who are truly converted cannot keep the law perfectly, that even the holiest amongst us have only a small beginning of obedience (let the reader understand how staggering these words are for the perfection-inclined).
It seems to me that the confessions make plenty of room for the abiding reality of our human frailty and imperfections, whereas your prescriptions don’t seem to take any of that into account.
RS: I am not arguing against our abiding sin and the fact that we are pitiful and miserable creatures. What I am arguing against (in this context) is doing what the Pharisees did in lowering the standard of the law. We must not lower the perfect standard in order to make us feel better. Christ alone is able to take away the guilt and power of sin. When we lower the standard we diminish the work of Christ. On the one hand John writes so that we will not sin, yet when we do sin He points to the propitiation of Christ.
LikeLike
sean: Richard, Ok. I dropped the Finney bit and went with those you more closely align yourself, so as to provide a better platform to show the extended use of preparationism and Edward’s ongoing contribution to even the 2nd awakening. But since you brought him back in, Finney’s anxious bench amounts to little more than a condensed version of preparationism squeezed into the confines and time constraints of a ‘tent revival’.
RS: Sean, words cannot express how mistaken your view as expressed here is. Finney was a Pelagian who thought he could pressure people into making a decision. Edwards and the preparationists were Calvinists who told people that God must grant them live as He pleased and when He pleased by grace alone.
Sean: Quite frankly, if I have to choose between extended, Haldol symptomatic, navel-gazing(preparation) or shock treatment(anxious bench), I’ll take that third option and go straight to the ‘ordinary’.
RS: I hope you are just mistaken on what you think the Puritan method of evanglism was and is. If not, then you have just chosen Pelagianism over Calvinism. God will be gracious to whom He will be gracious. It does not depend on the man who wills or runs, but on God who has mercy. The doctrine of election has many ramifications that our spiritually shallow age has cast to the side. One of them is that God saves as He pleases and when He pleases. Another thing that has been cast to the side is total inability. Man cannot save himself and must wait on God to save him. If a person sees his inability and knows that God is sovereign, what is he to do? He should seek the Lord and flee from sin because sin hardens the heart. He is to go and hear the Word of God because that is a means that God uses to save. Sure Finney’s bench was quicker and easier for the moment, but it was not the Gospel and deceived people to hell. The Gospel of grace alone does not tell me that I can believe when I please, but that the grace that saves will do as it pleases.
Below is a selection of Q & A’s from the WSC. It was written by men who believed in this preparation or seeking type of evangelism. Note that in Q. 26 part of the office of Christ as King is to subdue us to Himself. Part of that is to subdue our hearts, but the heart He starts with is a heart that hates Him and is proud and self-sufficient.
Q. 26. How doth Christ execute the office of a king?
A. Christ executeth the office of a king, in subduing us to himself, in ruling and defending us,[71] and in restraining and conquering all his and our enemies.[72]
Q. 29. How are we made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ?
A. We are made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ, by the effectual application of it to us by his Holy Spirit.[83]
Q. 30. How doth the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?
A. The Spirit applieth to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us,[84] and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.[85]
Q. 31. What is effectual calling?
A. Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ,[86] and renewing our wills,[87] he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ,[88] freely offered to us in the gospel.[89]
Q. 87. What is repentance unto life?
A. Repentance unto life is a saving grace,[180] whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ,[181] doth, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God,[182] with full purpose of, and endeavor after, new obedience.[183]
Q. 88. What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption?
A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption are, his ordinances, especially the Word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.[184]
Q. 89. How is the Word made effectual to salvation?
A. The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching, of the Word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith, unto salvation.[185]
Q. 90. How is the Word to be read and heard, that it may become effectual to salvation?
A. That the Word may become effectual to salvation, we must attend thereunto with diligence, preparation, and prayer;[186] receive it with faith and love, lay it up in our hearts, and practice it in our lives.[187]
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, thanks for showing how semi-revivalism has given us infrequency of the visible gospel. But I wonder if it helps you to know that pro-frequency confessionalists also tend to be credo-communionists for the very reason you give. Frequency doesn’t mean the deconstruction of fencing.
RS: Semi-revivalism does not give you inrequency of the Gospel, but gives you the true Gospel. It preaches a sovereign God who saves as He pleases. Fencing the table is for the good of people and also proclaims a sovereign grace which is the only kind of grace at all.
LikeLike
Richard,
That ‘third option’ was actually my bypass of both extended neurosis(preparationism) and temporary hysterical neurosis(anxious bench)
LikeLike
If not for the unity of style, I would guess that there are three or four people contributing as “Richard Smith” to explain the speed and volume of his responses. Or maybe Richard has an app for that. Wow. But I do wonder, Richard, how much you are pondering when you answer questions like they are flash cards.
LikeLike
Richard, how is limiting the evidence of true faith to outward profession and obedience lowering standards? It may be accommodating to the reality of how people actually work. An dit may be that semi-revivalism confuses high standards with impossibilities.
I didn’t say semi-revivalism gives us the infrequency of the gospel but infrequency of the visible gospel. My point is that with all the introspection semi-revivalism demands it is little wonder most P&R don’t celebrate weekly—who could keep that up every week (frailty point again)?
LikeLike
Luther, #19, the Heidelberg Disputations: “That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened. (1 Cor 1:21-24),
http://bookofconcord.org/heidelberg.php
I Corinthians 1: 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
LikeLike
Clair Davis ,from his essay “Systematics, Spirituality and the Christian Life”, in the volume The
Pattern of Sound Doctrine.
p276–”Reformed Christians had agreed that SOMETHING had to precede faith in Christ. But what did regeneration before faith mean? Did it intend to say that there was a chronological, temporal sequence through which people coming to Christ ordinarily passed?
Did they intend to say that people could be regenerate unbelievers, in the sense that they became regenerate years before becoming believers? It sounded that way.But when the theologians had discussed the order of salvation, they were thinking of a logical sequence, not an experiential one. Since one is truly dead in sin, of course he must first be brought to life before anything else can happen.But that definitely was not intending to send the message that before you even
begin thinking about trusting Christ, you need to first determine that you are able to.The order,which in its original form in Romans 8 was intended to provide encouragement during persecution and suffering, had been turned on its head, twisted, and had become a threatening word: don’t you dare try to trust Christ until you’re sure you have a transformed heart.
Davis, p284–”The Keswick approach to experience spoke of ‘letting him do the trusting for you’. Either you could try again and again to get the right kind of faith that would really give you the victory over sin. Or you could decide that you could not do anything anyway except wait for the Lord to do for you what you could not do for yourself. In this way, trying to get the right kind of experience turned out to be a replay of trying to get the right kind of faith. Preparationist trauma
resurfaced all over again—will we ever get it right?.”
LikeLike
more Clair Davis: p 270–”Just what is the connection between forgiveness and change? Roman Catholicism had suggested that being forgiven depended on your heart attitude. Grace was a divine fudge-factor, the giving of more credit for a little change than it deserved.”
p278, What should the sinner do? Should he come in faith to Christ? Or is it better to tell him to pray for a new heart? Can faith be both passive and lively? Not if ordinary definitions are used. Properly understood, faith expresses such a radical heart transformation that it no longer looks to itself at all, but only and always to Christ.”
LikeLike
Good things, McMark.
LikeLike
sean: Richard, That ‘third option’ was actually my bypass of both extended neurosis(preparationism) and temporary hysterical neurosis(anxious bench)
RS:
Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
LikeLike
MikelMann: If not for the unity of style, I would guess that there are three or four people contributing as “Richard Smith” to explain the speed and volume of his responses. Or maybe Richard has an app for that. Wow. But I do wonder, Richard, how much you are pondering when you answer questions like they are flash cards.
RS: I have answered many of the same type of questions in the past. Sometimes I read the plurality of posts and then answer. Gotta go, things to answer…….
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, how is limiting the evidence of true faith to outward profession and obedience lowering standards?
RS: Because it is not taking into account the other things the Bible gives. For example, I John thought that is not the only one. But it is one.
Zrim: It may be accommodating to the reality of how people actually work. An dit may be that semi-revivalism confuses high standards with impossibilities.
RS: No, all the commands of God are impossible in our own strength. As Warfield stated, we are not commanded what to do because we can do it, but in order to know the One we are to go to in order to keep it.
Zrim: I didn’t say semi-revivalism gives us the infrequency of the gospel but infrequency of the visible gospel. My point is that with all the introspection semi-revivalism demands it is little wonder most P&R don’t celebrate weekly—who could keep that up every week (frailty point again)?
RS: Which, I suppose, is the same thing as saying who would want to examine their heart once a week in order to repent once a week?
LikeLike
mark mcculley: Luther, #19, the Heidelberg Disputations: “That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened. (1 Cor 1:21-24),
RS: Which is most likely dealing with things like the providence of God. On the other hand, there are a few things in other areas to speak of.
2 Corinthians 5:7 for we walk by faith, not by sight–
2 Corinthians 4:18 while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
LikeLike
Mark Mcculley:
Davis, p284–”The Keswick approach to experience spoke of ‘letting him do the trusting for you’. Either you could try again and again to get the right kind of faith that would really give you the victory over sin. Or you could decide that you could not do anything anyway except wait for the Lord to do for you what you could not do for yourself. In this way, trying to get the right kind of experience turned out to be a replay of trying to get the right kind of faith. Preparationist trauma
resurfaced all over again—will we ever get it right?.”
RS: Call it preparationist trauma if you please, nevertheless the Lord teaches that He only gives grace to the humble and opposes the proud. Perhaps, then, the Lord humbles people before He grants them grace. Perhaps, then, it is a traumatic thing to be brought to an end of ourselves and our own strength and have pride ripped from our hearts by trials and hard things.
Rom 9:15 For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.” 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.
Hebrews 12:17 For you know that even afterwards, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears.
II Tim 3: 25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,
26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.
LikeLike
RS: Jeff Cagle quoting RS: I John was breathed forth by the Spirit. It tells us more than just let someone make a profession and do good works.
JRC: Where exactly does 1 John say this? I wonder what you have in mind by “good works”?
RS: I John was written with a few different purposes, but one of them was so that people could know that they have eternal life (5:13).
Ah. Now I see the issue. You’ve committed a reference frame splinching error.
Think about what you said at first: “[I John] tells us more than just let someone make a profession and do good works.”
Who is doing what here? In this sentence, the church is examining someone, either for membership or discipline purposes, and your claim is that they need more than a profession and good works.
Then you say,
“[A purpose of I John] was so that people could know that they have eternal life.”
Who is doing what here? A person is examining himself so as to know whether he has eternal life.
You switched reference frames from the church to the individual, and tried to carry over the particulars from one frame to another.
The church has no alternative than to accept a profession and evidence of fruit of the Spirit. The individual is the only one who has any sense of the genuineness of his faith — and that, only dimly. We call that individual sense, “assurance of salvation”, and it is purely internal and invisible.
LikeLike
Richard, Jesus may have scared people, but he wouldn’t have Phebe Bartlett. “Let the children come unto me” is not going to send a 5-year old into spiritual spasms.
I don’t see many folks in conservative circles trying to comfort people in their sins (except for not keeping the Lord’s Day holy). I do see it in liberal churches and I think I am on record against Protestant liberalism. You know me, I am a moderate, right down the middle between the neo-nomians (pietists) and antinomians (rationalists). If only the world were like (all about) me.
As for Willies, Luther also seems to capture the teaching of Scripture and he doesn’t traffic in Willies.
LikeLike
mark mcculley: more Clair Davis: p 270–”Just what is the connection between forgiveness and change? Roman Catholicism had suggested that being forgiven depended on your heart attitude. Grace was a divine fudge-factor, the giving of more credit for a little change than it deserved.”
RS: Perhaps forgiveness itself is part of what produces change. One is not forgiven because they have changed. Or could it be that the Lord changes the heart at His good pleasure in order that it would be an instrument of His good pleasure?
p278, What should the sinner do? Should he come in faith to Christ? Or is it better to tell him to pray for a new heart? Can faith be both passive and lively? Not if ordinary definitions are used. Properly understood, faith expresses such a radical heart transformation that it no longer looks to itself at all, but only and always to Christ.”
RS: But if one does not have faith, can one work it up? Of course not. So if a new heart is needed in order to have faith, what is one to do? What if one could see his own heart and saw that it was full of pride (pride is a faith killer that God opposes) and that he was full of believe and love for self? What is that person to do? He cannot believe while he is full of pride, self, self-reliance, and self-love. Should he ask the Lord to take those from him or not? Should he ask to be delivered from that horrible bondage of evil and be given a new heart or not? If God is sovereign and man is dead in sin, what is so hard about believing that God saves as He pleases and when He pleases? Does God grant that a person will become like a little child in five minutes or less and as the person pleases or is that something God has to work in the heart?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, Jesus may have scared people, but he wouldn’t have Phebe Bartlett. “Let the children come unto me” is not going to send a 5-year old into spiritual spasms.
RS: But did He mean let the children come to me and be saved? How do you know that He wouldn’t have scared anyone?
D.G. Hart: I don’t see many folks in conservative circles trying to comfort people in their sins (except for not keeping the Lord’s Day holy). I do see it in liberal churches and I think I am on record against Protestant liberalism. You know me, I am a moderate, right down the middle between the neo-nomians (pietists) and antinomians (rationalists). If only the world were like (all about) me.
RS: I guess we differ. I see folks all over the place trying to comfort people in their sins.
D.G. Hart: As for Willies, Luther also seems to capture the teaching of Scripture and he doesn’t traffic in Willies.
RS: So when He says that a person must deny themselves including deny their free will to be saved, that doesn’t give you the willies?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: The church has no alternative than to accept a profession and evidence of fruit of the Spirit. The individual is the only one who has any sense of the genuineness of his faith — and that, only dimly. We call that individual sense, “assurance of salvation”, and it is purely internal and invisible.
RS: Note, I am not arguing that elders can tell for sure on all people. I am arguing, however, that they should go much deeper using the book of I John and other places. They should help people examine their own hearts and I John enables them to do that. I also will assert, but only because I John and John 13:35 does, that there are other was that are not just invisible to others. Notice in the verses below the plural pronouns and how they are applied. For example, verse 16: ” We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.” We (plural) have come to know and have believed that love which God has for (literally “in”) us. In other words, there is something about this true love (in context) that shows one person that God abides in other people. It seems to me that is what the text says.
So, first I am not arguing that we have an infallible way of looking at all people. However, I John sure seems to be telling us that we can know with some people. Second, I would think that elders could help people examine themselves. If they are going to do it anyway, then perhaps some guidance would be helpful.
I John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.
9 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.
10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
12 No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us.
13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.
14 We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.
15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.
16 We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.
17 By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world.
LikeLike
Richard, no, wondering who can keep up with semi-revivalism’s introspection weekly isn’t to negate regular personal repentance. It’s to suggest the difference between diving into the self and looking outward to Christ. The former is exhausting, the latter liberating—you know, easy yoke and all that. Besides, what’s to find out when looking inward except that, yep, still more sinful than holy. Does that really take a whole week? If so, that’s one good indicator that you’re looking for more than God requireth.
LikeLike
If Richard would just agree to switch to Sanka a lot of this could be solved.
If you have a church, Richard, I fear you are leading your parishioners on a lot of unnecessary tail-chasing.
One thing I love about my pastor is that whenever he does a family visit he always asks us where our faith lies. My wife always thinks it’s some kind of trick question, but all he is looking for is that we are looking to Christ. “Jesus” is always a pretty good answer to give him if you are stumped.
LikeLike
RS: Note, I am not arguing that elders can tell for sure on all people … I am not arguing that we have an infallible way of looking at all people.
Good. We can agree to this. But infallibility wasn’t really my issue here. Rather, it was “what can we look to other than words or deeds that can tell us about the spiritual condition of an individual?” I’m content to grant you fallibility just so long as you are clear on what metrics you’re using.
You aren’t happy with a confession of faith and deeds of righteousness. And you aren’t happy with those things because they could be faked.
OK, so I want to know, specifically,
(a) What things other than a confession of faith and deeds of righteousness do you have in mind?
So far, you’ve been motioning vigorously but vaguely towards 1 John — but he’s talking about love, which certainly falls under the category of the fruit of the Spirit leading to deeds of righteousness.
So I still don’t understand what else you have in mind.
(b) How is it that these other things, whatever they may be, could not also be faked?
RS: I am arguing, however, that they should go much deeper using the book of I John and other places. They should help people examine their own hearts and I John enables them to do that.
No argument on the “helping people examine their own hearts.” But what are they looking for? And what will they do with that information once they have it?
RS: I also will assert, but only because I John and John 13:35 does, that there are other was that are not just invisible to others. Notice in the verses below the plural pronouns and how they are applied. For example, verse 16: ” We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.” We (plural) have come to know and have believed that love which God has for (literally “in”) us. In other words, there is something about this true love (in context) that shows one person that God abides in other people. It seems to me that is what the text says.
True love acts. The way that we know that the Good Sam in the parable (whomever he may represent) actually loved his neighbor is that he took concrete actions to help his neighbor.
Unless you have a love-o-meter that is patent-pending, you are still limited to deeds (and possibly words) as a way of measuring love. And if you do have such a love-o-meter, I hope you have calibrated it properly.
LikeLike
My approach as an elder (inactive elder now) is to take people’s profession of faith at face value unless they give me a reason to do otherwise. I don’t go looking for reasons. If those reasons arise then you go through the Biblical steps up to and including church discipline. It’s not our job to try to peer into people’s hearts.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, no, wondering who can keep up with semi-revivalism’s introspection weekly isn’t to negate regular personal repentance. It’s to suggest the difference between diving into the self and looking outward to Christ. The former is exhausting, the latter liberating—you know, easy yoke and all that. Besides, what’s to find out when looking inward except that, yep, still more sinful than holy. Does that really take a whole week? If so, that’s one good indicator that you’re looking for more than God requireth.
RS: Or perhaps others are looking for less than God requires. If one hates sin, one wants a pure heart and will pray for that and seek it.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: If Richard would just agree to switch to Sanka a lot of this could be solved.
RS: I am not a switch-hitter and I don’t drink that coffee junk. I am part Mormon in that regard.
Erik Charter: If you have a church, Richard, I fear you are leading your parishioners on a lot of unnecessary tail-chasing.
RS: No chasing of tails, but of Christ who died in order to purify His people.
Titus 2:14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.
Eric Charter: One thing I love about my pastor is that whenever he does a family visit he always asks us where our faith lies. My wife always thinks it’s some kind of trick question, but all he is looking for is that we are looking to Christ. “Jesus” is always a pretty good answer to give him if you are stumped.
RS: So you (or another) knows the right words to say and says that and he is satisfied and goes on. If you are satisfied with that, then you are satisfied. But Jesus tended to ask questions that went to the heart.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: My approach as an elder (inactive elder now) is to take people’s profession of faith at face value unless they give me a reason to do otherwise. I don’t go looking for reasons. If those reasons arise then you go through the Biblical steps up to and including church discipline. It’s not our job to try to peer into people’s hearts.
RS: So why have elders if all they do is take what people say at face value? Is there need for the elders to be men of wisdom and spiritual insight?
LikeLike
You’re great Richard. If we didn’t have you here we would have to invent you. We are currently having to invent a new Bryan Cross. We are hoping that you don’t depart us for PietisticReformedNewSchoolPresbyterianBaptist.com.
LikeLike
And good luck with those x-ray soul specs!
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: You aren’t happy with a confession of faith and deeds of righteousness. And you aren’t happy with those things because they could be faked.
RS: Not just a simple fake, but anyone can make a confession and anyone can actually do an outwardly good deed.
Jeff Cagle: OK, so I want to know, specifically,
(a) What things other than a confession of faith and deeds of righteousness do you have in mind?
RS: Basically the one thing that the devil cannot fake or mimic in the ways that He does other things is true love. The world and the Church can have pseudo love and they can do things that are externally good, but they cannnot have true love for God and true love for others, and even more specifically they cannot have love for true believers.
Jeff Cagle: So far, you’ve been motioning vigorously but vaguely towards 1 John — but he’s talking about love, which certainly falls under the category of the fruit of the Spirit leading to deeds of righteousness.
RS: But love is not the same thing as deeds of righteousness and the deeds of righteousness can be copied quite easily. Atheists can do the copies of the deeds of righteousness without any change of heart.
Jeff Cagle: So I still don’t understand what else you have in mind.
(b) How is it that these other things, whatever they may be, could not also be faked?
RS: True love, since only the God who is love, can work this in the soul cannot be truly mimicked. True love, which is the heart of eternal life in the soul, is something that the devil does not have and cannot truly mimic. This is one reason why experienced men should help people examine themselves. Person A can help a little old lady across the street and do it with a desire to get a merit badge. Person B can help a little old lady across the street because he wants a tip. Person C can help a little old lady across the street in order to feel good about himself and his own righteousness. Person D can help the little old lady across the street because he wants to make God look good but down deep he is doing this out of self-righteousness. Person E, however, out of love for God (which God has to put there) and His glory helps the little old lady across the street and wants her to see the glory of God to the good of her soul. The love in the soul is the key issue and is in every regenerate heart and yet is not found at all in any unregenerate act. I Cor 13 tells us with clarity that apart from that love nothing we do is of any benefit. If nothing we do is of any benefit, and that includes acts of righteousness (as the Pharisees) and our confessions and professions, it would behoove us to be able to guide people into ways to examine themselves in this.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: I also will assert, but only because I John and John 13:35 does, that there are other was that are not just invisible to others. Notice in the verses below the plural pronouns and how they are applied. For example, verse 16: ” We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.” We (plural) have come to know and have believed that love which God has for (literally “in”) us. In other words, there is something about this true love (in context) that shows one person that God abides in other people. It seems to me that is what the text says.
Jeff Cagle: True love acts. The way that we know that the Good Sam in the parable (whomever he may represent) actually loved his neighbor is that he took concrete actions to help his neighbor.
RS: So anyone can do what is known as altruistic acts and those concrete actions are love? Jesus said through Paul that we can sell all we have and give to the poor and yet do that without love. Jesus said through Paul that we could give our bodies to be burned and yet do that without love.
Jeff Cagle: Unless you have a love-o-meter that is patent-pending, you are still limited to deeds (and possibly words) as a way of measuring love. And if you do have such a love-o-meter, I hope you have calibrated it properly.
RS: I would argue that the Holy Spirit is in true believers and He does help them in this regard. I argue this because of I John (easiest to point out). True love is a supernatural thing, but the same acts can be done.
I John 3:23 This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us.
24 The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.
I John 4: 5 They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them.
6 We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.
I John 4:10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
12 No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us.
13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: And good luck with those x-ray soul specs!
RS: Luck is the secular man’s way of trying to describe the sovereignty and providence of God. As for x-ray specs, the regenerate man does “see” things in a much different way (Heb 11). Allow me to give you the same verses I just gave Jeff Cagle. Notice how people can know these things from the verses listed below.
I John 3:23 This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us.
24 The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.
RS: Notice the commands here. It is not to make a profession and do good deeds, though you might argue that they are implied. But we are actually commanded to believe (more than a simple belief in a few propositions) in Christ and to love one another (believers). We can know that He abides in us by the Spirit whom He has given.
I John 4: 5 They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them.
6 We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.
RS: Believers love one another because love is from God. Everyone who loves (true love) is born of God and knows God. Remember from John 17:3 that eternal life is to know God, which is a different thing than just knowing about Him. The one who does not know God does not love. This is also to say, though it says more, that the one that does not have true love does not have eternal life.
I John 4:10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
12 No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us.
13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.
RS: While it is true that no one has seen God, if we love one another God abides in us. On the other hand, we can know that we abide in Him and He is us because He has given us of His Spirit. So no one has seen God, yet if two believers have true love they can know that they (notice the plural) abide in Him and He in us. They know this because of the nature of love and because He has given His people the Spirit. By the way, the fruit of the Spirit is love.
LikeLike
I think we’ve come to the nub. In your view, the additional thing that we have besides confession and deeds of righteousness is love. And we can, by the aid of the Holy Spirit, distinguish true love in the hearts of others.
Let’s deal with that, but first we should clear some brush.
RS: RS: So anyone can do what is known as altruistic acts and those concrete actions are love?
You have the logic backwards. The Spirit creates love, which leads us to do good works. But not all outwardly good works are motivated by love.
So good works as a metric is quite fallible. I hope you’ll grant that this is OK!
Now, about true love. Just a simple question: Is our love for God and neighbor ever pure?
And another: How do we “see” love in someone else?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: You have the logic backwards. The Spirit creates love, which leads us to do good works. But not all outwardly good works are motivated by love.
RS: I am not sure why you think my logic is backwards at that point. Here is what I said: “So anyone can do what is known as altruistic acts and those concrete actions are love?” Notice the question mark at the end. Any person, believer or not, can do what appears to be an altruistic action and claim that it is love. A concrete action is not necessarily love.
The Spirit does not create love since the love in God is not created. Notice the text in Galatians. It tells us that the fruit of the Spirit is love. In other words, it is not that the Spirit has to create love, but instead the triune God lives in perfect love and the Spirit shares this love in and with us. It is the indwelling God who works in us to be like Himself and shares His love for Himelf with us that moves us to do what is truly good for others. It is not that we have to do good works as such, but the Spirit in us moves us to do them out of true love which is love for God and to manifest His glory.
Jeff Cagle: So good works as a metric is quite fallible. I hope you’ll grant that this is OK!
RS: Yes, I have been arguing that for a bit.
Jeff Cagle: Now, about true love. Just a simple question: Is our love for God and neighbor ever pure?
RS: Yes, but not totally pure. As the smallest seed of faith is true faith, so a small amount of love is true love. Even our best of love and our best of works need Christ as their source and yet Christ as our Priest as well.
Jeff Cagle: And another: How do we “see” love in someone else?
RS: At the risk of being the object of heaps of ridicule, I will go back to I John. Going back to those passages it says that we can, but it does not say how we can. It simply says by the Spirit and that we can know. I would argue that those who have the love of God in them by the Spirit (the only way) also have discernment by that same Spirit. They are able to recognize true love in others to a degree, though they are not infallible in this. Though people can use the same words and do the same work, not all is from the same source of love. Yet I John tells us quite clearly that we can know God and we can know that the love of God dwells in us and that He dwells in another. I don’t think that this can be tested in an empirical way any more than we can test the divine light. As God is self-evident in many ways, so the love of God is self-evident as well.
I John 4:5 They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them.
6 We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.
9 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.
10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
12 No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us.
13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.
LikeLike
Richard’s insistence that people not only believe in Christ’s work, but BELIEVE in Christ’s work reminds me of Dean Wormer putting Delta House on double secret probation:
LikeLike
I would point back to the recent case of Patrick Edouard. Did the men who ordained him KNOW he was sincere when they ordained him? Did the believers at Covenant Reformed in Pella KNOW he was sincere when they called him? What does it say about everyone’s knowledge when he revealed himself to be a total cad? I guess we can say we have “knowledge” of other people’s spiritual condition, but when they do something unexpected that surprises us it reveals our knowledge to be pretty flimsy.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard’s insistence that people not only believe in Christ’s work, but BELIEVE in Christ’s work reminds me of Dean Wormer putting Delta House on double secret probation:
RS: But Erik, you must remember that in John 2 many believed in Jesus when they saw Him doing miracles. But Jesus did not entrust Himself to them. Why? They did not savingly believe. Many believed in Jesus in John 5 and John 6, but vitually all of them left Him by the end of chapter 6. The same thing is true all the way through the Gospel of John. If you care to take the time to trace through to find out what John says about those that THE BIBLE tells us believed you will see that they were not converted. So I will stick with the Bible over a movie.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: I would point back to the recent case of Patrick Edouard. Did the men who ordained him KNOW he was sincere when they ordained him? Did the believers at Covenant Reformed in Pella KNOW he was sincere when they called him? What does it say about everyone’s knowledge when he revealed himself to be a total cad? I guess we can say we have “knowledge” of other people’s spiritual condition, but when they do something unexpected that surprises us it reveals our knowledge to be pretty flimsy.
RS: Without knowing much about the issue, that case can just as easily demonstrate my position as yours. Should they have asked him more about his spiritual condition and tried to examine him on the issues of the heart more? Maybe it is the case that they simply asked him about what he professed and some “good works” instead of trying to get to the deeper issues. Maybe people are guilty of laying hands on him too quickly (see I Tim 5: below). Note also the passage from I John below. How do we know that we know Him? Knowing Him is not the same thing as knowing about Him. Generally speaking our questions to others is about what they know about Him.
I Tim 5:21 I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality.
22 Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin.
I John 2:3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
4 The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:
6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.
LikeLike
Richard, I take it you mean to say person E is our protagonist in the good works scenario. Maybe for the Edwardsian. But for the Calvinist there is person F who helps his neighbor, not out of some hifalutin notion of God’s glory, but simply because our neighbor needs us and serving her is what those saved by God and grateful for it do. Which seems like a plain reading of the first and second greatest commandments, as well as the basic structure of the HC (guilt-grace-gratitude).
LikeLike
RS, This is an area where confessions could really be valuable to sharpen thinking.
The difficulty here is that you are putting forward a view, grounded in a certain exegesis of the passage, that runs against the grain of the Confession. So, we have the following possibilities:
(1) The differences between your view and the Confession are apparent rather than real.
(2) You are correct, and the Confession should be revised,
(3) The Confession is correct, and you need to re-think something.
Considering these options is a healthy part of the theological process. And in this case, I would suggest that option (3) is where we are.
Here’s what John says: The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.
You’ve posited that we can know whether or not someone loves by a mystical “Holy Spirit” sense. But John actually tells people to look at deeds. The test that you put forward is (1) inferred by you, not directly taught, and (2) fails to take John’s direct words into account.
This doesn’t mean that deeds are the infallible test. But it does mean that God tells us to use this test, and not some other, to measure love.
I would suggest that the writers of the Confession wrestled with this question already and have some wisdom about which metrics to use, and which not to use.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, I take it you mean to say person E is our protagonist in the good works scenario. Maybe for the Edwardsian. But for the Calvinist there is person F who helps his neighbor, not out of some hifalutin notion of God’s glory, but simply because our neighbor needs us and serving her is what those saved by God and grateful for it do.
RS: Then your view is that the atheist and the Christian can do the same thing with the same motive. If a person does not do it to the glory of God, then that person is not in line with the Greatest Commandment.
1 Corinthians 10:31 Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
Zrim: Which seems like a plain reading of the first and second greatest commandments, as well as the basic structure of the HC (guilt-grace-gratitude).
RS: No, your view is not in line with a plain reading of the two Greatest Commands. Remember the little phrase “between” the 1st and the 2nd. Mat 22: 38 “This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 “The second is like it, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’
The little pharse “the second is like it” or “like unto it” is very important. Remember the Greatest Commandment is to love God with all of our being and that means nothing is left. This leaves us with the clear idea that we cannot love our neighbor apart from a love for God and a love that flows to God first and foremost. The atheist can do externally good things to and for his neighbor while hating God.
LikeLike
RS: Going back to those passages it says that we can, but it does not say how we can. It simply says by the Spirit and that we can know. I would argue that those who have the love of God in them by the Spirit (the only way) also have discernment by that same Spirit. They are able to recognize true love in others to a degree, though they are not infallible in this. Though people can use the same words and do the same work, not all is from the same source of love. Yet I John tells us quite clearly that we can know God and we can know that the love of God dwells in us and that He dwells in another. I don’t think that this can be tested in an empirical way any more than we can test the divine light. As God is self-evident in many ways, so the love of God is self-evident as well.
Sean: Richard I was ready to give you some benefit of the doubt on this whole discussion, along the lines of, if I was interrogating some guy and he’s saying all the right things but I know he’s lying,….kind of experiential knowledge. I don’t discount experience, wisdom, and even a ‘sense’ of things which is quite frankly little more than a multitude of prior experiences coming to bear on a particular interview or evaluation. But, you’re beginning to sound like Pat Robertson when he gets a ‘word of knowledge’ or divines a previously unknown, to him, situation or circumstance.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: RS, This is an area where confessions could really be valuable to sharpen thinking.
The difficulty here is that you are putting forward a view, grounded in a certain exegesis of the passage, that runs against the grain of the Confession.
RS: You have not demonstrated where my position runs against the grain of the Confession. You may want to argue that it is not explicitly taught in the Confession, but that is a different argument.
Jeff Cagle: Here’s what John says: The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.
RS: For the record, I have given several more verses than those.
Jeff Cagle: You’ve posited that we can know whether or not someone loves by a mystical “Holy Spirit” sense. But John actually tells people to look at deeds. The test that you put forward is (1) inferred by you, not directly taught, and (2) fails to take John’s direct words into account.
1 John 3:24 The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.
1 John 4:13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.
RS: I cannot see how you think that the two verses above are anything but directly taught. Call it mystical or whatever, neverthless John does not say in all places that we are to look at deeds. He says we can know because we have been given the Holy Spirit. But back to the mystical part. Christianity is not tied to empiricism or rationalism with a knot that cannot be untied except by the sword of Cromwell. There is a realm that is spiritual and a person must be born again to even see (interpret or behold) that kingdom. If you want to call that realm mystical, then so be it. But if you want all evidence to be empirical evidene, then remember the words of Paul: 2 Corinthians 4:18 “while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.”
2 Corinthians 3:18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.
How do people behold the glory of the Lord? Is it by empirical means? The unbeliever can look at the things of Scripture and see nothing good, but the believer can behold the glory of God in them.
II Cor 3:2 You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men;
3 being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
RS: How were people manifested as letters of Christ? How were these things writtin on tablets of human hearts by the Spirit of the living God? How did Paul know that these were true believers and how did he know that the Spirit had written on their hearts?
Jeff Cagle: This doesn’t mean that deeds are the infallible test. But it does mean that God tells us to use this test, and not some other, to measure love.
RS: Yes, the deeds are there. But if you are trying to measure love, how much love did Ted Turner have for God when he donated a billion dollars to hunger relief? The deed is not a measure of love, though indeed if there is love there must be deeds. The Pharisees gave alms, but they had no love. It is possible to sell all we have and give to the poor and yet not have love.
Jeff Cagle: I would suggest that the writers of the Confession wrestled with this question already and have some wisdom about which metrics to use, and which not to use.
RS: Okay, that is fine, but where did they do so in a way that denies what I John is clearly saying? What am I saying that goes against the grain of the Confession (see below) especially (read slowly) section II and then the WLC Q& A 80?
WCF: Chapter XVIII Of Assurance of Grace and Salvation
I. Although hypocrites and other unregenerate men may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favor of God, and estate of salvation[1] (which hope of theirs shall perish):[2] yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love Him in sincerity, endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before Him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace,[3] and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed.[4]
II. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope;[5] but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation,[6] the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made,[7] the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God,[8] which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.[9]
III. This infallible assurance does not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be partaker of it:[10] yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto.[11] And therefore it is the duty of every one to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure,[12] that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience,[13] the proper fruits of this assurance; so far is it from inclining men to looseness.[14]
IV. True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as, by negligence in preserving of it, by falling into some special sin which wounds the conscience and grieves the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation, by God’s withdrawing the light of His countenance, and suffering even such as fear Him to walk in darkness and to have no light:[15] yet are they never so utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ and the brethren, that sincerity of heart, and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may, in due time, be revived;[16] and by the which, in the mean time, they are supported from utter despair.[17]
WLC: Q. 80. Can true believers be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and that they shall persevere therein unto salvation?
A. Such as truly believe in Christ, and endeavour to walk in all good conscience before him,[349] may, without extraordinary revelation, by faith grounded upon the truth of God’s promises, and by the Spirit enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made,[350] and bearing witness with their spirits that they are the children of God,[351] be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and shall persevere therein unto salvation.[352]
Q. 81. Are all true believers at all times assured of their present being in the estate of grace, and that they shall be saved?
A. Assurance of grace and salvation not being of the essence of faith,[353] true believers may wait long before they obtain it;[354] and, after the enjoyment thereof, may have it weakened and intermitted, through manifold distempers, sins, temptations, and desertions;[355] yet they are never left without such a presence and support of the Spirit of God as keeps them from sinking into utter despair.[356]
LikeLike
Sean: Richard I was ready to give you some benefit of the doubt on this whole discussion, along the lines of, if I was interrogating some guy and he’s saying all the right things but I know he’s lying,….kind of experiential knowledge. I don’t discount experience, wisdom, and even a ‘sense’ of things which is quite frankly little more than a multitude of prior experiences coming to bear on a particular interview or evaluation. But, you’re beginning to sound like Pat Robertson when he gets a ‘word of knowledge’ or divines a previously unknown, to him, situation or circumstance.
RS: Ouch and double ouch. If you keep this up you will be punished by a plane flying into your house. Okay, but do you think that the WCF 18:2 and WLC 80 also sound like Pat the dingbat?
WCF: Chapter XVIII Of Assurance of Grace and Salvation
II. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope;[5] but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation,[6] the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made,[7] the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God,[8] which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.[9]
WLC: Q. 80. Can true believers be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and that they shall persevere therein unto salvation?
A. Such as truly believe in Christ, and endeavour to walk in all good conscience before him,[349] may, without extraordinary revelation, by faith grounded upon the truth of God’s promises, and by the Spirit enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made,[350] and bearing witness with their spirits that they are the children of God,[351] be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and shall persevere therein unto salvation.[352]
LikeLike
RS, the particular sections you cite from WLC have to do with assurance of salvation, not with elders “seeing” love in the hearts of others.
As to the Scriptures:
1 John 3:24 The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.
1 John 4:13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.
What is directly taught here is that the individual may know that he abides in Him.
There is nothing, grammatically speaking, that teaches that A may know that B abides in Him.
There’s nothing that you’ve put forward so far that teaches, either directly or by implication, that A can ‘know’ B’s love apart from the works that he does.
LikeLike
Richard,
It’s one thing to evaluate your own soul and ‘by faith grounded upon the truth of God’s promises’ see exhibition of the fruits of the spirit, however imperfectly, and have the assurance of faith supplemented by it. It’s a whole ‘nother animal to discern that same internal witness in another. The confession doesn’t support or give credence to such an ability. You know this and your reaching with trying to cite the confession or catechism in your defense on this issue. Turn off the 700 club, it’s seeping in.
LikeLike
Richard, I wonder if it would help if we got as specific as possible. I’m going to show the questions my church would ask a new member to affirm. What question(s) would you add? (I’m hoping you haven’t answered this one before so you can’t quickly cut ‘n paste. We have a bet going on – the first one to make you take a half hour to respond wins twenty bucks.)
1.Do you believe the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, to be the Word of God, and its doctrine of salvation to be the perfect and only true doctrine of salvation?
2.Do you believe in one living and true God, in whom eternally there are three distinct persons – God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit – who are the same in being and equal in power and glory, and that Jesus Christ is God the Son, come in the flesh?
3.Do you confess that because of your sinfulness you abhor and humble yourself before God, that you repent of your sin, and that you trust for salvation not in yourself but in Jesus Christ alone?
4.Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ as your sovereign Lord, and do you promise that, in reliance on the grace of God, you will serve him with all that is in you, forsake the world, resist the devil, put to death your sinful deeds and desires, and lead a godly life?
5.Do you promise to participate faithfully in this church’s worship and service, to submit in the Lord to its government, and to heed its discipline, even in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life?
LikeLike
Richard, what I said was that the believer serves his neighbor out of gratitude for what God has done on the believer’s behalf. First, how do you get from that that the believer and the unbeliever have the same motives? They don’t, since the unbeliever by definition denies the cross. Second, if we’re talking motives then we see how the Edwardsian is different from the Heidelberger—the former speaks in terms of God’s glory, the latter in terms of gratitude. It’s not that the Heidelberger is unconcerned for God’s glorification, rather that gratitude is a more natural response to grace. God’s glory is the inevitable result instead of the necessary motivation.
LikeLike
There’s a scene in Shawshank where Andy accuses the Warden of being obtuse. Perhaps it has gotten to that point with Richard?
LikeLike
Erik Charter: There’s a scene in Shawshank where Andy accuses the Warden of being obtuse. Perhaps it has gotten to that point with Richard?
RS: Obtuse? So I give passages of Scripture and I give passages from the WSC and the WLC. That makes me obtuse? Deal with the Scriptures and the Confession. After all, people say they profess it.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: RS, the particular sections you cite from WLC have to do with assurance of salvation, not with elders “seeing” love in the hearts of others. As to the Scriptures:
1 John 3:24 The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.
1 John 4:13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.
What is directly taught here is that the individual may know that he abides in Him.
There is nothing, grammatically speaking, that teaches that A may know that B abides in Him.
RS: So the plural pronouns mean nothing? What about the mutual fellowship that John speaks of in I John 1:5-7? What about the other verses that have been mentioned in this discussion?
1 John 3:10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.
Jeff Cagle: There’s nothing that you’ve put forward so far that teaches, either directly or by implication, that A can ‘know’ B’s love apart from the works that he does.
RS: But remember I have never claimed that we can know the heart of another infallibly. What I have been saying is that we have to go beyond a mere profession and external morality. As for elders, what I have asserted is that they should go beyond asking what people believe about certain doctrines and get to issues of the heart. In doing so the elders may learn things and they may also help people examine their own hearts. If John tells us how we can know how we have eternal life, and it is not by profession or by external morality exlusively, then that should tell us how we should be faithful to the sheep. They need to know how to examine their hearts. After all, that is what John did for the people he wrote to.
LikeLike
sean: Richard, It’s one thing to evaluate your own soul and ‘by faith grounded upon the truth of God’s promises’ see exhibition of the fruits of the spirit, however imperfectly, and have the assurance of faith supplemented by it. It’s a whole ‘nother animal to discern that same internal witness in another. The confession doesn’t support or give credence to such an ability.
RS: It appears that you have not read the whole thread, but that is not an accusation. What I have been arguing for is that for men to be faithful elders over the sheep is that they must help the sheep examine their own hearts. I have specifically said on multiple occasions that a person cannot infallibly speak to the hearts of others. However, if you look at the practices of those who wrote the WCF they examined people along the line I am speaking of.
Sean: You know this and your reaching with trying to cite the confession or catechism in your defense on this issue. Turn off the 700 club, it’s seeping in.
RS: Read the whole thread before making accusations. If the WCF says (and it is bibilcally correct) that a person can have assurance of salvation in the way of X, then the elders should help that person in that way. The WCF does not teach that people can have assurance if all the elders do is to get them to make a profession and do some external good works. It speaks of the work of the Holy Spirit in the soul. So the elders should help them in that regard. 700 club? I didn’t know that Pat followed the WCF. But the Bible does say that elders are to keep watch over the souls of the people.
LikeLike
Erik: The sky is blue.
Richard: No, it’s often grey and sometimes at night it can even appear to be black. The Lord Himself warns us that sometimes the sky is red – “red sky in the morning means foul weather all day.’ You know how to interpret the weather signs in the sky, but you don’t know how to interpret the signs of the times!” (Matthew 16.3)
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, what I said was that the believer serves his neighbor out of gratitude for what God has done on the believer’s behalf.
RS: Which could be nothing more than the men in John 6:26 could have done. They were nothing more than mercenary followers of Christ.
Zrim: First, how do you get from that that the believer and the unbeliever have the same motives? They don’t, since the unbeliever by definition denies the cross.
RS: Which is not the point you were getting at in your original post. If indeed a person does not help his neighbor for the glory of God, which is precisely what a person is saved for, but instead just helps a person because he thinks he is grateful, then there is no difference between a true believer and a true unbeliever in your scheme. Atheists are grateful if they think you did something for them.
Zrim’s Original Post on this: ” But for the Calvinist there is person F who helps his neighbor, not out of some hifalutin notion of God’s glory, but simply because our neighbor needs us and serving her is what those saved by God and grateful for it do.”
Zrim: Second, if we’re talking motives then we see how the Edwardsian is different from the Heidelberger—the former speaks in terms of God’s glory, the latter in terms of gratitude. It’s not that the Heidelberger is unconcerned for God’s glorification, rather that gratitude is a more natural response to grace. God’s glory is the inevitable result instead of the necessary motivation.
RS: Without going into details, the Bible is very specific when it says that whatever we do we are to do it to the glory of God. All grace is intended for the glory of God and so if there is true gratitude it will always seek the glory of God. The glory of God is our necessary motivation if we love God.
LikeLike
MikelMann: Richard, I wonder if it would help if we got as specific as possible. I’m going to show the questions my church would ask a new member to affirm. What question(s) would you add? (I’m hoping you haven’t answered this one before so you can’t quickly cut ‘n paste. We have a bet going on – the first one to make you take a half hour to respond wins twenty bucks.)
1.Do you believe the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, to be the Word of God, and its doctrine of salvation to be the perfect and only true doctrine of salvation?
RS: Why do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? What is salvation? What does it mean to be saved? What is justification by grace alone? Do you know what the imputed righteousness of Christ is? Do you know what a soul needs to be saved from?
2.Do you believe in one living and true God, in whom eternally there are three distinct persons – God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit – who are the same in being and equal in power and glory, and that Jesus Christ is God the Son, come in the flesh?
RS: In terms of the Gospel, why is the Trinity important? What does it mean to love God since He is triune and that is the Greatest Commandment? What is the source and original of all true love in the soul? Where does that love come from and how is it worked in the soul? Why do you think you love God? What is love for God?
3.Do you confess that because of your sinfulness you abhor and humble yourself before God, that you repent of your sin, and that you trust for salvation not in yourself but in Jesus Christ alone?
RS: What is humility? Are you humble? What does it mean to be humble of soul? What are the three kinds of humility spoken of in the Bible? What is the difference between being humbled by the Law and humbled by grace? What is the difference between true repentance and false repentance? Why do you think you have truly repented? Have you repented of your self-love? Have you repented of your self-sufficiency? What is regeneration? Why do you think you are regenerate? Why do you think that you are a child of God? What is salvation? Why did Christ die? What did Christ die for? So if Christ died for those things, what does your heart say? What are the things you love in your heart? Do you covet things or people? If so, are you saved from the power of sin?
4.Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ as your sovereign Lord, and do you promise that, in reliance on the grace of God, you will serve him with all that is in you, forsake the world, resist the devil, put to death your sinful deeds and desires, and lead a godly life?
RS: Who is Jesus Christ? What does it mean for Him to be sovereign Lord? Is He just Lord of the outward things or is He Lord of your hearts as well? Do you know what it means when He hardens your heart? Do you know what it means for Him to soften your heart? What does He teach you when He hardens your heart? What does it mean to forsake the world? What is the devil and how does he work to deceive your heart? How will your sinful desires be put to death? What is a sinful desire? Is Jesus sovereign over your desires? What is a godly life? What does it mean to be godly? Can you be godly without a godly heart? Do you have a godly heart? What is the difference between a godliness by grace and one worked up by the flesh?
5.Do you promise to participate faithfully in this church’s worship and service, to submit in the Lord to its government, and to heed its discipline, even in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life?
LikeLike
RS: Eric Charter’s position: The sky is blue though no one else can know that I think the sky is blue and no one else knows what I think blue is. Not only that, no elder can help me know whether the sky is blue or figure out what blue is. I will simply affirm that the sky is blue and hope that my blueness is true.
LikeLike
Richard, that’s not a membership interview. That’s a gauntlet.
LikeLike
mikelmann: Richard, that’s not a membership interview. That’s a gauntlet.
RS: Didn’t say that all those questions would be asked. Just examples. However, when one interviews a person for church membership, the definition of a church according to the Bible is to be a member of Christ. A lot of people are out there trusting in the fact that they have been interviewed by elders and that when the elders grant their membership request they think that they are Christians for sure. That may not be the intent, but that is the reality. I would think that elders would want to be careful in this regard and lead people in something more like John says is the way to know if one has eternal life or not.
LikeLike
Richard – Are you a member of a visible church that you actually worship at regularly? Are you under the authority of elders at that visible church?
LikeLike
Is Richard Smith your real name? Would you swear to that?
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Is Richard Smith your real name?
RS: What is real to you? I cannot tell what is in you and how you interpret reality. Real, what is real? What is in a name after all. What is real to me may not be real to you, and we know that people here don’t want to question deeper than mere professions of what is real rather than getting to reality itself.
Eric Charter: Would you swear to that?
RS: Let your yes by your yes and your no be your no. Would you like to see my birth certificate from Hawaii? Oh, that is not so good. How about one of my driver’s licenses? Oh, wait, they might not be real either. I could pretend to swear but not really mean what I am saying and then simply act like I am someone and that should convince you. But wait, you are questioning me as if a mere profession of a name and acting morally is not enough in this case. What does that say?
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard – Are you a member of a visible church that you actually worship at regularly?
RS: Are you asking if I go through the motions or do I really worship? Wait, you are not supposed to ask that. Are you asking if other people really worship? Wait, I am not supposed to ask that either. I suppose we could say that people worship when their eyes are closed and they are snoring slightly since we cannot know what is in their hearts.
Visible church? What in the world is that? Oh, one where no one knows the hearts of others so people can pretend as they please?
Eric Charter: Are you under the authority of elders at that visible church?
RS: Elders? Are those the guys that refuse to ask questions about the hearts of people so they can help people to know if they have eternal life or not? In that case, I guess all that can be known about these people is visible. However, 2 Corinthians 4:18 says that ” while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” So what authority does an elder have over the things which are eternal? I guess it is nothing since they can only go by professions and external morality.
LikeLike
Richard – Are you a member of a visible church that you actually worship at regularly? Are you under the authority of elders at that visible church?
Is Richard Smith your real name? Would you swear to that?
Heidelberg 101 allows for lawful oaths. If I’m going to keep interacting with you I want to know if you are for real. If you’re just some guy with a lot of ideas who isn’t a member of a biblical church I really don’t want to waste my time. I have plenty of other things to do.
LikeLike
Now you’re kind of just embarassing yourself. A “visible church” is an actual church that meets in a building regularly for worship with a pastor and elders. Gospel preaching, two sacraments, church discipline (Belgic 29).
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Now you’re kind of just embarassing yourself. A “visible church” is an actual church that meets in a building regularly for worship with a pastor and elders. Gospel preaching, two sacraments, church discipline (Belgic 29).
RS: If you would take the time to think just a bit, try to take what has been said here to your questions. You take Belgic 29 as stated and as a definition of what a visible church is. Yet when I give you the WCF of what assurance is and then state that surely elders would want to help their people to that assurance, you won’t have any of that. Let us run with that just a moment.
Is a visible church just just one that professes to preach the Gospel? Is a visible church one that professes to be biblical in the sacraments? Yet the Bible says that if one takes it in an unworthy manner that person is eating and drinking judgment to himself. If you look at the text below, it tells you that before taking the supper a man should examine himself. Is he to examine himself as to whether he has made a profession or not? Should he examine himself as to whether he has done good deeds or not? If the elders have not helped this person examine himself by examining him, then is not examining a person’s heart and teaching the person how to examine his heart helping him eat and drink judgment to himself?
A true church is one that preaches the true Gospel and a true church is one that administers the sacraments rightly. How can one administer the sacraments rightly if they are not helping the people examine themselves and so enabling the people so that when they take the supper they are eating and drinking judgment to themselves? The text (below) tells us that a man “must” examine himself. Embarassing myself? Maybe, but still shocked that a profession is thought to be enough among the professing Reformed.
I Corinthians 11:27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.
30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.
31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged.
LikeLike
Richard – Since you can’t answer my two simple questions I am not going to interact with you any more. I have encountered lots of people in my 42 years of life who knew a lot about the Bible and had a lot of ideas about Christianity (many of them good), but their lives were kind of a mess because they were out of balance. They didn’t have a healthy marriage, they didn’t relate well with others, they couldn’t find a church to join, they didn’t want any accountability from other people. They were basically just kind of messed up and toxic. The only thing to do was to kind of avoid those people and hope they eventually came around to the point they could interact in a functional way with society and, more importantly, the church. If you are not a chuch member and are using a fake name here I don’t want to waste my time with you. I disagree with Ted on a lot of things but I know he’s a real guy. “Zrim” and “Sean” don’t use their full names but I can either click through to another website to learn more about them or I know they are members of real churches. Anyway, farewell until you can answer those two questions.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard – Since you can’t answer my two simple questions I am not going to interact with you any more. I have encountered lots of people in my 42 years of life who knew a lot about the Bible and had a lot of ideas about Christianity (many of them good), but their lives were kind of a mess because they were out of balance. They didn’t have a healthy marriage, they didn’t relate well with others, they couldn’t find a church to join, they didn’t want any accountability from other people. They were basically just kind of messed up and toxic. The only thing to do was to kind of avoid those people and hope they eventually came around to the point they could interact in a functional way with society and, more importantly, the church. If you are not a chuch member and are using a fake name here I don’t want to waste my time with you. I disagree with Ted on a lot of things but I know he’s a real guy. “Zrim” and “Sean” don’t use their full names but I can either click through to another website to learn more about them or I know they are members of real churches. Anyway, farewell until you can answer those two questions.
RS: Then it is farewell. I don’t think I could convince you about the reality of those things anyway. But remember, the points I tried to press home are vitally important for people to come to a real understanding of the Gospel and of assurance. They are important to the understanding of proper administration of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Because of those things, they are important on what is to be considered a church. While I may be a bit goofy (more than a bit in places and at times) and I may not approach things the way you prefer, the issues are absolutely vital. I tried to show you how that would function in everyday life (you thought it was stupid). But if one cannot do those things in everyday life, then why should they be practiced in places where the people can be eating and drinking judgment to themselves? If people are not taught to examine their own hearts as the Scriptures command them to do before they take the Supper, then I am not sure there is anything else left to say other than collapse in dismay at the present state of the visible church.
LikeLike
R. Scott Clark’s “Heidelblog” is back: http://heidelblog.net/
LikeLike
RS,
Erik is correct; if you cannot even answer a simple question on whether you attend a church or not, you really shouldn’t be on the Internet debating theology with believers. On a related note, I wonder if we Reformed have missed the boat by emphasizing the importance of theology when there is now a much better method for getting people back to church
LikeLike
Richard, I think you need to dial down the discern-o-meter. If it’s not helping you understand my original point then I’m not sure how you can go around peering into hearts. I hate to be repetitive, but unbelievers by definition are not grateful to God for their salvation. Believers by definition are, and the natural result is to behave the way the one to whom they are indebted demands. So in terms of motivation for good works, how does the Heidelberger scheme result in no difference between the un/believer?
And not to aggravate, but to add to the point: the believer who elects not to help the little old lady is still glorifying God, because he glorifies God the same way God saves him—by faith alone, apart from works. The unbeliever who elects to help her isn’t glorifying God. He’s just doing a good work, apart from faith. The point is that faith is the instrument.
LikeLike
Todd,
Where’s your set? Sumpin like getting jiggy wit it at the Rio Rancho, WTYM
LikeLike
RS: So the plural pronouns mean nothing?
Not what you think. The problem is that “we (verb)” has two possible meanings. One is collective, as in,
We are going to the store.
The other is distributive, as in
We think of our loved ones every day.
In the first, the entire group acts as one. In the second, the verb applies to each person individually.
The only way to tell one use from the other is by context, according to the type of action. It seems clear that in 1.8 – 10, 3.19 – 24, 4.13 – 21, as well as John’s frequent use of “if anyone”, “whoever”, etc., that John is speaking distributively and not collectively.
In short, you are misreading the plural.
Now, I could be wrong. But to convince me, you would need to produce a passage of Scripture that teaches, somehow, that we can directly see the love of others without resorting to looking at the evidence of their deeds.
So far, you keep producing verses that talk about the evidence of deeds. For example: 1 John 3:10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.
That’s looking at external morality.
RS: What I have been saying is that we have to go beyond a mere profession and external morality.
Stop for a moment and think about who has been using the word “mere.” Have I? Has Zrim? Erik? No.
Doesn’t that suggest that you are distorting the position?
LikeLike
todd: RS, Erik is correct; if you cannot even answer a simple question on whether you attend a church or not, you really shouldn’t be on the Internet debating theology with believers.
RS: But that was not his question. The real point I was trying to get across, though apparently rather badly, is why is it not thought to be important to get beyond a simple profession for a person joining a church (and thus declared, in the minds of most people, a Christian) and yet want me to swear as to whether this (Richard Smith) is my true name or not? It seems like such a minor thing as to whether a name on a site such as this is a real name or not but there are eternal consequences involved in whether a person is declared a member of a church or not. Then, if that person becomes a member they are allowed to the Lord’s Table where they are commanded to examine themselves. The only examination that they might have been exposed to, however, is whether they profess the faith and are externally moral. Yet if they have not examined themselves in an appropriate manner they may be eating and drinking damnation to themselves. So, again, my point was in trying to show the inconsistency it is to want a person to swear to something that is inconsequential and yet basically give people a free pass into things that are eternal.
A second point, however, is why do you assume that all here are believers? Why would you assume that because people like to discuss things on this board that would mean that they are believers? Why would you assume that I don’t attend church virtually every Sunday (not to mention Bible studies I lead and attend during the week)? But even if I did not attend church on a regular basis, does that automatically make me an unbeliever? There are people who have physical difficulties that keep them out of church but could type away on the internet. Men like Lorraine Boettner and A.W. Pink did not attend church in their latter years. I just thought the assumptions you made were interesting.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, I think you need to dial down the discern-o-meter. If it’s not helping you understand my original point then I’m not sure how you can go around peering into hearts.
RS: I don’t claim to be able to peer into hearts.
Zrim: I hate to be repetitive, but unbelievers by definition are not grateful to God for their salvation.
RS: True, but those deceived about their salvation and think they are saved can be grateful to God for what they think is their salvation.
Zrim: Believers by definition are, and the natural result is to behave the way the one to whom they are indebted demands. So in terms of motivation for good works, how does the Heidelberger scheme result in no difference between the un/believer?
And not to aggravate, but to add to the point: the believer who elects not to help the little old lady is still glorifying God, because he glorifies God the same way God saves him—by faith alone, apart from works. The unbeliever who elects to help her isn’t glorifying God. He’s just doing a good work, apart from faith. The point is that faith is the instrument.
RS: A person that sins also glorifies God because all that is done glorifies God in a different way. I think you think of glorifying God as one thing versus this happening in differing ways. The unbeliever that helps the little old lady is glorifying God though against his (the unbeliever) desire and purpose. The believer who helps the old lady across the street glorifies God (manifests the glory of God) because it is God in the person manfiesting Himself through them.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: So the plural pronouns mean nothing?
Jeff Cagle: Not what you think. The problem is that “we (verb)” has two possible meanings. One is collective, as in, We are going to the store.
The other is distributive, as in We think of our loved ones every day.
In the first, the entire group acts as one. In the second, the verb applies to each person individually.
The only way to tell one use from the other is by context, according to the type of action. It seems clear that in 1.8 – 10, 3.19 – 24, 4.13 – 21, as well as John’s frequent use of “if anyone”, “whoever”, etc., that John is speaking distributively and not collectively.
In short, you are misreading the plural.
Now, I could be wrong. But to convince me, you would need to produce a passage of Scripture that teaches, somehow, that we can directly see the love of others without resorting to looking at the evidence of their deeds.
RS: True enough there is the collective and the distributive. However, let me go in a different direction on this. How do you know that God loves you? Rom 5:5 says that the love of God is poured out in our hearts.
I John 4:12 No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us.
RS: How do we know if we are loving other believers and that they are loving us apart from knowing that God abides in them? A professing believer can love another professing believer in a sense, yet if they are not believers God is not abiding in them and His love is not perfected in them. Yet if they are doing the same acts as a true believer, and those acts are the only standard, wouldn’t that be a deceptive thing to them?
13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.
14 We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.
15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.
16 We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: So far, you keep producing verses that talk about the evidence of deeds. For example: 1 John 3:10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.
That’s looking at external morality.
RS: I do believe you are assuming that those things are limited to external morality. There is no greater command than to love God with all of our being, yet while that includes outward behavior I Cor 13 says that without love the greatest of those works are of no benefit.
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: What I have been saying is that we have to go beyond a mere profession and external morality.
Stop for a moment and think about who has been using the word “mere.” Have I? Has Zrim? Erik? No.
Doesn’t that suggest that you are distorting the position?
RS: Well, I hope not and don’t think so. If you (and they) are arguing that all we have to go by is a profession and external morality and nothing more (so far that is all that has been presented), then “mere” is not a bad choice of words. Since you are arguing against my position that we are able to see something of true love (Spirit in us) through others, though not infallibly, it would seem that your position is based on profession and external morality, that is, mere. I have been trying to argue (give reasons for) that we should help people look in their own hearts as opposed to just letting them in the church based on a profession and external morality. Others, including yourself, have wanted to argue that based on charity and all that is all we have. So perhaps you have not used that word, but in arguing for what you are for and what you are against, I don’t think I am distorting your position but am simply setting it out with a little more clarity in contrast to mine.
LikeLike
RS: But that was not his question. The real point I was trying to get across, though apparently rather badly, is why is it not thought to be important to get beyond a simple profession for a person joining a church (and thus declared, in the minds of most people, a Christian) and yet want me to swear as to whether this (Richard Smith) is my true name or not?
TB: I didn’t ask about your true name.
RS: A second point, however, is why do you assume that all here are believers?
TB: I didn’t assume everyone was, but most are.
RS: Why would you assume that I don’t attend church virtually every Sunday
TB: Why not just say so when asked? It’s not a difficult question
RS: But even if I did not attend church on a regular basis, does that automatically make me an unbeliever?
TB: It is an issue of credibility. A man arguing for a proper relationship between faith and works, and commenting on the many who deceive themselves in this area, loses credibility when he refuses to obey one of the most basic commands in the NT, to be part of a local body of believers.
RS: There are people who have physical difficulties that keep them out of church but could type away on the internet.
TB: If that is you just say so. If not, what’s the point, it doesn’t apply to you.
LikeLike
A person that sins also glorifies God because all that is done glorifies God in a different way. I think you think of glorifying God as one thing versus this happening in differing ways. The unbeliever that helps the little old lady is glorifying God though against his (the unbeliever) desire and purpose. The believer who helps the old lady across the street glorifies God (manifests the glory of God) because it is God in the person manfiesting Himself through them.
But, Richard, now you seem to be doing what you accuse my scheme of: making no distinction between the believer and unbeliever. You do this by making good works the instrument of glorifying God instead of faith. The Heidelberger scheme does the opposite (surprise) by drawing on the antithesis between belief and unbelief. And you don’t account for the believer who doesn’t do a certain good work. Believers don’t do good works 24/7/365. What does the Edwardsian say of the believer who is sitting in the outdoor café imbibing while the unbeliever is shuttling little old ladies across the street? The Heidelberger says glorifying God.
LikeLike
RS, you seem really wrapped around an axle here.
Take a moment to distinguish between two reference frames. First, the reference frame of the individual believer, or non-believer. Call her Alice.
What can she say about herself? She can examine her own heart. She can say, to the best of her examination, whether her deeds proceed from love or from some other motive. She can say whether she is resting in Christ or in something else. All of this subject to the (severe) qualification that the heart is desperately wicked and cannot be fully known.
We as shepherds would encourage her to consider these things and repent as the Spirit makes sin known to her.
That’s the internal stuff that John is talking about in 1 John, and Paul is talking about in 1 Cor 13.
Now consider the reference frame of Elder Bob, speaking with Alice.
What evidences can he look to in order to “read” the state of her heart? He only has three options: He can listen to her words; he can try to read her body language; and he can examine her actions.
The first two, essentially, fall under the category of words. The third is in the category of deeds.
There is nothing else. The Bible never speaks of a special sense that lets us read the hearts of others.
You’ve taken verses that talk about the internal state of the believer, known only to that believer and God, and tried to turn them into an Aristotelian theory of “knowing the heart” — “I just ask penetrating questions, and voila, I just know.” The raw truth comes in through the window of the eyes, so to speak.
No. What you’re really doing is reading words and deeds and forming a judgment based on them.
Ask all the questions you want of a prospective member, but you will never get anything more than words out of him or her. And those words can be faked, no matter how much you make them squirm. You say that the devil cannot fake true love, but Peter did (Matt 16.23).
And here’s the real concern: the more “penetrating” you try to make the questions, the more self-deception you will encourage. Just look at some of your questions:
RS: Are you humble? … Have you repented of your self-love? Have you repented of your self-sufficiency? … What are the things you love in your heart? Do you covet things or people? If so, are you saved from the power of sin?
If I were being interviewed like this, I would tell you, “I want to be found in Christ, not having a righteousness of my own, but that which comes through faith in him.”
And if that were not enough for you, then I would find another church. Because frankly, your questions sound like you believe in Osianderism: That God justifies us on the basis of a change that He makes in us.
Of course I am proud, and I covet, and I am self-sufficient. Why do you think we need a Savior?!
Your questions will only encourage people to (a) look to themselves instead of the Savior, and (b) deceive themselves, or you, or both, about the true state of their hearts.
This is dangerous nonsense, brother. You should be assuming that people’s hearts are hard and full of many layers of sin, and that their justification rests on looking to Christ alone and not on the transformation of their hearts.
Does God sanctify? Most certainly.
Does He sanctify the whole man? Definitely.
Does He sanctify such that we can ever, in this life, affirm our sinlessness in some area or another? Not.A.Chance.
LikeLike
Todd – I think the youth pastor actually did a rap at my in-laws church last Sunday. That’s why I no longer admit to knowing them.
LikeLike
todd: RS: But that was not his question. The real point I was trying to get across, though apparently rather badly, is why is it not thought to be important to get beyond a simple profession for a person joining a church (and thus declared, in the minds of most people, a Christian) and yet want me to swear as to whether this (Richard Smith) is my true name or not?
TB: I didn’t ask about your true name.
RS: Erik did and it was part of the whole issue that I was amazed about. That is where you stepped in.
Old post RS: A second point, however, is why do you assume that all here are believers?
TB: I didn’t assume everyone was, but most are.
RS: But again, why do you assume that most are?
Old Post RS: Why would you assume that I don’t attend church virtually every Sunday
TB: Why not just say so when asked? It’s not a difficult question
RS: But again, the context it is asked in and all that is going on. If all that is required of a person is a profession of faith and a moral life, then one has to ask how that relates to the definition of a church. Sure I come from a different view on that, but it does not sound much different than the average SBC where you are let in on the profession of your faith.
Old Post RS: But even if I did not attend church on a regular basis, does that automatically make me an unbeliever?
TB: It is an issue of credibility. A man arguing for a proper relationship between faith and works, and commenting on the many who deceive themselves in this area, loses credibility when he refuses to obey one of the most basic commands in the NT, to be part of a local body of believers.
RS: Ah, but there the issue resurfaces. Is there a difference between a local organization that calls itself a church and being part of a local body of believers? This is where his question, in my opinion, was rather ironic. If you define a church as a local body of believers, then you are asking me to make a judgment of their hearts on the one hand when in fact you tell me that I cannot do that on the other. Again, it was so ironic in my way of viewing things.
Old RS: There are people who have physical difficulties that keep them out of church but could type away on the internet.
TB: If that is you just say so. If not, what’s the point, it doesn’t apply to you.
RS: Todd, here is your old post:
Erik is correct; if you cannot even answer a simple question on whether you attend a church or not, you really shouldn’t be on the Internet debating theology with believers.
RS: Look at what is implied. There are most likely many people reading this BLOG who never post here. It is likely that some of those people cannot attend church. Whether something applies to me directly or not does not make it unimportant to others.
LikeLike
Zrim: But, Richard, now you seem to be doing what you accuse my scheme of: making no distinction between the believer and unbeliever.
RS: No, there is a huge distinction. I am not sure how you arrived at your conclusion from my words.
Zrim: You do this by making good works the instrument of glorifying God instead of faith.
RS: Somehow you have misread my words again. Let me try to be more clear. The human being him or herself is the instrument of the glory of God. God manfiests His glory through the human being. As Jesus told Martha, “Did I not say to you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?” Those with faith are those that God uses to manifest His glory through. But it is also true that those with faith behold His glory and those without faith do not.
Zrim: The Heidelberger scheme does the opposite (surprise) by drawing on the antithesis between belief and unbelief. And you don’t account for the believer who doesn’t do a certain good work.
RS: But James says that without good works faith is dead.
Zrim: Believers don’t do good works 24/7/365. What does the Edwardsian say of the believer who is sitting in the outdoor café imbibing while the unbeliever is shuttling little old ladies across the street? The Heidelberger says glorifying God.
RS: I don’t think tht the Heidelberger says that.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: RS, you seem really wrapped around an axle here.
RS: I have a few axle bars that I lift on occasion.
JC: Take a moment to distinguish between two reference frames. First, the reference frame of the individual believer, or non-believer. Call her Alice. What can she say about herself? She can examine her own heart. She can say, to the best of her examination, whether her deeds proceed from love or from some other motive. She can say whether she is resting in Christ or in something else. All of this subject to the (severe) qualification that the heart is desperately wicked and cannot be fully known.
We as shepherds would encourage her to consider these things and repent as the Spirit makes sin known to her. That’s the internal stuff that John is talking about in 1 John, and Paul is talking about in 1 Cor 13. Now consider the reference frame of Elder Bob, speaking with Alice.
What evidences can he look to in order to “read” the state of her heart? He only has three options: He can listen to her words; he can try to read her body language; and he can examine her actions.
The first two, essentially, fall under the category of words. The third is in the category of deeds.
There is nothing else. The Bible never speaks of a special sense that lets us read the hearts of others.
RS: At the risk of opening another can of worms here, cannot a person with faith see the glory of Christ in a way that unbelievers cannot? Wouldn’t the love of God dwelling in a person be God dwelling in that person and wouldn’t that glory be able to be seen by one with faith? Once a person begins to wrestle with the whole concept of love, things change. When love is seen in the light of I John 4:7-8, then love is not just some feeling in the heart, but it is the work of God in the heart. Can the person of faith see the work and glory of God in the heart or not? What is that thing we call love that God pours out in our hearts if we cannot know it? Again, how can a person tell if God loves them?
Romans 5:5 and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: You’ve taken verses that talk about the internal state of the believer, known only to that believer and God, and tried to turn them into an Aristotelian theory of “knowing the heart” — “I just ask penetrating questions, and voila, I just know.” The raw truth comes in through the window of the eyes, so to speak.
RS: Perhaps you have arrived at that position as your judgment, but that is not the case.
Jeff Cagle: No. What you’re really doing is reading words and deeds and forming a judgment based on them.
RS: Not so.
Jeff Cagle: Ask all the questions you want of a prospective member, but you will never get anything more than words out of him or her. And those words can be faked, no matter how much you make them squirm. You say that the devil cannot fake true love, but Peter did (Matt 16.23).
RS: The devil did not fake true love and Peter did not either. Peter had a wrong idea of love, but what he demonstrated was not true love. True love cannot be faked because true love has God alone as its origin and source. There are all kinds of false loves and imitations, but true love cannot actually be faked.
Jeff Cagle: And here’s the real concern: the more “penetrating” you try to make the questions, the more self-deception you will encourage. Just look at some of your questions:
Jeff Quoting RS: Are you humble? … Have you repented of your self-love? Have you repented of your self-sufficiency? … What are the things you love in your heart? Do you covet things or people? If so, are you saved from the power of sin?
If I were being interviewed like this, I would tell you, “I want to be found in Christ, not having a righteousness of my own, but that which comes through faith in him.”
RS: And I would answer you that if you want Christ and faith alone then you need to be concerned about humility because pride can deceive a person a lot.
Jeff Cagle: And if that were not enough for you, then I would find another church. Because frankly, your questions sound like you believe in Osianderism: That God justifies us on the basis of a change that He makes in us.
RS: No, the issue is whether a person has real faith, the true Christ, and therefore eternal life. God does not justify on the basis of a change in us, but the justified person is changed because of the new life in him or her.
Jeff Cagle: Of course I am proud, and I covet, and I am self-sufficient. Why do you think we need a Savior?!
RS: But is He as Savior from hell only or a Savior who saves His people from sin?
Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,
12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, 13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, 14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.
RS: Read those verses carefully. Grace instructs us to deny ungodliness and worldy desires. Grace instructs us to deny the desires and not just the actions. But notice also that Christ died to redeem His people from every lawless deed and to purify for Himself a people. Again, Christ died in order to redeem people and to purify people.
Jeff Cagle: Your questions will only encourage people to (a) look to themselves instead of the Savior, and (b) deceive themselves, or you, or both, about the true state of their hearts.
RS: No, it will encourage them to quit looking to themselves for assurance from a profession and a moral life. It will drive them to Christ if He is pleased to do so because it is applying the Law in a spiritual way and sense. The Law has spiritual applications that reach the soul. Apart from reachign the inner person with the spiritual nature of the Law, we have left their hearts untouched.
Jeff Cagle: This is dangerous nonsense, brother. You should be assuming that people’s hearts are hard and full of many layers of sin, and that their justification rests on looking to Christ alone and not on the transformation of their hearts.
RS: It is far from nonsense and it is dangerous not to do so. It is dangerous not to apply the spiritual nature of the Law to people and leave it to govern their behavior. It does what the Law is supposed to do which is to strip them of all righteousness and hope in themselves so that they can look to Christ alone. What was it that got Paul? It was when he realized what it really meant to covet. See Rom 7:7ff.
Jeff Cagle: Does God sanctify? Most certainly. Does He sanctify the whole man? Definitely.
Does He sanctify such that we can ever, in this life, affirm our sinlessness in some area or another? Not.A.Chance.
RS: Where have I ever even come close to even intimating such a thing?
LikeLike
RS: But again, the context it is asked in and all that is going on. If all that is required of a person is a profession of faith and a moral life, then one has to ask how that relates to the definition of a church. Sure I come from a different view on that, but it does not sound much different than the average SBC where you are let in on the profession of your faith.
So why not just answer the question?
RS: Ah, but there the issue resurfaces. Is there a difference between a local organization that calls itself a church and being part of a local body of believers? This is where his question, in my opinion, was rather ironic. If you define a church as a local body of believers, then you are asking me to make a judgment of their hearts on the one hand when in fact you tell me that I cannot do that on the other. Again, it was so ironic in my way of viewing things.
TB: If a man is speaking to a woman about marriage, and the woman asks the man if he is married, and he talks about philosophies of marriage, etc… and she asks him again, “but are you married?” and he still refuses to answer, she should run; a man doesn’t avoid a simple question like that without reason, and it is rarely a noble one.
RS: Look at what is implied. There are most likely many people reading this BLOG who never post here. It is likely that some of those people cannot attend church. Whether something applies to me directly or not does not make it unimportant to others.
TB: It think everyone knows there are special circumstances; that doesn’t negate the general point.
LikeLike
todd quoting RS: But again, the context it is asked in and all that is going on. If all that is required of a person is a profession of faith and a moral life, then one has to ask how that relates to the definition of a church. Sure I come from a different view on that, but it does not sound much different than the average SBC where you are let in on the profession of your faith.
Todd: So why not just answer the question?
RS: Context, context, context. Again, why are the standards for speaking to a person on this forum higher than it is for joining a church?
Old post RS: Ah, but there the issue resurfaces. Is there a difference between a local organization that calls itself a church and being part of a local body of believers? This is where his question, in my opinion, was rather ironic. If you define a church as a local body of believers, then you are asking me to make a judgment of their hearts on the one hand when in fact you tell me that I cannot do that on the other. Again, it was so ironic in my way of viewing things.
TB: If a man is speaking to a woman about marriage, and the woman asks the man if he is married, and he talks about philosophies of marriage, etc… and she asks him again, “but are you married?” and he still refuses to answer, she should run; a man doesn’t avoid a simple question like that without reason, and it is rarely a noble one.
RS: Sorry, but your analogy is flawed. The woman should have asked him if he was married when they first met. There is also the context of the question. They things do not happen in a vacuum.
Old Post RS: Look at what is implied. There are most likely many people reading this BLOG who never post here. It is likely that some of those people cannot attend church. Whether something applies to me directly or not does not make it unimportant to others.
TB: It think everyone knows there are special circumstances; that doesn’t negate the general point.
RS: Perhaps, but there are also several other things going on here. What does it mean to attend a church on a regular basis? Let us suppose a man had an aging mother in another state and tried to go there as often as possible to help take care of her. We can also imagine that the same man fills the pulpits of a few different churches on an irregular basis. So perhaps he is not a regular attender at the local church. Does that mean a forum should assume that the man is unfaithful to a church and therefore not a believer?
LikeLike
JRC: Does God sanctify? Most certainly. Does He sanctify the whole man? Definitely.
Does He sanctify such that we can ever, in this life, affirm our sinlessness in some area or another? Not.A.Chance.
RS: Where have I ever even come close to even intimating such a thing?
Your membership questions intimate that exact thing. Perhaps it’s a matter of context, but you said that you ask
RS to member: Are you humble?
What is the correct answer that you are looking for? It certainly sounds like you are looking for the person to say “Yes”, when in fact the only Biblically correct answer is “No.”
So perhaps you should explain what you are looking for in the answers to your questions.
But before you reply: Why ask the questions at all? If you have some kind of “love sense” as you seem to claim to have, then you shouldn’t have to resort to mere words!
LikeLike
RS,
You are certainly within your rights not to answer a basic question that any believer should be able to answer. When people refuse to answer simple questions they usually have something to hide.
So we are certainly within our rights not think theological dialogue with you is worthwhile. If others want to continue that is up to them, but I am done.
LikeLike
Richard,
Re: this exchange:
Jeff Cagle: Does God sanctify? Most certainly. Does He sanctify the whole man? Definitely.
Does He sanctify such that we can ever, in this life, affirm our sinlessness in some area or another? Not.A.Chance.
RS: Where have I ever even come close to even intimating such a thing?
You may not think you ever said such a thing, as in affirming sinlessness in some area. But your construction of Christian devotion leads people to think that you are affirming this. The reason is that you don’t seem to have a place for sin in your understanding of the true Christian life. Granted, sin is not desirable. But sin seems to blow your entire experimental paradigm (sorry Bryan Cross), such that you make people wonder what you will do when you discover sin in their lives. The implication seems to be that sin upends a believer’s assurance, sanctification, and evidence of true faith.
If you came around more to the importance of the forensic, as opposed to the renovative, people might not think you are implicitly arguing for perfection.
LikeLike
todd: RS, You are certainly within your rights not to answer a basic question that any believer should be able to answer.
RS: Which was not the point. The issue was over why are there more stringent requirements to be on this board (for some) that it is to join a church? That was the issue. You may see it as refusing to answer, but I see it far differently.
Todd: When people refuse to answer simple questions they usually have something to hide.
RS: Or, at least in this case, they have something to demonstrate. I don’t think I have that much to hide. Again, I was asked to swear that this is my real name. Yes, I was asked (demanded?) to swear to it. In all honesty, I don’t think it is moral to swear to that in this situation. Yes, it if fine to take an oath if one is being sworn in to testify or to an office. However, the major point was why is it that for someone to talk to me I must swear that my name is real whereas to join a local church you wouldn’t have to do that.
Todd: So we are certainly within our rights not think theological dialogue with you is worthwhile. If others want to continue that is up to them, but I am done.
RS: So, Todd, do you swear that Todd is your real name? I know, you are done. But maybe, just maybe you just might get a small flicker of what that is like.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: JRC: Does God sanctify? Most certainly. Does He sanctify the whole man? Definitely.
Does He sanctify such that we can ever, in this life, affirm our sinlessness in some area or another? Not.A.Chance.
RS: Where have I ever even come close to even intimating such a thing?
Jeff Cagle: Your membership questions intimate that exact thing. Perhaps it’s a matter of context, but you said that you ask
RS: I was asked to provide some questions I would ask. I gave a list of question, yes. But there is not one single question about sinlessness.
JRC quoting RS to member: Are you humble?
JRC: What is the correct answer that you are looking for? It certainly sounds like you are looking for the person to say “Yes”, when in fact the only Biblically correct answer is “No.”
RS: But why do you think I would be looking for a yes answer? If you simply judged by my words, then would you come up with that “feeling” or sense? The biblical answer, which of course could be faked, would not be a “yes” or “no”. It would be that one is more humble than they used to be (one has to have some humility in order for the person to have grace) but they are still full of pride and self.
JRC: But before you reply: Why ask the questions at all? If you have some kind of “love sense” as you seem to claim to have, then you shouldn’t have to resort to mere words!
RS: I don’t claim to have a love sense and never have. I am wondering, however, why you are not answering my questions. 1. How do you know that God loves you or how can a person know if God loves them? I am asking you to use the criteria you have been using for me to answer that question. 2. What is so bad about pressing the spiritual nature of the Law home to people when in fact it reaches the heart? After all, that is the practice of Jesus in Matthew six. 3. Can a believer see the glory of Christ or not? 4. Can a believer who has the Holy Spirit not have some discernment of the glory of Christ and the love of God in other people? Is it really all just empricial observation? 5. Is it just empirical observation we have in interpreting Scripture or can the Spirit enlighten our eyes to see things that unbelievers cannot see in them?
LikeLike
D.G. Hart quoting RS: Where have I ever even come close to even intimating such a thing? [perfection]
D.G. Hart: You may not think you ever said such a thing, as in affirming sinlessness in some area. But your construction of Christian devotion leads people to think that you are affirming this. The reason is that you don’t seem to have a place for sin in your understanding of the true Christian life.
RS: Interesting. You say that I don’t have a place for sin in my understanding and others seem to accuse me of the opposite when I want to get to the sin of the heart by asking questions.
D.G. Hart: Granted, sin is not desirable. But sin seems to blow your entire experimental paradigm (sorry Bryan Cross), such that you make people wonder what you will do when you discover sin in their lives. The implication seems to be that sin upends a believer’s assurance, sanctification, and evidence of true faith.
RS: Sin does not blow any paradigm I have. The question is helping people see the hidden sin of their hearts so that they can know if they are converted and then if they are growing in holiness. We are in a spiritual war and one command we have is to be holy as He is holy. We are not saved in order that we may relax in our battle of sin, but Christ died in order to do away with sin. This does not make people perfect, but it means that they must get in the battle.
D.G. Hart: If you came around more to the importance of the forensic, as opposed to the renovative, people might not think you are implicitly arguing for perfection.
RS: So how is a forensic righteousness opposite or contradictory to a pursuit of holiness in the heart? A person is declared righteous on the basis of the righteousness of Christ, yes, but that frees them from self-righteousness in their pursuit of a true holiness out of love for God. A person should not desire holiness in order to obtain righteousness to be saved by, that is quite foreign to the whole issue. However, if Christ dwells in a soul, then Christ will be the same Christ He was on earth. He loves holiness and He will work that in His people. His people should want to be holy and they should love holiness and desire to be like Christ. But that is far from some sort of perfectionism, though indeed we are commanded to pursue maturity. We cannot pursue maturity if we are satisfied with an external morality.
Matthew 5: 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’;
28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
29 “If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
30 “If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.
Was Jesus teaching perfectionism here or what? Was He satisfied with an external form of morality? Did He teach anything contrary to forensic righteousness though He did not mention it and clearly went after sin in the heart?
LikeLike
Richard, but the Heidelberger just said the believer by faith glorifies God 24/7/365, even as his good works wax and wane. But the question was how the Edwardsian understands the believer who is outpaced in good works by the unbeliever, which happens quite a bit. If, as you say, “faith without good works is dead,” does that mean that when the believer refrains from shuttling old ladies he’s sinning? My point is that your scheme just doesn’t seem to make any room for being human. It looks a lot like super-apostleship.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, but the Heidelberger just said the believer by faith glorifies God 24/7/365, even as his good works wax and wane.
RS: I think the Heidelberger is dealing with one form of how believers glorify God, but not all forms.
Zrim: But the question was how the Edwardsian understands the believer who is outpaced in good works by the unbeliever, which happens quite a bit. If, as you say, “faith without good works is dead,” does that mean that when the believer refrains from shuttling old ladies he’s sinning? My point is that your scheme just doesn’t seem to make any room for being human. It looks a lot like super-apostleship.
RS: Jesus Christ was perfectly holy and righteous and also had a human nature. So you must be speaking of a fallen human. The command stands whether we can keep it or not. We are commanded to love God with all of our being and we are commanded to glorify God in all we do. The fact that we are sinful does not lower the commandments. Jesus had to teach the Pharisees and those that had been taught by them the real standard of the law and of the commandments. It is only when the real standard is set forth, that we see the true degree of our sin and therefore our true need of grace. When we lower the commandments to a level we can keep, we also lower grace. But once again, Dr. Hart, this is not against forensic righteousness at all. Those who love God, and the only way we can love God is if we have been freed from our burden to obtain righteousness by ourselves, will keep His commands (including the ones that specifically reach the inner man, though indeed they cannot do that even close to perfectly). These are the ones who prize the free and gracious giving of an imputed righteousness. These are the ones that are poor in spirit because they see that they have no righteousness of their own and now way to obtain it on their own.
LikeLike
RS: I don’t claim to have a love sense and NEVER have.
RS: I also will assert, but only because I John and John 13:35 does, that there are other was that are not just invisible to others. Notice in the verses below the plural pronouns and how they are applied. For example, verse 16: ” We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.” We (plural) have come to know and have believed that love which God has for (literally “in”) us. In other words, there is something about this true love (in context) THAT SHOWS ONE PERSON THAT GOD ABIDES IN OTHER PEOPLE. It seems to me that is what the text says.”
RS:Call it mystical or whatever, neverthless John does not say in all places that we are to look at deeds. He says we can KNOW because we have been given the Holy Spirit.
C.H. Mackintosh(Plymouth Brethren);
“We must be exclusively taught and exclusively governed by the Word of the living God. Nothing else will keep us straight, or give solidity and consistency to our character and course as Christians. There is a strong tendency within and around us to be ruled by the thoughts and opinions of men – by those great standards of doctrine which men have set up.”
“Those standards and opinions may have a large amount of truth in them – they may be all true so far as they go; that is not the point in question now. What we want to impress upon the Christian reader is, that he is not to be governed by the thoughts of his fellow-man, but simply and solely by the Word of God. It is of no value to hold a truth from man; I must hold it directly from God Himself. God may use a man to communicate His truth; but unless I hold it as from God, it has no divine power over my heart and conscience; it does not bring me into living contact with God, but actually hinders that contact by bringing in something between my soul and His holy authority.”
” The more closely we examine the elements that are abroad in the professing Church, the more we shall be convinced of our personal need of this entire subjection to divine authority, which is only another name for “the fear of the Lord”, or, “a single eye”.”
LikeLike
sean: RS: I don’t claim to have a love sense and NEVER have.
Sean quoting RS: I also will assert, but only because I John and John 13:35 does, that there are other was that are not just invisible to others. Notice in the verses below the plural pronouns and how they are applied. For example, verse 16: ” We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.” We (plural) have come to know and have believed that love which God has for (literally “in”) us. In other words, there is something about this true love (in context) THAT SHOWS ONE PERSON THAT GOD ABIDES IN OTHER PEOPLE. It seems to me that is what the text says.”
RS: So is that a love sense? No, that is not a love sense.
Sean quoting RS: Call it mystical or whatever, neverthless John does not say in all places that we are to look at deeds. He says we can KNOW because we have been given the Holy Spirit.
RS: But the fact that we know because we have been given the Spirit is not a love sense.
C.H. Mackintosh(Plymouth Brethren);
“We must be exclusively taught and exclusively governed by the Word of the living God. Nothing else will keep us straight, or give solidity and consistency to our character and course as Christians. There is a strong tendency within and around us to be ruled by the thoughts and opinions of men – by those great standards of doctrine which men have set up.”
“Those standards and opinions may have a large amount of truth in them – they may be all true so far as they go; that is not the point in question now. What we want to impress upon the Christian reader is, that he is not to be governed by the thoughts of his fellow-man, but simply and solely by the Word of God. It is of no value to hold a truth from man; I must hold it directly from God Himself. God may use a man to communicate His truth; but unless I hold it as from God, it has no divine power over my heart and conscience; it does not bring me into living contact with God, but actually hinders that contact by bringing in something between my soul and His holy authority.”
” The more closely we examine the elements that are abroad in the professing Church, the more we shall be convinced of our personal need of this entire subjection to divine authority, which is only another name for “the fear of the Lord”, or, “a single eye”.”
Holy Scripture:
John 6:44 “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. 45 “It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. 63 “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
I Cor 2:6 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away;
7 but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory;
8 the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;
9 but just as it is written, “THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM.”
10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.
LikeLike
RS: But the fact that we know because we have been given the Spirit is not a love sense.
Sean: Oh O.K. Richard.
LikeLike
Sean – I am teaching a Sunday school class on American church history. Today we were talking about the Reformation and Catholics and somehow I thought it was relevant to talk about how you had been a Catholic seminarian and now you are a Presbyterian. I can’t remember what the context was, but you have now been mentioned to at least some of the reformed folk in Des Moines. If you die, at least you’ve got that going for you…
LikeLike
Speaking of Reformed folk in Des Moines – The OPC pastor here is town announced today that he is taking a call from a church in Virginia. He is a good man and will be missed. If you know any candidates let me know. My parents go there. It is a great town to raise a family in. My pastor moved from Southern California to pastor our URC church in Des Moines and I think he likes it. His wife is able to stay home with their three kids on his salary.
LikeLike
Erik,
Just keep to yourself the New Orleans bit, they may worry about what kind of people the presby’s attract.
LikeLike
Will do. I remember what the context was. We were talking about how the Reformers stressed preaching and how preaching was not a big emphasis for Rome. I remembered how you always say that Rome is all about the mass. It’s helpful to have interaction with a guy like you.
LikeLike
RS: 1. How do you know that God loves you or how can a person know if God loves them?
His promises contained in the Scripture; the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of the living Word. These are the grounds, and the Spirit causes us to believe in them.
RS: 2. What is so bad about pressing the spiritual nature of the Law home to people when in fact it reaches the heart?
Nothing at all. Asking people about the state of their hearts does not accomplish that goal. Teaching the Law in its first use sense accomplishes the goal of pressing the spiritual nature of the Law home.
RS: 3. Can a believer see the glory of Christ?
Only by faith at this time. Sight is in the world to come.
RS: 4. Can a believer who has the Holy Spirit not have some discernment of the glory of Christ and the love of God in other people?
Jesus was able to read hearts; all others must rely on what people say and do, and then only dimly. The hidden things belong to the Lord.
RS: Is it really all just empricial observation?
I see a lot in Scripture that teaches precisely that. Root and fruit (Matt 7, Jude); Rom 10.10; the various passages in I John; etc.
And, I see nothing in Scripture that teaches otherwise.
5. Is it just empirical observation we have in interpreting Scripture or can the Spirit enlighten our eyes to see things that unbelievers cannot see in them?
You’re comparing apples and oranges.
The Spirit can certainly open our eyes, just as Jesus opened the eyes of the disciples in Jerusalem (Luke 24.44 – 45). But His enlightenment is not a different sense category from observation and reason. What the disciples learned from Jesus was still based on looking at the OT and noticing what they had not noticed before: that it was chock-full of types pointing to Jesus’ death and resurrection.
Think about how the Confession talks about interpretation. On the one hand, the Spirit gives faith to believe what is written:
yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
On the other, sound doctrine is always in accord with good and necessary inference:
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men.
Chew on that ‘new revelations of the Spirit’ for a bit. It entails that the Spirit does not add understanding of the Scripture that goes beyond “good and necessary inference.” He may well enlighten the mind to understanding; and He most certainly enlightens the mind to believe. But He doesn’t create a supra-reasoning revelation to do it.
So what about 1 Cor 2?
Well, Paul is clearly not saying that people with the mind of Christ are now supernaturally smarter than unbelievers. Else we’d put you up against Stephen Hawking.
The key is the first para of 1 Cor 3. The problem with the Corinthians is not their intelligence, but their lack of wisdom. Their fleshly attitudes prevent them from understanding because they will not believe and receive the solid food (of sound doctrine, as I take it).
The solid food is certainly intelligible, but it seems foolish to them rather than wise because they themselves have embraced foolishness rather than wisdom.
LikeLike
RS: The biblical answer, which of course could be faked, would not be a “yes” or “no”. It would be that one is more humble than they used to be (one has to have some humility in order for the person to have grace) but they are still full of pride and self.
I’m glad to hear that this is your desired answer. It is much better than what first seem to present, that you were requiring an affirmative in order to become a member.
But it’s still not entirely satisfactory (sorry). What would you do with Paul, the “chief of sinners”? What would you do if he said, for example,
“I know that I am commanded to be humble, but I count any humility I have as rubbish in view of the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord…”
Paul might very well be troublesome, for he doesn’t seem to traffic much in “how Jesus made me a better person.” He wants to look to Christ and not to himself.
Richard, I think what we’re looking at is a divergence between models of sanctification.
On the one hand is the confessional model: Means of grace are used by the Spirit to stir up our faith, leading to resting in Christ, leading to the fruit of the Spirit.
On the other hand is a different model: The Law tells me what to do, and the Spirit helps me to do it, and I become a holier person thereby.
Is that a fair assessment?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoitng RS: The biblical answer, which of course could be faked, would not be a “yes” or “no”. It would be that one is more humble than they used to be (one has to have some humility in order for the person to have grace) but they are still full of pride and self.
Jeff Cagle: I’m glad to hear that this is your desired answer. It is much better than what first seem to present, that you were requiring an affirmative in order to become a member.
RS: No, they are just questions designed to help a person examine their heart and help those who are talking with them understand where the person is.
Jeff Cagle: But it’s still not entirely satisfactory (sorry). What would you do with Paul, the “chief of sinners”? What would you do if he said, for example, “I know that I am commanded to be humble, but I count any humility I have as rubbish in view of the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord…”
RS: That would actually be a great partial answer since humility is never earned and it can never earn anything and we never get beyond our own rubbish. However, Jesus was perfectly humble and He never sinned. All I am saying but that is that perfect humility was possible for Jesus as perfect so not all types of humility are necessarily an aspect of knowing how sinful we are. But still, any type of humility that a fallen creature has will always be consistent with the answer of Paul above.
Jeff Cagle: Paul might very well be troublesome, for he doesn’t seem to traffic much in “how Jesus made me a better person.” He wants to look to Christ and not to himself.
RS: Yes, but he also wants people to look at Christ in them (Col 1:27 & Gal 2:20).
Jeff Cagle: Richard, I think what we’re looking at is a divergence between models of sanctification.
On the one hand is the confessional model: Means of grace are used by the Spirit to stir up our faith, leading to resting in Christ, leading to the fruit of the Spirit. On the other hand is a different model: The Law tells me what to do, and the Spirit helps me to do it, and I become a holier person thereby. Is that a fair assessment?
RS: It is perhaps fair, but not really accurate. I am also not sure that it is the model put forth in the WCF. For example, going back to Paul, he worked harder than all the other apostles, yet it was not him. 1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me.”
The command for human beings to be holy as He is holy is still there. For some reason you seem to think that I think that the Spirit helps a person to be holy and then the person in keeping the Law is holier and that of course leads to pride of that holiness as if s/he did it. The Law shows us our sin and so a holier person is one that sees much more sin than an unbeliever does. It is not that people grow more holy in their own eyes, at least that is the ideal. They will become more and more sinful in their own eyes as they gain more and more knowledge of their own heart. However, surely you would not deny that a believer is to repent and be a continual repenter off of his days. While no one will attain some form of perfect holiness in this life, that does not mean that they will not sin less and will not have sorrow for sin as against God (see David in Psalm 51). If we love God and we see our sin as against Him, there will be a desire to repent and a crying out to Him for strength and power against sin.
But that should not drive us to see all of this as from self, it should drive us to a deeper humility (emptiness of self) and a deeper understanding of our own weakness and inability. This should drive us to live by grace which is how faith operates. It should drive us to a focus on Christ in new and deeper ways. I am not sure why the fruit of the Spirit (your model above in the assessment) would lead a person to focus on self. It should lead them to Christ as that is what the Spirit does in reality. So we must grow in holiness (2 Corinthians 7:1 Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God) as the fruit of the Spirit is the fruit of the HOLY Spirit. All that He works in His people is from holiness and is conducive to holiness. But that should not lead us to focus on self as true holiness leads to greater sight of our sin, our helplessness and inability, and of grace.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: 1. How do you know that God loves you or how can a person know if God loves them?
Jeff Cagle: His promises contained in the Scripture; the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of the living Word. These are the grounds, and the Spirit causes us to believe in them.
RS: Does that really correspond to Romans 5:5? So He gives us historical facts and the Spirit works so you believe that those facts are true? Where does the fellowship (spoken of in I John 1:3ff) with God come in? How does that correspond to Jesus’s prayer of love dwelling in His people and of His dwelling in them in John 17:26? Does that correspond to what eternal life is which is to know God and His Son? Can Christianity really be boiled down to a better philosophical system of true facts that we believe in?
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: 2. What is so bad about pressing the spiritual nature of the Law home to people when in fact it reaches the heart?
Jeff Cagle: Nothing at all. Asking people about the state of their hearts does not accomplish that goal. Teaching the Law in its first use sense accomplishes the goal of pressing the spiritual nature of the Law home.
RS: While it is true that we are not Jesus, the NT presents Jesus as asking the people a lot of questions. I would not want to say that He necessarily uses the socratic method, but He still asked people questions and even answered their questions with questions at times.
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: 3. Can a believer see the glory of Christ?
Jeff Cagle: Only by faith at this time. Sight is in the world to come.
RS: Of course it is by faith, but still believers are given the ability to see the glory of Christ in a way that unbelievers do not. But do you think that faith is something more than the empirical data?
1 Corinthians 2:9 but just as it is written, “THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM.”
LikeLike
How can we give priority to the forensic over the experimental if our churches don’t make profession of the five points of Calvinism a requirement for membership, even while we do insist that parents agree with having their infants “baptized” if they are to be members?
In many reformed congregations, one can affirm all five points of Arminianism (which seem to be regarded as “close enough” to having a grasp on the forensic nature of the atonement, not a “full grasp or all the riches of the gospel we smart people know” of course) but if you won’t do what we say should be practiced, then your experience is cause for excluding you (even if you happen to be smart like us and agree with the five points).
I agree that I have put this question out in a very unfocused way. I can’t seem to help putting in some asides about gospel and antithesis. Despite the skewed way I have put the question, let me assure you that I am in no way arguing that Reformed churches should accept into their visible membership those who don’t assent to what their confessions say about “sacrament”.
What I am asking is why profession of the forensic gospel is not also demanded of those who would be members of visible churches. You are not a cult. You are not saying that anybody outside your churches is not a Christian. That being so, why is it not good and right to expect agreement with the Confession about the forensic gospel (and not only about infant baptism)?
Sure I understand that many of you think that saying that Christ died for every sinner is not in antithesis to the gospel. It’s not a contradiction–it’s merely an immature and inadequate understanding of the gospel and none of us are perfect and all of us have been effectually called but some of us are smart and serious enough to have read good reformed books, which if other people had read them most likely they too would agree (but you never know, they might reject, so you gotta be careful….)
So all you are saying is that –while you can be justified with limited knowledge, or even with knowledge that contradicts what the Bible and the confessions say, but all this forensic stuff is all besides the point when it comes to doing what should be done. Get your babies done….
To focus. Without questioning their effectual call, you can keep out those who don’t agree with you about baptism. So why not do the same with the five points? Is it that the five points are only a “gnostic internal concern” with confessional correctness about systematic and logical coherence and not about external practice?
Does God save Arminians and then leave them in Arminianism? Does God save credobaptists and then leave them in credobaptism?
Nobody is claiming that credobaptists are going against what they know in their own conscience to be true. But that doesn’t excuse sinful practice….
Of course there are many who claim that Arminians know in their hearts what Arminians seem to be too dumb to say with their mouths.
LikeLike
Mark – Why would an arminian want to go to a (conservative) Reformed Church? I’m not encountering any of those personally.
It seems like “Richard” would be at home in the CREC. From what I know about them they practice both infant and believers baptism. Their ministers who are leading the charge on the Federal Vision like to talk about “faithfulness” rather than “faith”. That’s where all of this introspection ultimately leads — either there or to Rome. Rome provides a great system for people who want to work steps to justify and sanctify themselves.
“Richard” is also attacking a straw man (I feel like Bryan Cross). In my Reformed Church the law is always read before sins are proclaimed forgiven because of the gospel. Preparatory statements are always read before communion is taken. People aren’t taking what Christ has done for granted. No one is advocating empty belief alone.
Heidelberg Question 21. What is true faith?
Answer. True faith is not only a certain knowledge, [c] whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in his word, but also an assured [d] confidence, which the Holy [e] Ghost works by the gospel, [f] in my heart; that not only to others, but to me also, [g] remission of sin, everlasting righteousness [h] and salvation, are freely given by God, [i] merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits.
LikeLike
My personal theory is that “Richard” is really John Frame and he’s messing with everybody here.
LikeLike
Mark, the first membership vow in a Reformed church is: “Do you believe the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, to be the inerrant and infallible Word of God, and its doctrine, summarized in the confessions of this Church, to be the perfect and only true doctrine of salvation?” One of those confessions is the Canons of Dordt, which as you know, is all about the five points. Another is the Belgic, which detests the error of the Anabaptists.
LikeLike
Erik,
Richard already told us that his first name is really Richard so the John Frame theory holds no weight. Unless of course Richard was lying, but Richard claims he loves others and obeys the commandments most all of the time so I am taking him at his word and assuming he was not lying about his real first name. That he loves and obeys most of the time is a passing grade for assurance I guess. I don’t want to misrepresent and caricature his position though. I may be commiting the slippery slope fallacy of an argument.
LikeLike
Old Post RS: 4. Can a believer who has the Holy Spirit not have some discernment of the glory of Christ and the love of God in other people?
Jeff Cagle: Jesus was able to read hearts; all others must rely on what people say and do, and then only dimly. The hidden things belong to the Lord.
RS: But believers do have the Holy Spirit and He is able to give then insight into things which is more than just their words and actions. Even in our secular law courts they judge intent in the crimes.
1 Corinthians 2:9 but just as it is written, “THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM.”
Old Post RS: Is it really all just empricial observation?
Jeff Cagle: see a lot in Scripture that teaches precisely that. Root and fruit (Matt 7, Jude); Rom 10.10; the various passages in I John; etc. And, I see nothing in Scripture that teaches otherwise.
RS: So we have no way of knowing or discerning the difference between the fruit of the Spirit and those who do the same things in a self-centered way? Is there really no difference in the way believers and unbelievers to deed A?
Old Post RS: 5. Is it just empirical observation we have in interpreting Scripture or can the Spirit enlighten our eyes to see things that unbelievers cannot see in them?
Jeff Cagle: You’re comparing apples and oranges.
RS: You keep speaking of literal fruit, but I am speaking of spiritual fruit.
Jeff Cagle: The Spirit can certainly open our eyes, just as Jesus opened the eyes of the disciples in Jerusalem (Luke 24.44 – 45). But His enlightenment is not a different sense category from observation and reason. What the disciples learned from Jesus was still based on looking at the OT and noticing what they had not noticed before: that it was chock-full of types pointing to Jesus’ death and resurrection.
RS: So the spiritual wisdom and understanding that Scritpure speaks of is simply the Spirit giving us a little more observation and reasoning skills? What is it about the new birth that allows us to see the kingdom of God?
Jeff Cagle: Think about how the Confession talks about interpretation. On the one hand, the Spirit gives faith to believe what is written: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
On the other, sound doctrine is always in accord with good and necessary inference:
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men.
Chew on that ‘new revelations of the Spirit’ for a bit. It entails that the Spirit does not add understanding of the Scripture that goes beyond “good and necessary inference.” He may well enlighten the mind to understanding; and He most certainly enlightens the mind to believe. But He doesn’t create a supra-reasoning revelation to do it.
RS: I have been chewing for a bit. It appears that you are saying that the Spirit basically gives you an extra insight into good and necessary inference. I have a hard time seeing how that fits with Colossians 1:9 (see just below).
Colossians 1:9 “For this reason also, since the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding.”
Old post RS: So what about 1 Cor 2?
Well, Paul is clearly not saying that people with the mind of Christ are now supernaturally smarter than unbelievers. Else we’d put you up against Stephen Hawking. The key is the first para of 1 Cor 3. The problem with the Corinthians is not their intelligence, but their lack of wisdom. Their fleshly attitudes prevent them from understanding because they will not believe and receive the solid food (of sound doctrine, as I take it). The solid food is certainly intelligible, but it seems foolish to them rather than wise because they themselves have embraced foolishness rather than wisdom.
1 Corinthians 2:1 And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
3 I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling,
4 and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
5 so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.
RS: But the way to preach Christ and Him crucified is to preach in a way that the Spirit and His power are demonstrated. How can we do that if we are limited to empirical ways of doing things and people cannot understand anything but by the causal reasoning of good and necessary inference?
LikeLike
Erik Charter: My personal theory is that “Richard” is really John Frame and he’s messing with everybody here.
RS: I wasn’t aware that anyone would find me out so quickly.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: It seems like “Richard” would be at home in the CREC. From what I know about them they practice both infant and believers baptism. Their ministers who are leading the charge on the Federal Vision like to talk about “faithfulness” rather than “faith”. That’s where all of this introspection ultimately leads — either there or to Rome. Rome provides a great system for people who want to work steps to justify and sanctify themselves.
RJFS: The problem with that view, however, is that it is not that I am advocating a position for those who want to justify and sanctify themselves, but instead am advocating a view that is thoroughly Reformed and is rooted in history. Yes, of the Puritans. As the Word of God is a means of grace and it is used by the Spirit to bring life to sinners, so the Word of God is a means of grace to sanctify His people in their hearts. The Word is the sword of the Spirit and part of His work is to convict people of sin (see John 16). As He uses the preaching of the Word to people, so He can also use the teaching of the Word to people. Yes, it is uncomfortable to see the wickedness of our own hearts in reality and not just make a profession of it, but it is needed if people are going to have a true understanding of grace.
Eric Charter: “Richard” is also attacking a straw man (I feel like Bryan Cross). In my Reformed Church the law is always read before sins are proclaimed forgiven because of the gospel. Preparatory statements are always read before communion is taken. People aren’t taking what Christ has done for granted. No one is advocating empty belief alone.
RJFS: Yes, they read them. But are there a lot of other sins that are not read and then proclaimed to be forgiven? Are the people taken to behold the glory of Christ and His cross and then His imputed righteousness? Just reading those things is not contradictory to an empty belief alone.
Eric Charter: Heidelberg Question 21. What is true faith?
Answer. True faith is not only a certain knowledge, [c] whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in his word, but also an assured [d] confidence, which the Holy [e] Ghost works by the gospel, [f] in my heart; that not only to others, but to me also, [g] remission of sin, everlasting righteousness [h] and salvation, are freely given by God, [i] merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits.
RJFS: What is true faith?
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. 24 By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter,
25 choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin,
26 considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward.
27 By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured, as seeing Him who is unseen.
LikeLike
John Yeazel: Richard already told us that his first name is really Richard so the John Frame theory holds no weight.
RS: Of course John could be a middle name or Richard could be a nickname or… Just remember, John Smith is also a great name to hide under as well. But if you frame it in the right way, you never know what one could come up with.
John Yeazel: Unless of course Richard was lying, but Richard claims he loves others and obeys the commandments most all of the time so I am taking him at his word and assuming he was not lying about his real first name.
RJFS: I would like to make a clarification here. By keeping the commandments does not mean that I claim to keep the commandments 100% or 90% or anything like that. However, if a mustard seed of faith can move mountains, that is, is true faith, then the love that flows from such a small faith is also a small love. So a person that has true love as a mustard seed can be spoken of as keeping the commandments, though far, far from perfection. A person can grow a lot in keeping the commandments, but that person can still be far below 30% of a full and perfect obedience. The percentages are simply to make a point and are not intended to be exact. So a person can be increasing in holiness his or her whole life and still be very, very far from perfection. But the growth is by the life of Christ in the person and the work of the Holy Spirit.
John Yeazel: That he loves and obeys most of the time is a passing grade for assurance I guess. I don’t want to misrepresent and caricature his position though. I may be commiting the slippery slope fallacy of an argument.
RJFS: Assurance can only come on the basis of the work of the Spirit in the soul which is based on the work of Christ on the cross and the imputed righteousness of Christ. There is no passing grade as such, but the question is if there is real grace in the soul or not.
LikeLike
The Puritans were Anglicans (England) who wanted to purify the Anglican church. They weren’t Reformed (Continental Europe) or Presbyterian (Scotland & Northern Ireland). I think “Richard” is on the wrong site. You really can’t trace our (most of the guys here) churches back to the Puritans. It’s as if I started preaching Reformed doctrine on a site for Methodists or Quakers.
Some of the Puritans hung out in The Netherlands for awhile but apparently their Dutch wasn’t good enough to learn the right lessons. Oh, and don’t get me started on burning witches.
LikeLike
This reminds me of an interview I once heard with Ted Haggard. The interviewer (a Reformed guy) was talking about how a realistic understanding of what sin is makes it really difficult to say that we don’t sin all the time. Haggard responded that he had not sinned in several days. Later we found out that sin was quite a regular occurrence for him.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: This reminds me of an interview I once heard with Ted Haggard. The interviewer (a Reformed guy) was talking about how a realistic understanding of what sin is makes it really difficult to say that we don’t sin all the time. Haggard responded that he had not sinned in several days. Later we found out that sin was quite a regular occurrence for him.
The Puritans were Anglicans (England) who wanted to purify the Anglican church. They weren’t Reformed (Continental Europe) or Presbyterian (Scotland & Northern Ireland). I think “Richard” is on the wrong site. You really can’t trace our (most of the guys here) churches back to the Puritans. It’s as if I started preaching Reformed doctrine on a site for Methodists or Quakers.
RS: A lot of the Puritans were Presbyterians and many were Independents. The WCF, which was written by many Puritans, is Presbyterian. However, you might want to read the Heidelberg. I sounds just like what the Puritans would have said. Some also speak of the Dutch Puritans as well, so be careful.
Heidelberg:
Question 113. What does the tenth commandment require of us?
Answer: That even the smallest inclination or thought, contrary to any of God’s commandments, never rise in our hearts; but that at all times we hate all sin with our whole heart, and delight in all righteousness.
Question 114. But can those who are converted to God perfectly keep these commandments?
Answer: No: but even the holiest men, while in this life, have only a small beginning of this obedience; yet so, that with a sincere resolution they begin to live, not only according to some, but all the commandments of God.
(a) 1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. Rom.7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. Rom.7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. Eccl.7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not. 1 Cor.13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. (b) Rom.7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: Ps.1:2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Question 115. Why will God then have the ten commandments so strictly preached, since no man in this life can keep them?
Answer: First, that all our lifetime we may learn more and more to know (a) our sinful nature, and thus become the more earnest in seeking the remission of sin, and righteousness in Christ; (b) likewise, that we constantly endeavour and pray to God for the grace of the Holy Spirit, that we may become more and more conformable to the image of God, till we arrive at the perfection proposed to us, in a life to come. (c)
(a) Rom.3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Ps.32:5 I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. (b) Matt.5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Rom.7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? Rom.7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. (c) 1 Cor.9:24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. Philip.3:11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Philip.3:12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Philip.3:13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, Philip.3:14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
LikeLike
I subscribe to the Three Forms so have no problem with what you have quoted.
The issue is, if I say I’m really, really sorry for my sins you will reply, “well, you need to be really, really, really sorry.”
If I say I’m really, really, really sorry you’ll tell me I need to add another really. At some point you just like to hear yourself talk (see yourself type).
Doggone it, John Frame, I’ve let you sucker me again.
Spoke to someone who knows Stellman personally. He said that coming out of Penecostalism he was always very, very concerned about sanctification and how it worked. Now he’s with Rome. That’s where a morbid obession with this leads. You need to focus more on Christ’s work than on yourself. Note the Heidelberg questions you cited are in the “gratitude” section, not the “grace” section.
LikeLike
Erik,
I don’t mind Stellman or Richard being concerned for sanctification, the problem is both have underestimated the perfection of the law required and thus the glory of Jesus Christ in what He has accomplished as the 2nd Adam. Stellman has done it formally in repudiating the protestant insistence upon the perfect requirement of the law being charged against the creation made Imago Dei, and Richard does it pastorally in trying to ferret out ‘the almost believer'(puritan speak) and defends it as both being sanctioned by 1 john, ability given via the testimony of the Holy Spirit, and concern for the souls of others. I can deal better with Stellman because he’s not holding out that his position is protestant or confessional. Richard’s is more dubious and points to the need for the reformed to move away from much of New England puritanism and locate itself within the continental reformed or somebody like Stuart Robinson in the american scene. It’s why I prefer the 3 forms of unity to the WCF, still Richard can’t be allowed to get away with an equating of the english reformation particularly with the scottish influence, the WCF, with the congregational puritanism of the New Englanders. IOW, we’re presbyterians not puritans, and the theology, to say nothing of the emphasis, differs, sometimes greatly.
LikeLike
Sean – Re. Stuart Robinson – https://oldlife.org/2011/02/introducing-the-old-school-presbyterians-stuart-robinson/
I regret missing out on the 2K debate. It seems to have died down (for now). I’m finishing up Van Drunen’s shorter book. I like it a lot. He contrasts the covenant with Noah and the covenant with Abraham effectively (also Israel in the promised land vs. Israel in Babylon). It provides a good framework for thinking through 2K issues.
LikeLike
Zirm, thanks for your answer. I guess “conservative” is a relative term. I haven’t encountered too many reformed congregations who actually ask prospects to agree with what the confession teaches about gospel doctrine. Of course the congregations I Know also wouldn’t enforce boundaries about sacramental praxis. So am I dealing with a hypothetical, a congregation which would refuse credobaptists (because they disobey in practical experience) but would NOT also refuse Arminians (to paying membership, not only to the eldership)?
Of course there are many reasons credobaptist Arminians would want to join with my local pca church.
1. The pastor of that church is himself an Arminian. He promises folks that Christ will die for them too if only they will believe on HIm.
2. This church is conservative, which means it cares more about same-sex marriage and the exceptional nature of the usa than it does for picky debates about the fine points of refuting Arminian mistakes about the gospel.
3. This church doesn’t use Fanny Crosby music or any other contemporary “throw up” (on the wall) music.
Why shouldn’t an Arminian escape Fanny Crosby if he can? Especially if he can go on being Arminian and convervative at the same time?
He believes in the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection and he wants to hear your preacher preach. Just how much more do you want?
LikeLike
Erik,
It’ll kick back up again. If you haven’t already, grab hold of Kline’s Kingdom Prologue, DVD leans on him, his insights anyway, pretty heavily in diagnosing the different modern theological strains. I taught through DVD’s NL2K, and aside from the 10 or so I put to sleep every sunday school, it gave myself and the few who would tolerate it, a pretty good grounding in the historical developments.
http://bookstore.wscal.edu/collections/vandrunen-david-m/products/2592
LikeLike
sean: I don’t mind Stellman or Richard being concerned for sanctification, the problem is both have underestimated the perfection of the law required and thus the glory of Jesus Christ in what He has accomplished as the 2nd Adam.
RS: Which of course is absolutely incorrect. God requires perfection in each and every act. However, that does not mean that in Christ and Christ in the soul that a believer cannot and must grow in Christ. It is His glory in live and at the cross, but it is also the glory of Christ in the believer and it is His glory that shines through the believer. True holiness is Christ shining in and through the believer.
SEan: Stellman has done it formally in repudiating the protestant insistence upon the perfect requirement of the law being charged against the creation made Imago Dei, and Richard does it pastorally in trying to ferret out ‘the almost believer’(puritan speak) and defends it as both being sanctioned by 1 john, ability given via the testimony of the Holy Spirit, and concern for the souls of others.
RS: But of course the NT speaks frequently about the need not to be deceived. A pastor should be concerned about souls being decieved since the soul deceives itself, is deceived by sin, is deceived by the deceiver, and is so greatly deceived by self-love.
Sean: I can deal better with Stellman because he’s not holding out that his position is protestant or confessional. Richard’s is more dubious and points to the need for the reformed to move away from much of New England puritanism and locate itself within the continental reformed or somebody like Stuart Robinson in the american scene.
RS: Perhaps the real need is for all people to be more biblical.
Sean: It’s why I prefer the 3 forms of unity to the WCF, still Richard can’t be allowed to get away with an equating of the english reformation particularly with the scottish influence, the WCF, with the congregational puritanism of the New Englanders.
RS: Allow Richard to get away with that? Are you saying that the WCF was not Presbyterian? Are you saing that the English Puritans did not come to the US and that the congregational puritanism was not from some of the best from England?
SEan: IOW, we’re presbyterians not puritans, and the theology, to say nothing of the emphasis, differs, sometimes greatly.
RS: The Scottish presbyterians sure wanted Jonathan Edwards to come over and join them, so at the least that shows their theology did not differ that much. However, it may be correct that the continental reformed does have a different view of things than the Puritans. However, Wilhelmus a Brakel was Dutch and he was very experimental much like the Puritans. He refers to the different kinds of faith as well (historical, temporal, miraculous, and then saving faith). In other words, there are all kinds of believing that a person can do and still not have saving faith. It might also be helpful to note that just because a person believes certain things does not mean that a person has faith. A Brakel spends many pages in his works on the distinguishing marks of saving faith.
“Faith is the soul of Christianity, whoever is in error here, errs unto his damnation. Many, having a false notion concerning this, perish with a false peace; others spend their days in sorrow, being fearful that they do not possess true faith, whereas, being true believers, they have reason to go on their way rejoicing. It is therefore necessary to distinguish in the clearest possible manner between true and temporal faith. May the Lord grant me the grace and ability to do so.”
He (a Brakel) goes on to talk about The Necessity of Self-Examination. Why? Not those who are baptized, and not all who attend church and partake of the Lord’s Supper are true believers. Yes, only a few, and by far the smallest number of them are true believers on the way to eternal felicity”…”Thirdly, it is most detrimental to neglect self-examination and the searching of one’s heart. Such neglect holds man captive in the sleep of carelessness…It hold him captive to the world and to sin; yes, it is the key whereby he closes heaven and opens hell for himself.” He goes on some later, “Many thousands will go to hell who imagine that they will enter heaven.”
He goes on to talk about the various forms of self-deceit. A few pages later he speaks of how temporal and true believers are distinguished in their practice of holiness. “He who does not manfiest holiness is not a true believer”, though he does recognize and write about a counterfeit holiness that the unbeliever can have and assure himself with. If that is continental theology, then that is good stuff. Stellman denies the Gospel and of what good works truly are. But the continental guys like a Brakel did not. You might also want to think about why Joel Beeke who loves the Puritans publishes so many of the Dutch guys.
LikeLike
Erik,
Kline’s KP, is downloadable in PDF form(free) if you don’t already have it. Rube I’m sure has it linked over at C.O.
LikeLike
Zrim: Mark, the first membership vow in a Reformed church is: “Do you believe the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, to be the inerrant and infallible Word of God, and its doctrine, summarized in the confessions of this Church, to be the perfect and only true doctrine of salvation?” One of those confessions is the Canons of Dordt, which as you know, is all about the five points.
RS: There is a difference in reading them and understanding them. There is a difference between saying that you believe them and really understanding them. How many people in history have taken a vow to the WCF without really believing it? Finney did that. I have found elders in conservative Presbyterian churches who did not know the five points of Calvinism. So despite people taking the vows, without being carefully taught those things I remain doubtful that they really believe them.
LikeLike
Sean – I actually have Kline’s book that you refer to but have not read it. I need to.
LikeLike
I imagine we’ll get around to teaching Van Drunen in Sunday School as well. We have a good core of younger guys who are tracking with him on this stuff. Not sure about some of the older folks. It would certainly be an interesting class.
LikeLike
Sean – Curious what you do for a living?
LikeLike
Erik Charter: The issue is, if I say I’m really, really sorry for my sins you will reply, “well, you need to be really, really, really sorry.” If I say I’m really, really, really sorry you’ll tell me I need to add another really. At some point you just like to hear yourself talk (see yourself type).
R-JF-S: First. I don’t reallly watch myself type. Second, in the words of Thomas Shepherd, the degree of sorrow needed is to the point where the soul is humiliated (emptied of self) before God. In other words, the point of sorrow is to (in the words or Thomas Watson) have sin become bitter so that Christ will be sweet.
Eric Charter: Doggone it, John Frame, I’ve let you sucker me again.
Spoke to someone who knows Stellman personally. He said that coming out of Penecostalism he was always very, very concerned about sanctification and how it worked. Now he’s with Rome. That’s where a morbid obession with this leads. You need to focus more on Christ’s work than on yourself. Note the Heidelberg questions you cited are in the “gratitude” section, not the “grace” section.
RS: But sanctifiction is the work of Christ and it is not a focus on self. Christ died to make His people holy in both position and practice. There is a reason that the Spirit is the Holy Spirit and so the fruits of the Spirit are holy. While many profess Christ as King and as Lord, they refuse Him as King and Lord in their hearts and lives. They will give Him just enough time to make them feel good, but that is not submission to Christ as King. Those who are saved are in the KINGDOM of Christ and Christ reigns in His Kingdom. In one sense holiness is the human soul being set apart from all else to be an instrument by which King Jesus may manifest Himself through. As a holy King, the manifestations of Himself are holy. Holiness, then, is not a preoccupation with self, it is to be focused on Christ as our King and our Life. When He lives in His people by His Spirit, it is His Holy Spirit who only works holiness in them.
LikeLike
RS: Allow Richard to get away with that? Are you saying that the WCF was not Presbyterian?
Sean; No I said just the opposite(scottish influence) but I was trying to be evenhanded about the english puritan involvement in it’s drafting. As for the dutch, besides the fact that I’m not Dutch which is already a knock against me undoubtedly, I share many of the same misgivings about some of their theological developments that others here voice at different times.(i.e. transformationalism). Though this is mainly related to those post-Kuyper. As far as the continental reformed, I’m thinking more of the idea of assurance being part of saving faith, and the nature of the spirituality being centered on churchly or ecclesial forms(Luther and Calvin fighting over the nature of the body and blood) vs. conversionist New England emphasis(preparationism)-how do you know if you’re really saved, have you spent engough time analyzing your navel.
LikeLike
Sean’s navel comment is funny. We have had social-activist CRC types visit our URC church and accuse us of being navel-gazers because of the emphases on preaching, two services, etc. as opposed to getting out in the community, feeding the hungry, etc. Richard says we don’t navel-gaze enough. We get it from all sides.
LikeLike
Sean: As far as the continental reformed, I’m thinking more of the idea of assurance being part of saving faith, and the nature of the spirituality being centered on churchly or ecclesial forms(Luther and Calvin fighting over the nature of the body and blood) vs. conversionist New England emphasis(preparationism)-how do you know if you’re really saved, have you spent engough time analyzing your navel.
RS: Do you ever see an ecclesial form church in the New Testament? Preparationism does not teach that we should analyze our navel, but examine our hearts to see if Christ is in the heart. That is much like a Brakel taught in the quotes above. At least some of the Dutch, a vast number of the English Puritans, and then a vast majority of the New England preachers believed that Preparationism was the biblical form of evangelism. It was essentially the application of the new birth and election to evangelism as opposed to baptism for salvation.
LikeLike
On my blog I can see search engine terms people used to hit on my blog. Today someone hit with the search “why is the reformed presbyterian church so weird?”. That’s classic.
LikeLike
I have not read DVD’s book, but some reviews and critique I have heard has to do with a separation of some of the OT Covenants from the Covenant of Grace. In particular, the Mosaic Covenant reiterated at Mt. Sinai, is argued to be a reiteration of the Cov. of Works. Is this an accurate portrayal of DVD? Thank you.
LikeLike
Great Richard, we’re now going to have an activist application of the new birth of a supernatural and miraculous movement of the Holy Spirit. Is there little wonder the pentecostals like to ground themselves in Edwardsian/puritan conversion narratives. Whereas, we’ve got specific indicative directives for how to administer the Lord’s supper, the holy status of the children of believers, and a handbook of the particular offices in the local body, complete with job descriptions and qualifications. So, yeah we’ve got an ecclesial form NT prescriptive. But you’d rather major in detailing out the labyrinth of movements(supernatural and otherwise) of the new birth, ferreting out pure and false motives, when, where and how it occurred, of an supernatural act narrated in scripture as the “wind blowing but no one knows from whence it comes or where it goes.” I’ll take my biblical emphasis over yours.
LikeLike
But of course for you and Edward’s it’s not so much a mystery of ‘from whence it comes or where it goes” You’ve got it all charted out. So much for what Jesus knows.
LikeLike
I’m in over my head a bit here, but the basic impression I get is that Kline & DVD take the view that the Sinai covenant was primarily about Israel’s possession of the land. Obey and stay, disobey and get kicked out. They disobeyed and were kicked out. Many of the laws given to Israel governed how they were to govern themselves in the land. Once they were out of the land they were to govern themselves differently. This notion ties into 2K thinking a lot. Israel related to the Babylonians way differently when they were in Babylon vs. how they related to the inhabitants of the promised land when they took it over. This has implications about how we relate to society as we live as aliens and strangers ourselves as Christians.
LikeLike
Erik,
That’s fair as far as it goes. Paritcularly the idea of using jewish behavior in Babylon or the ancient church before Israel as template for our current behavior in the public square.
B,
Kline’s gonna argue for a multi-strata scheme with the mosaic being typical and the abrahamic, being before, the point of COG continuity with the NC(galatians argument). Yes, the mosaic is also republication in typical form of the edenic covenant so as to create the context for the 2nd Adam, Jesus Christ who fulfills the demands of the Law successfully in contrast to the 1st Adam. The Mosaic as ‘working principle’ is Lev 18:5. Which is why Paul can say that the Law is not of faith.
LikeLike
There is a difference in reading them and understanding them. There is a difference between saying that you believe them and really understanding them. How many people in history have taken a vow to the WCF without really believing it? Finney did that. I have found elders in conservative Presbyterian churches who did not know the five points of Calvinism. So despite people taking the vows, without being carefully taught those things I remain doubtful that they really believe them.
Richard, at this point you’ve pretty well established your semi-revivalist opposition to confessional theology and practice, so it’s no surprise that you are continuing to make a distinction between (mere, as in dubious) confessing and (deep, as in hyper-spiritual) understanding. But not only does it think of understanding in ordinary spiritual terms, confessionalism esteems obedience before understanding. Which means confessionalism doesn’t mind if sometimes understanding follows confession instead of preceding it. At the same time, confessionalism does think understanding should ordinarily precede obedience, which is why we catechize our baptized youth before making a profession or faith and being welcomed to the table.
And that profession of faith isn’t (or at least shouldn’t be, though I will admit the Reformed can be vulnerable to) either over-intellectualized or hyper-spiritualized. We’re looking neither for erudite theologians nor super apostles. We’re looking for disciples who show themselves by simple and credible professions and godly lives, both of which may be marked with imperfections. I know, that’s just not spiritual enough for you. But that’s the difference between Reformed confessionalism and one for or another of pietism.
LikeLike
sean: Great Richard, we’re now going to have an activist application of the new birth of a supernatural and miraculous movement of the Holy Spirit. Is there little wonder the pentecostals like to ground themselves in Edwardsian/puritan conversion narratives. Whereas, we’ve got specific indicative directives for how to administer the Lord’s supper,
RS: Yes, there are a few specifics on that, but then you get all mystical in the application of the Lord’s Supper.
Sean: the holy status of the children of believers,
RS: But you only get that from a misinterpretation of I Cor 7:14
Sean: and a handbook of the particular offices in the local body, complete with job descriptions and qualifications. So, yeah we’ve got an ecclesial form NT prescriptive.
RS: What you have is basic information, but not with all the specifics and certainly not a Synod and all the authority stacked in the denominations or in the local church.
Sean: But you’d rather major in detailing out the labyrinth of movements(supernatural and otherwise) of the new birth, ferreting out pure and false motives, when, where and how it occurred, of an supernatural act narrated in scripture as the “wind blowing but no one knows from whence it comes or where it goes.”
RS: But of course the heart does have a labyrinth of things that it takes more than a profession to work through. The point of John 3:8 is that no human being is in control since the wind blows as it pleases or wishes. But the winds does give us a lot of evidence as to what it does.
Sean: I’ll take my biblical emphasis over yours.
RS: I would love to see your biblical emphasis.
LikeLike
sean: But of course for you and Edward’s it’s not so much a mystery of ‘from whence it comes or where it goes” You’ve got it all charted out. So much for what Jesus knows.
RS: No, it not completely charted out. However, the Bible does give us a lot of evidence of what the Spirit does between the time He comes and the time He goes. Part of His “job” is to convict of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment to come. Part of His “work” is the washing of regeneration and renewing. Part of His work is involved in the love of God in the souls of His people. Part of His work is to work His fruit in His people. So it is not as if what He does is completely unknown, though it is ifnored quite frequently. One would think that some are more binitarian than trinitarian.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, at this point you’ve pretty well established your semi-revivalist opposition to confessional theology and practice,
RS: I am not sure that I would put it that way since I have a deep appreciation for the confessions. But perhaps as you hold to them, then perhaps so.
Zrim: so it’s no surprise that you are continuing to make a distinction between (mere, as in dubious) confessing and (deep, as in hyper-spiritual) understanding.
RS: No, not hyper-spiritual. But simply making the point that there is a spiritual understanding and a spirtual wisdom that Paul talks about as opposed to someone saying that s/he believes a confession.
Zrim: But not only does it think of understanding in ordinary spiritual terms, confessionalism esteems obedience before understanding.
RS: But the Bible (see below) says that it is only when we understand (would argue because of the context that this is not a simple letter definition of grace) grace that the Gospel bears fruit and increases.
Colossians 1: 5 because of the hope laid up for you in heaven, of which you previously heard in the word of truth, the gospel 6 which has come to you, just as in all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing, even as it has been doing in you also since the day you heard of it and understood the grace of God in truth;
Zrim: Which means confessionalism doesn’t mind if sometimes understanding follows confession instead of preceding it. At the same time, confessionalism does think understanding should ordinarily precede obedience, which is why we catechize our baptized youth before making a profession or faith and being welcomed to the table.
And that profession of faith isn’t (or at least shouldn’t be, though I will admit the Reformed can be vulnerable to) either over-intellectualized or hyper-spiritualized. We’re looking neither for erudite theologians nor super apostles. We’re looking for disciples who show themselves by simple and credible professions and godly lives, both of which may be marked with imperfections. I know, that’s just not spiritual enough for you. But that’s the difference between Reformed confessionalism and one for or another of pietism.
RS: I suppose if you want to put it in such stark contrasts, then you are free to do so. But the way you put it is certainly beyond the tag of accurate. I am not sure how you can read that what I have been contending for as looking for erudite theologians or super apostles. I am also not sure why you keep bringing up the idea of perfection. The Bible is quite clear that eternal life is to know God and His Son and that is the issue. Paul said we should examine ourselves to see if Christ is in us. I John tells us that the book was written so we could know if we had eternal life. Not one of those mention the idea that a person should trust that s/he is saved if they have a credible profession. A person has eternal life only if they have Christ which means that His life, sufferings and death, imputed righteousness, and His resurrected life are theirs.
I posted this earlier about some words o Wilhelmus a Brakel was Dutch. “He refers to the different kinds of faith as well (historical, temporal, miraculous, and then saving faith). In other words, there are all kinds of believing that a person can do and still not have saving faith. It might also be helpful to note that just because a person believes certain things does not mean that a person has faith. A Brakel spends many pages in his works on the distinguishing marks of saving faith.”
A person can have a historical faith and have a credible profession. A person can have a temporal faith and have a credible profession. A person can have a miraculous faith and have a credible profession. He goes on to speak of The Necessity of Self-Examination. Why? “Not those who are baptized, and not all who attend church and partake of the Lord’s Supper are true believers. Yes, only a few, and by far the smallest number of them are true believers on the way to eternal felicity.”
A credible profession and a moral life can be an enouragement to deceived souls that they are just fine when they are not.
Jeremiah 6:14 “They have healed the brokenness of My people superficially, Saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ But there is no peace.”
LikeLike
So “Richard”, in the real world of the 21st century have you found anyone to follow you in your interpretations? Are you pastoring a church with either elders (or a congregation if you don’t favor the concept of elders) that is behind you? I’ve known several men who were churches of one and those were not good situations. Do you have a wife you is on board with you? If you were as persistent with her as you have been with us I would bet she took off around a decade ago. I hope that’s not the case, though.
LikeLike
Now I’m with Erik on this one. Richard, if you don’t want to give your name then fine. But I would like to know what church, if any, puts up with this approach of yours. Do you have to submit to anyone in the church? If you are a pastor, do you have any elders with backbones? Or maybe none of the churches are good enough for you so you aren’t a member anywhere. Which is the case?
LikeLike
People who herald their own righteousness are the ones who really cause most of the problems in the church but they get away with it all the time. For example, Norman Shepherd, Gary North, R.J Rushdoony, John Kinnaird, Doug Wilson, Peter Leithart, Jason Stellman, Greg Bahnsen, N.T Wright, Richard Gaffin, Steven Schlissel, James Jordon, John Armstrong, Daniel Fuller- need I go on. They preach a distorted Gospel and then get really tricky and subtle with how they twist the scriptures to make their gospel the “real” gospel. And it takes commitees up to four years to figure out they really have distorted the gospel. And then they get a slap on the wrist and go preach at another denomination. That’s not what happens to those who are having marital, financial and other obvious moral problems. They get kicked out and then forgotten about. It is those who herald their own godliness, obedience and covenant faithfulness whom the church has trouble dealing with. And they suppress and distort the gospel so that those who really need to hear it don’t get to hear it because the Pastors and elders in the churches are more concerned about godliness, obedience and covenant faithfulness than getting the gospel right and proclaiming it clearly week in and week out to the sinners who really need it and long to hear about it. Doesn’t that cause anyone some kind of concern?
LikeLike
John – Those are good observations. We need men who preach the true gospel AND live upright lives. Thankfully we have a lot of those men, but most people haven’t heard of them because they are not doing anything “new” or “novel”. They are just faithfully serving their congregations year after year.
Somehow the Reformed world got by without the CREC for 500 years.
There are two histories just waiting to be written, although enough time has probably not passed. One is the history of the CRC becoming liberal which gave rise to the URC. Another is the rise of the CREC and the backgrounds within Reformed theology of the men who started it. A third might be on Theonomy, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, etc.
LikeLike
Richard, I keep bringing up perfection because perfectionism is the implication of your contentions. You are not content simply with doctrine and life. You press to go “deeper and beyond,” the language of the super-apostles. You may have reams of pages from a Brakel, but Jesus was quite satisfied with Peter’s simple confession, even going so far as to build his church upon it. And he had the powers of omniscient perception neither you nor I have. Think about it.
But on a Brakel, a confessionalist wouldn’t disagree that hypocrites co-mingle with believers or that one can believe all kinds of things but not have saving faith. The Reformed construe faith in the three-fold manner of knowledge, assent, and trust. You speak as if confessionalism is all about bare knowledge and Christianity is about more than faith. Doctrine and life may encourage hypocrisy, but so can pietism. The question that remains is which template is biblical, the creedal or the experiential? I know your answer and you know mine. But mine also isn’t concerned with driving hypocrisy out on a rail because it takes abiding human sin seriously, whereas pietism pushes the play button on abiding human sin but never seems to get it.
LikeLike
John Yeazel: People who herald their own righteousness are the ones who really cause most of the problems in the church but they get away with it all the time. For example, Norman Shepherd, Gary North, R.J Rushdoony, John Kinnaird, Doug Wilson, Peter Leithart, Jason Stellman, Greg Bahnsen, N.T Wright, Richard Gaffin, Steven Schlissel, James Jordon, John Armstrong, Daniel Fuller- need I go on. They preach a distorted Gospel and then get really tricky and subtle with how they twist the scriptures to make their gospel the “real” gospel. And it takes commitees up to four years to figure out they really have distorted the gospel. And then they get a slap on the wrist and go preach at another denomination. That’s not what happens to those who are having marital, financial and other obvious moral problems. They get kicked out and then forgotten about. It is those who herald their own godliness, obedience and covenant faithfulness whom the church has trouble dealing with. And they suppress and distort the gospel so that those who really need to hear it don’t get to hear it because the Pastors and elders in the churches are more concerned about godliness, obedience and covenant faithfulness than getting the gospel right and proclaiming it clearly week in and week out to the sinners who really need it and long to hear about it. Doesn’t that cause anyone some kind of concern?
R-JF-S: John, antimoniamism has caused a lot of problems in the church, so don’t forget the other side. It has been a constant plague in the Church as has attacks on the Gospel of grace alone. As I have said repeatedly and in many ways, I am not trumpeting my righteousness as I have none. I am not adding to the justification of sinners by what I am saying as there is no way to add to what Christ has already done. However, try to get it through whatever blocks that in the eyes of men, the way that holiness is not earning righteousness for salvation. Christ delivers His people from sin as a gift and they are delivered from sin (to whatever degree He does so) by grace. Holiness is not a great burden and holiness is not a system of works, but holiness is the grace of God bringing sinners from the slavery of sin and the bondage of the devil to living by grace which leads to holiness. Holiness is a gift and it is part of eternal life. We are not commanded to be holy as He is holy because it is a burden, but because it is good and delightful. It is truly sad when people think that holiness is some form of self-righteousness or some bondage they have to enter and poor them that they have to leave their sin. No, no, and a thousand times no. Christ sets His children free from that bondage and they no longer have to sin at all times and in all moments. Holiness is a gift of God and it is Him sharing His holiness with His people (Hebrews 12:10 For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness).
Let me repeat. There is nothing about holiness and desiring holiness in the heart that adds one iota to the imputed righteousness of Christ. Sinners are declared just by grace alone through faith alone. Sinners are declared just because of who God is and not because of who they are. Sinners are declared just because of what Christ has done and not because of what they have done. No one is ever perfect and no one ever does one perfect work. We are constantly under the absolute need of and in absolute dependence on the grace of God. Holiness is the result of grace rather than the result of self-righteousness. We are no more holy than we are loving and we have no more love than we have holiness. So if we don’t desire holiness, we don’t desire love and nothing we do is of any benefit (I Cor 13).
The Scriptures are so clear that if we love God we will keep His commands. His commands are spiritual because the Law is spiritual and it reaches the depths of the heart. If we love God we will want His commands to reach the depths of our hearts so we can repent from sin out of love for Him. Is that a work that adds to the imputed righteousness of Christ? No, but the work of Christ frees us so that we can seek Him out of love for Him. Sin is the judgment for sin and and sin brings some separation from us and God in the fellowship sense. So if we love God why wouldn’t we want to flee sin and seek Him?
LikeLike
Erik, it might be better to say the CRC is on a trajectory toward broad evangelicalism, not liberalism (even if it has some liberal pockets). But while the URC is much more doctrinal in comparison to the culturalist CRC, it’s also retained much of the neo-Calvinism that animates the culturally Reformed. Some days it just seems like the-CRC-that-doesn’t-ordain-women.
LikeLike
I didn’t realize the CREC changed their name.
A Message to the World
Regarding the CREC Name Change
Rev. Jack E. Phelps
Presiding Minister of Council
On October 6, 2011, the CREC Church Council voted to change the name of the CREC
from the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches to the Communion of
Reformed Evangelical Churches. This change was the result of a three year deliberative
process within the confederation, driven by a concern that in some parts of the United
States our name was frequently misconstrued to imply certain cultural connotations that
were never intended by our founders or by our churches.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, I keep bringing up perfection because perfectionism is the implication of your contentions.
RS: No, they are not implications in the slightest. A desire for God and His glory does not lead to perfectionism.
Zrim: You are not content simply with doctrine and life. You press to go “deeper and beyond,” the language of the super-apostles. You may have reams of pages from a Brakel, but Jesus was quite satisfied with Peter’s simple confession, even going so far as to build his church upon it. And he had the powers of omniscient perception neither you nor I have. Think about it.
RS: Yes, but Peter also gave us a lot more about Jesus in the Gospel of Mark and in his two epistles. In it he gives us the biblical command us to be holy as He is holy. Since Jesus knows we don’t have omniscient perception, He gave us many other things and the Holy Spirit.
Zrim: But on a Brakel, a confessionalist wouldn’t disagree that hypocrites co-mingle with believers or that one can believe all kinds of things but not have saving faith. The Reformed construe faith in the three-fold manner of knowledge, assent, and trust. You speak as if confessionalism is all about bare knowledge and Christianity is about more than faith. Doctrine and life may encourage hypocrisy, but so can pietism. The question that remains is which template is biblical, the creedal or the experiential? I know your answer and you know mine. But mine also isn’t concerned with driving hypocrisy out on a rail because it takes abiding human sin seriously, whereas pietism pushes the play button on abiding human sin but never seems to get it.
RS: You seriously, seriously misunderstand my position and that of Edwards. It takes sin so seriously that it knows that Christ hates it and wars against it in the soul He dwells in. Christ hates sin so much that He died in order to free those whom His Father gave Him from that sin. Since a true profession and confession comes from the heart, the heart must be dealt with at length. As Jesus told Peter that His Father had shown Him that, so Jesus tells us in John six that we must be taught of God as well. God teaches the heart because in the New Covenant that is where He writes His laws. If we don’t deal with the heart we are only dealing with people at a very superficial level. By the way, Turretin wrote about the seven aspects of faith. There are ways the three ways can be looked at in an easy way and leaving the heart untouched, but there is also a way those three ways can be looked at as getting to the depths of the soul.
LikeLike
Zrim – You can also see a lot of differences between the CRC & URC if you look at the business of their Synods. CRC looks awfully mainline at that level as opposed to evangelical.
“Richard” – The biggest problem of your formulation is that it is unworkable in practice. Thus you are avoiding questions about your church affiliation both as a member and as a minister. It is pie in the sky as there is no way for churches or elders to actually put it into practice in a nuts-and-bolts way. As Mikelmann commented last week “It’s a gauntlet”.
LikeLike
The thief on the cross next to Jesus had a profession, but he didn’t have a lot of time to display holiness. He made the cut with Jesus, though.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: So “Richard”, in the real world of the 21st century have you found anyone to follow you in your interpretations? Are you pastoring a church with either elders (or a congregation if you don’t favor the concept of elders) that is behind you? I’ve known several men who were churches of one and those were not good situations. Do you have a wife you is on board with you? If you were as persistent with her as you have been with us I would bet she took off around a decade ago. I hope that’s not the case, though.
mikelmann: Now I’m with Erik on this one. Richard, if you don’t want to give your name then fine. But I would like to know what church, if any, puts up with this approach of yours. Do you have to submit to anyone in the church? If you are a pastor, do you have any elders with backbones? Or maybe none of the churches are good enough for you so you aren’t a member anywhere. Which is the case?
RS: Gentlemen, let me speak bluntly. These things are basically none of your business and there is no way I want to get into this on a public forum and I will not. Yes, it does irritate me that my wife has been brought into this twice now. Okay, my wife has a medical condition that has made the ministry impossible for me for a few years now and has a lot to do with my church situation at the moment. If that is not good enough for you, then so be it. But in the interest of the privacy of my wife, a few others, as well as things I should not say on a public forum, there is nothing else I am free to say on this. So have it and judge as you will. But I will say this, this approach of mine is not new at all. It may not go across very well in this century, but it is also the case that the Church in our time is in a spiritual famine. What was once considered the meat of the Word is now considered as something beneath the feet of enlightened men who sneer at the grace of holiness.
LikeLike
I have just been listening to too many Bob Dylan songs the last week or so. Here is one of his greatest ballads and protest songs:
LikeLike
And visions of the ideal woman who does not really exist have been messing with my mind:
LikeLike
“Richard” – You also commented in the past along the lines of “a church wouldn’t have you” or “wouldn’t abide sound teaching” or something along those lines. That’s a different matter than your wife having a medical condition. If the medical condition is truly the case, then certainly I have sympathy for that.
If what you are advocating was present in past centuries but is no longer present in any existing churches today, what happened to those churches? Wouldn’t God preserve this aspect of the faith in some place if it is sound and valid?
LikeLike
And my question about your wife was to ascertain if you (still) have one. You do, and you are to be commended for that. If we are talking about holiness and criteria for a healthy ministry I think it’s a valid question (and a Scriptural one). It sounds like you pass.
LikeLike
Also “Richard” no one knows who the heck you are so I wouldn’t think privacy should be a big concern. I guess the Reformed world can be kind of small so maybe someone could figure it out.
LikeLike
I’m not taking weight loss advice from a guy who weighs 400 lbs. and I’m not taking financial advice from a guy who has been bankrupt twice. You get the point.
LikeLike
Richard, you wrote:”It may not go across very well in this century, but it is also the case that the Church in our time is in a spiritual famine. What was once considered the meat of the Word is now considered as something beneath the feet of enlightened men who sneer at the grace of holiness.”
This is horse hockey. I am part of a very good congregation where the word is preached faithfully, elders oversee the congregation, members pray for each other, children are catechized. It doesn’t seem all that fetching of you to sneer at faithfulness in our time. But that is what perfectionists do. It’s not half-empty. We’re basically running on fumes.
Sorry to hear about your wife.
LikeLike
Richard, I am sorry that your wife is ill.
Regarding your comment “I will say this, this approach of mine is not new at all. It may not go across very well in this century, but it is also the case that the Church in our time is in a spiritual famine. What was once considered the meat of the Word is now considered as something beneath the feet of enlightened men who sneer at the grace of holiness.”
…I deduce that there is no church with your point of view, and you are pretty much out there by yourself. That happens to prophets, but you aren’t a prophet. You have disconnected from accountability and gone off on a tangent. You ponder alone, and reach extreme conclusions alone. You really need a church to bring you back in, Richard.
LikeLike
I’ll echo D.G. & Mikelmann (I actually thought of this while I was showering before I saw what they wrote) – My experience is that I attend worship on Sunday (would like to go twice but am failing at that of late for various reasons. I catch the second sermon online). I hear the law and the gospel and interact with other Christian people. During the week I try to listen to sermons, lectures, etc. I go through the catechism and read the Bible with my kids and my wife. We pray together. I go to work, watch movies, drink a beer a few times a week, walk with my wife, try to watch what I eat — basically just try to live a healthy Christian life. Sometimes I see something in those movies or stray onto something online that I shouldn’t. I don’t feel right about it. I’m not at peace. I see this as evidence that the Holy Spirit is working in me. At Church on Sunday I seek forgiveness and feel that I am forgiven. I plan to try to do better. All of this kind of happens naturally as a result of being in a good church. It’s not the people in good churches I am worried about, it’s the people who are not in churches or are in bad churches. They are the sheep without a shepherd. No one is hammering on me to be holy or constantly examine myself. I just hear the law and the gospel and believe it.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart quoting Richard, you wrote:”It may not go across very well in this century, but it is also the case that the Church in our time is in a spiritual famine. What was once considered the meat of the Word is now considered as something beneath the feet of enlightened men who sneer at the grace of holiness.”
D.G. Hart: This is horse hockey. I am part of a very good congregation where the word is preached faithfully, elders oversee the congregation, members pray for each other, children are catechized. It doesn’t seem all that fetching of you to sneer at faithfulness in our time. But that is what perfectionists do. It’s not half-empty. We’re basically running on fumes.
RS: Dr. Hart, when one says that we are in a spiritual famine, that does not mean that there are no faithful churches. No need to take that as a personal attack on where you attend. For what it is worth, and for something close to a million times, I am not a perfectionists in any way and not even close to it. Once again, there is nothing that I do that is perfect and I doubt that it is close to 20% on a 100% scale. However, God’s standard of perfection does not change and will never change. In heaven His people will not sin but they will not earn one bit of righteousness by it. Their holiness will be by grace then and whatever holiness a person has now is by grace as well.
LikeLike
mikelmann: …I deduce that there is no church with your point of view, and you are pretty much out there by yourself. That happens to prophets, but you aren’t a prophet. You have disconnected from accountability and gone off on a tangent. You ponder alone, and reach extreme conclusions alone. You really need a church to bring you back in, Richard.
RS: Wrong deductions. There are churches from my point of view and I am not out here by myself. True, I am not a prophet. I am not disconnected from accountability and I am not off on a tangent. I do ponder alone a lot, but so far no extreme conclusions. That is what happens when a person spends a fair amount of time with one elder (pastor) each week discussing these things.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, you wrote:”It may not go across very well in this century, but it is also the case that the Church in our time is in a spiritual famine. What was once considered the meat of the Word is now considered as something beneath the feet of enlightened men who sneer at the grace of holiness.”
D.G. Hart: This is horse hockey. I am part of a very good congregation where the word is preached faithfully, elders oversee the congregation, members pray for each other, children are catechized. It doesn’t seem all that fetching of you to sneer at faithfulness in our time. But that is what perfectionists do. It’s not half-empty. We’re basically running on fumes
RS: I couldn’t let this one go with just one short answer (my previous one). I am not sure how anyone, especially one with a smattering of history or greater than a smattering like yourself, could not look at the proliferation of mega-churches, charismania, Pelagianism, and the increase of the JW’s, Mormons, Muslims and all of that and think that we are not in a famine in the land. No, I have not forgotten Arminianism and Luther thought it was worse than Pelagianism. Legalism and antiomianism both abound in various forms. People no longer care for what is true but simply what works or makes them feel good at the moment. The worship of God has been taken over by the worship of self in that all things must be because I like it rather than because it is pleasing to God. We now have Christian celebrities and on and on. This is not a sign of famine? When Rob Bell, Jol Olsteen, and T.J. Jakes are wildly popular and they sell millions and millions of dollars of material across the land, that is not a sign of a famine? When Benny Hinn can fill stadiums and fly in his personal jet or jets, that is not a sign of a famine in the land? When people are enthralled by prophecy conferences and could care less about the imputed righteousness of Christ, that is not a sign of famine in the land?
LikeLike
Richard, Welcome to the anti-evangelical bandwagon. I’ve been on it for years. But the problem I have is that you are here at a blog where a number of confessionalists hang, and you are hitting us with the same charge that you level against T.D. Jakes et al. This could mean that confessionalists are superior to evangelicals but that would be a smug conclusion. It does mean that your standard of judgment lacks nuance. I get it. So does God’s. But as you would surely agree, you’re not God. So perhaps the standard for Christians is not perfection. It it were our churches would not be famished. They’d be empty.
LikeLike
RS: “There are churches from my point of view and I am not out here by myself. True, I am not a prophet. I am not disconnected from accountability and I am not off on a tangent. I do ponder alone a lot, but so far no extreme conclusions. That is what happens when a person spends a fair amount of time with one elder (pastor) each week discussing these things.”
Agreeing with one other guy is hardly evidence that you haven’t gone off on a tangent. But, not having a confession, how would you even know if that were the case? And if your elder/pastor is not accountable to other presbyters, he could stray a long way himself.
So, Richard, you have this wonderful and deep biblical message that is superior to that of the big evangelical churches and superior to that of confessional churches. But then you won’t even tell us of one church that is Richard-Smith-approved. I’m not even asking you to give identifying information about your church. A church. Any church that meets with your approval.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, Welcome to the anti-evangelical bandwagon. I’ve been on it for years. But the problem I have is that you are here at a blog where a number of confessionalists hang, and you are hitting us with the same charge that you level against T.D. Jakes et al.
RS: I wasn’t aware that I was charging confessionalists with being anti-trinitarian who teach the health and wealth non-gospel. But it appears that I have been doing a lot of things that I have not been aware of.
D.G. Hart: This could mean that confessionalists are superior to evangelicals but that would be a smug conclusion.
RS: Why is it a smug conclusion to see that group A is much closer to the Bible than group B?
D.G. Hart: It does mean that your standard of judgment lacks nuance. I get it. So does God’s. But as you would surely agree, you’re not God. So perhaps the standard for Christians is not perfection. It it were our churches would not be famished. They’d be empty.
RS: It would seem that at times people read into things implications of things that are not there. Indeed I am not God. As long as God is immutable, His standards cannot change. The Greatest Commandment says to love Him with all of our being, and it does not give us an out at any point on it. We are to be holy as He is holy. But by the propitiatory work of Christ and His imputed righteousness He makes us holy and blameless (Eph 1:6) before Him in Christ. The position of the believer, then, tells us that the standard of God has not been dropped. But that perfect standard is fulfilled by Christ since He kept the Law without sin and loved God with all of His being at all times in His earthly sojourn. That perfect righteousness is imputed to His people and so they are perfect in His sight because of Christ. It seems that if the standard is dropped that reflects on the work of Christ.
LikeLike
RS: RS: It would seem that at times people read into things implications of things that are not there.
Quite true, and it cuts both ways. I suspect that if you laid out your theology from the top, you might not be so perfectionist as it seems. Welcome to the Old-Life buzz-saw.
Likewise, I suspect that if you gave (some of? all of? at minimum, Zrim and me) a little space, you might see that we aren’t looking for “mere profession”, but “genuine profession”, as in Romans 10.10. And not “outward works”, but “works that come from faith.”
Those are the only things that matter.
At the same time, we are operating from what one might call a “chastened epistemology”, one that recognizes that there is no “love sense” or perception faculty other than what we see and hear. That’s our creaturely limitation.
You say that you do not believe you have a “love sense”, and I believe you. Now pursue that line of thought. If you don’t have an extra sense, then doesn’t it follow that you are using the same ones we all do?
LikeLike
mikelmann: Agreeing with one other guy is hardly evidence that you haven’t gone off on a tangent. But, not having a confession, how would you even know if that were the case? And if your elder/pastor is not accountable to other presbyters, he could stray a long way himself.
RS: But it is evidence that I am not just a lone person on the top of the mountain somewhere which is what your words appear to imply. But I do have a confession. I adhere to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. My elder/pastor is in a presbytery.
mikelmann: So, Richard, you have this wonderful and deep biblical message that is superior to that of the big evangelical churches and superior to that of confessional churches. But then you won’t even tell us of one church that is Richard-Smith-approved. I’m not even asking you to give identifying information about your church. A church. Any church that meets with your approval.
RS: Any church that truly followed the WCF or the 1689 Baptist Confession (which used the WCF) would be solid churches. They would differ on some areas, but they would be solid churches. The question, however, is whether people really follow those confessions. But since you are asking me personally, I love the Belgic Confession except in the area of infant baptism as it is stronger in that area than the WCF. But again, do people really believe those confessions after studying them? For example, I don’t think my view of sanctification differs from that Belgic in Article 24.
Article 24: The Sanctification of Sinners
We believe that this true faith, produced in man by the hearing of God’s Word and by the work of the Holy Spirit, regenerates him and makes him a “new man,”^57 causing him to live the “new life”^58 and freeing him from the slavery of sin.
Therefore, far from making people cold toward living in a pious and holy way, this justifying faith, quite to the contrary, so works within them that apart from it they will never do a thing out of love for God but only out of love for themselves and fear of being condemned.
So then, it is impossible for this holy faith to be unfruitful in a human being, seeing that we do not speak of an empty faith but of what Scripture calls “faith working through love,”^59 which leads a man to do by himself the works that God has commanded in his Word.
These works, proceeding from the good root of faith, are good and acceptable to God, since they are all sanctified by his grace. Yet they do not count toward our justification– for by faith in Christ we are justified, even before we do good works. Otherwise they could not be good, any more than the fruit of a tree could be good if the tree is not good in the first place.
So then, we do good works, but nor for merit– for what would we merit? Rather, we are indebted to God for the good works we do, and not he to us, since it is he who “works in us both to will and do according to his good pleasure” ^60– thus keeping in mind what is written: “When you have done all that is commanded you, then you shall say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have done what it was our duty to do.’ “^61
LikeLike
“Richard Smith” wrote: “When Rob Bell, Jol Olsteen, and T.J. Jakes are wildly popular and they sell millions and millions of dollars of material across the land, that is not a sign of a famine? When Benny Hinn can fill stadiums and fly in his personal jet or jets, that is not a sign of a famine in the land? When people are enthralled by prophecy conferences and could care less about the imputed righteousness of Christ, that is not a sign of famine in the land?”
GW: I agree with this diagnosis of the spiritual situation in America today. But I think a few of the factors that have paved the way for the popularity of such false teachers are precisely the experientialism and sensationalism fostered by revivalism, combined with the weakening of historically confessional churches. (I think one major factor contributing to this weakening has been the loss of covenant children raised in confessional churches to the excesses of revivalism due in large part to poor catechesis and a lack of covenant nurture in home and church.) IMO, the solution is not an older, more venerable (i.e., pre-Finney, pro-Edwardsian) form of experientialism, but the renewal of historically confessional churches and the vigorous planting of old school, confessionally Presbyterian & Reformed churches. The increased presence of historically confessional churches (especially, IMO, of the old school Presbyterian and classically Reformed variety) in our communities could have a stabilizing effect in a “Christian” culture addicted to the “new” and “innovative,” and prone to being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine (Eph. 4:14). So I guess one could say I am “pro-renewal” (as in church renewal of confessional churches), not “pro-revival.” (Yes, I know our friend “Richard” will say we can’t have church renewal without “revival,” but I am looking at this from a confessional “paradigm” rather than an experiential/mystical one.)
LikeLike
Richard, I know you think I seriously-seriously misunderstand, but my point about the semi-revivalist’s grasp on the nature of sin is further illustrated in your comments about “famine in the land.” You point to religious phenomenon as if it is altogether surprising. But, surprise!—ever since man was sent packing east of Eden there has always been all manner of false religion, from Arians to Docetists to Pelagians to Osteens. It all comes with the semi-eschatological territory. Your tone is constantly one that seems perplexed (even verklempt) that sin actually runs it course and has real-world effects, both personally and socially.
Confessionalism doesn’t disagree that we fight against the world, the devil, and our own flesh. It just isn’t as surprised as semi-revivalism that we do because it takes sin seriously, as opposed to sentimentally. That makes the struggling look very different between the confessionalist and the semi-revivalist, and evidently tempts the semi-revivalist to suggest impiety on the confessionalist’s part.
LikeLike
I am not convinced by the arguments here. Our holiness is like filthy rags. We need to hear the gospel week in and week out. Why center in on our personal holiness at all when it is always lacking? Center in on the holiness of God and the righteousness of Christ all you want but to focus in on a sinners personal holiness is insanity and nonsense. Those who taut and herald their own righteousness, holiness, faithfulness, obedience, etc., etc. are scripturally heading down a road where the elder brother resides. The story of the elect is the story of prodigal and the rescuing God.
LikeLike
“Richard” – You cite the Belgic but you then seem to advocate practices of “enforcement” or “application” that don’t seem to exist (and perhaps have never existed) in Continental Reformed churches. Is it right to pick and choose between confessions? How does this make you any different from what the CTC guys do in their cherry-picking of Catholicism? Or Doug Wilson wanting to put together a “Book of Confessions”? If you join a Reformed Church there is a process by which you can try to change confessional language. Why not work within the church rather than standing outside it throwing stones?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Old post RS: It would seem that at times people read into things implications of things that are not there.
Jeff Cagle: Quite true, and it cuts both ways. I suspect that if you laid out your theology from the top, you might not be so perfectionist as it seems. Welcome to the Old-Life buzz-saw.
RS: I am so far from being a perfectionst in the sense that one attains perfection in this life that one can hardly go any farther the other direction. I just think that the standards of God have not changed from perfection.
Jeff Cagle: Likewise, I suspect that if you gave (some of? all of? at minimum, Zrim and me) a little space, you might see that we aren’t looking for “mere profession”, but “genuine profession”, as in Romans 10.10. And not “outward works”, but “works that come from faith.”
RS: I might believe that about you, but Zrim? I would not argue that you in reality want more than mere profession and seek more than that, but for the sake of the argument, we can ask what the reality of it is in church membership standards.
Jeff Cagle: Those are the only things that matter.
At the same time, we are operating from what one might call a “chastened epistemology”, one that recognizes that there is no “love sense” or perception faculty other than what we see and hear. That’s our creaturely limitation.
You say that you do not believe you have a “love sense”, and I believe you. Now pursue that line of thought. If you don’t have an extra sense, then doesn’t it follow that you are using the same ones we all do?
RS: I would not argue that I am using different ones that you do, but I think something else is going on that you are not taking into account. If human beings are indeed the temple of the Holy Spirit and Christ lives in them, then something is very different about them than that of unbelievers. Scripture is quite clear that those who believe can see the glory of God. Now if God manifests Himself in and through His people (love, holiness, etc.), wouldn’t it be possible for believers to behold something of God in others without that being a love sense? Couldn’t that be a spiritual understanding? Couldn’t the Spirit who is in one person give a spiritual understanding regarding the Spirit who is in other believers? We don’t have to go down a mystical road too far to simply say that there are things other than the empirical we can observe. Not all that is spiritual is necessarily deeply mystical.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, I know you think I seriously-seriously misunderstand, but my point about the semi-revivalist’s grasp on the nature of sin is further illustrated in your comments about “famine in the land.” You point to religious phenomenon as if it is altogether surprising. But, surprise!—ever since man was sent packing east of Eden there has always been all manner of false religion, from Arians to Docetists to Pelagians to Osteens. It all comes with the semi-eschatological territory. Your tone is constantly one that seems perplexed (even verklempt) that sin actually runs it course and has real-world effects, both personally and socially.
RS: I guess I cannot argue how my tone seems to others. I can only say that I am not surprised at the fact that there is so much false religion, but I was surprised at how the US was not seen as in a state of spiritual famine. God punishes sin by turning people over to more sin and punishes theological unfaithfulness by turning people over to greater and greater degrees of darkness which leads to more and more heresy.
Zrim: Confessionalism doesn’t disagree that we fight against the world, the devil, and our own flesh. It just isn’t as surprised as semi-revivalism that we do because it takes sin seriously, as opposed to sentimentally. That makes the struggling look very different between the confessionalist and the semi-revivalist, and evidently tempts the semi-revivalist to suggest impiety on the confessionalist’s part.
RS: Interesting concept, but perhaps some semi-revivalists don’t just look at sin in some sentimental way but sees it as the very enemy of the souls of men and as a direct attack on the living God.
LikeLike
Come on, Richard, you can’t fall back on the forensic when you sense that your views of sanctification are getting the better of you. All of what you said about the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and received by faith is indeed a vindication of God’s unchanging standard. But you are also saying something more. And that is that after faith we still need perfection — we need to love God with our whole being. Folks here are saying, yes, we should, but the Bible also teaches we can’t — that filthy rags business. But you aren’t content with filthy rags even if God is, and so you throw back at confessionalists all this dead orthodoxy jazz. Have you not heard, sanctification is not going to be complete in this life? Does that mean we go out and avoid sanctification? No. But threatening people with entire sanctification is not doing anyone any good.
LikeLike
Richard, I don’t detect a whiff of perfectionism in the Belgic. It does not condemn me. Various folks detect a latent perfectionism in the way you describe sanctification. And Edwards’ Religious Affections condemns me.
Think about it.
LikeLike
Geoff Willour: I agree with this diagnosis of the spiritual situation in America today. But I think a few of the factors that have paved the way for the popularity of such false teachers are precisely the experientialism and sensationalism fostered by revivalism, combined with the weakening of historically confessional churches.
RS: It is always easy to look to the other side for the problems. There may be reasons for the weakening of the historical confessional churches and it may not be quite as far from what has happened to false revivalism than one might think. Perhaps there are deep issues that are common to all.
GW: (I think one major factor contributing to this weakening has been the loss of covenant children raised in confessional churches to the excesses of revivalism due in large part to poor catechesis and a lack of covenant nurture in home and church.) IMO, the solution is not an older, more venerable (i.e., pre-Finney, pro-Edwardsian) form of experientialism, but the renewal of historically confessional churches and the vigorous planting of old school, confessionally Presbyterian & Reformed churches.
RS: You might find it interesting (not presuming that you don’t know this, but just in case) that in older Scotland they thought of catechizing as a way of preparing the people for true revival.
GW: The increased presence of historically confessional churches (especially, IMO, of the old school Presbyterian and classically Reformed variety) in our communities could have a stabilizing effect in a “Christian” culture addicted to the “new” and “innovative,” and prone to being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine (Eph. 4:14). So I guess one could say I am “pro-renewal” (as in church renewal of confessional churches), not “pro-revival.” (Yes, I know our friend “Richard” will say we can’t have church renewal without “revival,” but I am looking at this from a confessional “paradigm” rather than an experiential/mystical one.)
RS: But I still argue that what is truly confessional is not necessarily opposed to experiential Christianity. There is a lot of polarizing going on that does not need to do so. There have been a lot of revival type of thinking in confessional churches in the old days. It could be that the real problem (in a general way as I am not claiming to have the one and only answer) is the absence of the presence of God. When God withdraws Himself from His people they try to fill that void with many things. When people began to seek revival types of things in man-centered ways apart from being in line with the old confessions they spun off in evangelicalism. On the other hand, it could be that when people focused on the confessions apart from other things that they lost some of the fire in their souls.
LikeLike
Richard, here you go again with applying a “love sense” without discrimination. Sanctification is not only incomplete in this life, but it is also more or less complete in different believers, which means that some may have more a love sense than other Christians. So where is the room in your verdict on other Christians that they may have 10 percent of the love sense of Jonathan Edwards? Is ten percent of a love sense better than nothing? Is it sufficient? Is it real love sense?
I don’t see in your view room for accepting the flaws of Christians. You seem to think that if you do this you are lax, liberal, and tolerant of error. But it is where we are. It is where the saints in Scripture were. Why can’t you live in the real world?
LikeLike
Erik Charter: “Richard” – You cite the Belgic but you then seem to advocate practices of “enforcement” or “application” that don’t seem to exist (and perhaps have never existed) in Continental Reformed churches.
R-JF-S: I suppose I cannot argue for sure that these things ever or never existed in the Continental Reformed churches. I would argue, however, that there is little use of a confession if it is not taught to the people so that they understand the meaning of it and how it applies to their whole soul. The Belgic speaks to the whole soul and so why teach it in a way that does not aim at the whole soul?
Eric Charter: Is it right to pick and choose between confessions?
RS: Of course it is or the Roman Catholic confession would be as valid as the Belgic or the WCF.
Eric C: How does this make you any different from what the CTC guys do in their cherry-picking of Catholicism? Or Doug Wilson wanting to put together a “Book of Confessions”? If you join a Reformed Church there is a process by which you can try to change confessional language. Why not work within the church rather than standing outside it throwing stones?
RS: I am not throwing stones at a church, or at least I don’t see that I am. I am simply arguing in line with the confessions that the Scripture is our real authority and that the confessions themselves must be judged on the basis of Scripture. I am also arguing that people must know that the confessions mean and how they apply to their own souls as there is no real point in having people affirm a confession that they don’t really understand.
LikeLike
Richard, what makes you think I make no distinction between mere and genuine confession or mere works and those that flow from faith? Just because I say that externalism can come in internalistic clothing?
And on this business of a “love sense” in others, I’d rather just speak of having a natural intuition about another’s credibility. One advantage of that is it leaves a lot of room for indwelt sinners to be wrong about others. But when you talk about “a spiritual understanding regarding the Spirit who is in other believers,” it sure makes it sound like that possibility is radically narrowed, which opens things wide up for spiritual tyranny.
God punishes sin by turning people over to more sin and punishes theological unfaithfulness by turning people over to greater and greater degrees of darkness which leads to more and more heresy.
Yeow, if nothing else is heard, this should be a glaring red flag. God does not punish people, Richard, because it is already finished in the cross. He may chastise and discipline, but that is very different from punishment for the faithful which is utterly vanquished.
LikeLike
John Yeazel: I am not convinced by the arguments here. Our holiness is like filthy rags.
RS: John, you are perhaps the most wicked man I have ever heard of. Your holiness is like a used menstrual cloth. There is nothing of self in you that is attractive in any way and you are nothing but open sores from head to toe. You have opened your legs under every tree and have given yourself like a prostitute to all sorts of idols. That is my argument. Are you convinced by it? I would also argue that I have just described every human being. However, righteousness of Christ imputed to us is not filthy rags and the holiness of God that He works in us is not filthy rags. In His sovereign pleasure He does not completely deliver us from the power of sin in this life, so indeed we all continue to sin. But by grace He delivers us from the bondage of sin and from all eternity has planned good works for us to do.
John Y: We need to hear the gospel week in and week out. Why center in on our personal holiness at all when it is always lacking? Center in on the holiness of God and the righteousness of Christ all you want but to focus in on a sinners personal holiness is insanity and nonsense. Those who taut and herald their own righteousness, holiness, faithfulness, obedience, etc., etc. are scripturally heading down a road where the elder brother resides. The story of the elect is the story of prodigal and the rescuing God.
RS: But the Gospel also has more to it than rescue from hell. It also has to do with God dwelling in His people and sharing His holiness with them. The Bible also teaches us (as does the Belgic Confession) that the soul that God justifies God also works in to make them holy. We are to glorify God in the lives we lead as a result of His justification of sinners.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Come on, Richard, you can’t fall back on the forensic when you sense that your views of sanctification are getting the better of you.
RS: Maybe you were playing with your cats or smoking a ceegar at times, but I have spoken over and over on the forensic justification and the imputed righteousness of Christ.
D. G. Hart: All of what you said about the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and received by faith is indeed a vindication of God’s unchanging standard.
RS: Yes, in justification God is both just and the justifier (Rom 3:25-28).
D.G. Hart: But you are also saying something more. And that is that after faith we still need perfection — we need to love God with our whole being.
RS: I am saying that the standard has not dropped, not that we can do this. But this drives us to Christ for each moment. Perhaps you have more dispensational thinking in you than I thought. Has the Greatest Commandment every been nullified or modified?
D.G. Hart: Folks here are saying, yes, we should, but the Bible also teaches we can’t — that filthy rags business. But you aren’t content with filthy rags even if God is, and so you throw back at confessionalists all this dead orthodoxy jazz. Have you not heard, sanctification is not going to be complete in this life? Does that mean we go out and avoid sanctification? No. But threatening people with entire sanctification is not doing anyone any good.
RS: Who is threatening anyone with entire sanctification? Not me. I am simply saying what the standard of God is. God is not content with filthy rags, which is why Hebrews 12 speaks of His training His children so that they can share in His holiness. Generally speaking, if you aim at nothing you will hit it every time. If we lower the standard so we can keep it, then we are just like the Pharisees because that is what they did. Keeing the 7th command is not just keeping your pants on at the proper time, it is seeking a heart that does not desire to break the command. Then, to go a step more, we are not to be like the nation of Israel which was a spiritual prostitue. Our hearts and our bodies are to be faithful to God through Christ. By the way, jazz is not that great of a form of music.
LikeLike
RS: I would not argue that I am using different [senses than] you do, but I think something else is going on that you are not taking into account…
If God manifests Himself in and through His people (love, holiness, etc.), wouldn’t it be possible for believers to behold something of God in others without that being a love sense?
We don’t have to go down a mystical road too far to simply say that there are things other than the empirical we can observe.
I think you probably need to reframe the way you talk about this. I’m not saying (yet) that your actual view is incoherent, but the way in which you express it is incoherent.
Currently, you are saying that believers and non-believers use the same senses, but that believers can observe things other than the empirical.
That’s like saying, “I can see colors other than the colors one can see.”
Are you trying to say that believers can have greater | different insight into what they see, than unbelievers do? Or are you caught between believing that believers have a different mode of perception, but not wanting to call it a “love sense”?
This unclarity is amplified because of your dismissal of words and deeds. If on the one hand you agree that we are using our senses to perceive, then words and deeds are all we have. And then, the question would be how to interpret, and at that point we could talk about additional insights.
But you seem to disagree that words and deeds are all we have, which would logically force us to go to some other mode of perception, which would be a “love sense”, etc.
I’m pushing you to become more clear here.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, I don’t detect a whiff of perfectionism in the Belgic.
RS: I thought you went by empirical observation, not now you are able to simply take a whiff of confessions and know that they teach. You are more mystical than I was aware of. Nevertheless, if your read Belgic 14 you will find plenty to condemn all in Adam. However, if you move on to Article 37 (The Last Judgment) you might find a few things that will not make you too happy. One might even argue that you might want to take another whiff.
Belgic Article 37
Then all human creatures will appear in person before the great judge– men, women, and children, who have lived from the beginning until the end of the world.
They will be summoned there by the voice of the archangel and by the sound of the divine trumpet.^79
For all those who died before that time will be raised from the earth, their spirits being joined and united with their own bodies in which they lived. And as for those who are still alive, they will not die like the others but will be changed “in the twinkling of an eye” from “corruptible to incorruptible.”^80
Then “the books” (that is, the consciences) will be opened, and the dead will be judged according to the things they did in the world,^81 whether good or evil. Indeed, all people will give account of all the idle words they have spoken,^82 which the world regards as only playing games. And then the secrets and hypocrisies of men will be publicly uncovered in the sight of all.”
RS: Notice the point about all idle words? The secrets and hypocrisies of men? It would almost make one think that men should examine their hearts for those secrets and hypocrisies before they enter eternity.
D.G. Hart: It does not condemn me. Various folks detect a latent perfectionism in the way you describe sanctification. And Edwards’ Religious Affections condemns me.
Think about it.
RS: Fine, but they are using their perfection sense rather than a true standard. The question about the Religious Affections is not whether it makes us feel condemned or not, but whether it speaks truth or not. I still think that the Belgic Confession condemns each and every person of all history whether they feel it or not. But it also proclaims a justification found only in Christ.
LikeLike
Small defense of RS here, Zrim:
RS: God punishes sin by turning people over to more sin and punishes theological unfaithfulness by turning people over to greater and greater degrees of darkness which leads to more and more heresy.
In context, I think RS was speaking of unbelievers, those whose theological unfaithfulness is apostasy.
LikeLike
RS, on Belgic 37,
There is long — LOONG — history of nailing down exactly in what way “good works” are “necessary for salvation.” I recommend reading Marrow of Modern Divinity, Appendix, Query 7.
You seem to think that it’s enough to say “We will be judged by our works” without giving that severe qualification. The Marrowmen considered that to be of “dangerous consequence to the doctrine of justification.”
LikeLike
RS, I said “at minimum Zrim” because I have a long experience with his thought and have good confidence that I understand where he’s coming from. I also have confidence in the others here, but feel the most sure about Zrim.
Empirical observations and inferences. 🙂
LikeLike
Richard, the threat comes when you begin to interview someone for church membership.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, here you go again with applying a “love sense” without discrimination.
RS: No, not so. Since I don’t believe in a love sense, I am not sure how I am applying it.
D. G. Hart: Sanctification is not only incomplete in this life, but it is also more or less complete in different believers, which means that some may have more a love sense than other Christians. So where is the room in your verdict on other Christians that they may have 10 percent of the love sense of Jonathan Edwards? Is ten percent of a love sense better than nothing? Is it sufficient? Is it real love sense?
RS: Of course sanctification is incomplete in this life. But since I don’t argue for a love sense, I am not sure I will be able to answer the rest of your questions. For all of those who have Christ in truth and reality they are acceptable to God in the Beloved and are viewed by His as holy and blameless only because of Christ. As the Belgic Confession says, it is the Holy Spirit in the person that causes the person to live a new life. But also (Article 24): ” Yet we do not wish to deny that God rewards good works– but it is by his grace that he crowns his gifts.
“Moreover, although we do good works we do not base our salvation on them; for we cannot do any work that is not defiled by our flesh and also worthy of punishment. And even if we could point to one, memory of a single sin is enough for God to reject that work.”
RS: The point about percentages is simply an effort to show how far from perfection we really are. But I don’t believe in what you are calling “a love sense.”
D.G. Hart: I don’t see in your view room for accepting the flaws of Christians. You seem to think that if you do this you are lax, liberal, and tolerant of error. But it is where we are. It is where the saints in Scripture were. Why can’t you live in the real world?
RS: I thought I lived in the real world, or at least it seems mighty real to me. I must admit that the use of the word “flaw” can sound sort of like Nixon’s “made a mistake”. One the one hand all who have Christ are accepted, but on the other the discipline/training of God works in them so that they can share in His holiness. Then we have the whole bit about Christians training other Christians. Out of true love we are to help people grow in faith and love so that they will sin less. If you knew of a person that had poisonous snakes in his house, wouldn’t you want someone to examine with care the house to find those snakes and get them out? Should physicians just allow diseases to grow or go after all of it? The WCF teaches us that sin brings misery and death. It sure seems that true love would help people to flee from sin.
LikeLike
Jeff, I took the context to suggest believers. Still, even if it’s unbelievers the point remains that God has already poured out punishment for sin. Even apostates aren’t punished in the semi-eschatological age, but disciplined. And the difference is vital.
LikeLike
RS: John, you are perhaps the most wicked man I have ever heard of. Your holiness is like a used menstrual cloth. There is nothing of self in you that is attractive in any way and you are nothing but open sores from head to toe. You have opened your legs under every tree and have given yourself like a prostitute to all sorts of idols. That is my argument. Are you convinced by it? I would also argue that I have just described every human being. However, righteousness of Christ imputed to us is not filthy rags and the holiness of God that He works in us is not filthy rags. In His sovereign pleasure He does not completely deliver us from the power of sin in this life, so indeed we all continue to sin. But by grace He delivers us from the bondage of sin and from all eternity has planned good works for us to do.
John Y: You got that right Richard- now we are getting somewhere. I love it when all the crap is finally discarded and we get to the place where we finally repent of our idols, self-righteousness, pettiness, anger, and see ourselves in all our nakedness and guilt. It is then that God can rescue us and cleanse us by the Words he speaks to us (the Gospel). Talk all you want of the holiness of God, the righteousness of Christ and covenant faithfulness of the Holy Spirit who does not give up on his elect. Elders brothers give up on you the Gospel always calls the elect back home.
LikeLike
Old Post RS: God punishes sin by turning people over to more sin and punishes theological unfaithfulness by turning people over to greater and greater degrees of darkness which leads to more and more heresy.
Zrim’s Scream: Yeow, if nothing else is heard, this should be a glaring red flag. God does not punish people, Richard, because it is already finished in the cross. He may chastise and discipline, but that is very different from punishment for the faithful which is utterly vanquished.
Jeff Cagle: Small defense of RS here, Zrim.
In context I think RS was speaking of unbelievers, those who theological unfaithfulness is apostasy.
RS aka JF: A small thank you for a small defense. Yes, that is correct. As in Romans 1:18-32, God turns people over to hard hearts and their practice and theology gets worse and worse.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, the threat comes when you begin to interview someone for church membership.
RS: But again, though you don’t like my “mere words” or “mere profession” language, if you don’t actually examine people, then how can it be anything but mere words or a mere profession? I would think that elders who were truly interested in the Church and in the souls of people would be able to ask these types of questions in a non-mean way. I suppose this method could threaten to expose cold hearts, but it could also reveal warm ones. The idea is not always just to keep out unbelievers, but also to help people find a real basis for assurance. If people have a false basis for assurance, and they certainly will if they are under constant exposure to evangelicalism, then examining them is a great thing for them.
LikeLike
I have a real elder brother sibling kind of like you Richard. So, nothing that anyone says about my character or holiness or righteousness or whatever else you want to call it phases me anymore. I have it heard it all thrown my way. He even took my means of livelihood away from me. He has thrown punishment at everyone in the family because he is in a position of legal authority and financial dominance at this point. He really believes that he was put in this position because he is inherently more righteous, responsible and “holy” than every one else in our family. Everyone else knows he is not though and the tables will turn one day. He is confused theologically but has no clue. I don’t care how inherently righteous, holy or godly anyone thinks they are anymore. It goes to their heads quick and they then become self-righteous tyrants who breath burdens on others and dole out punishments on the wicked if they can get away with it. The higher they rise the more damage they do. You’re just a poor sinner, beggar and tax collector Richard. Help to set others free by the Gospel. That is our calling in this life.
LikeLike
Old Post RS: I would not argue that I am using different [senses than] you do, but I think something else is going on that you are not taking into account… If God manifests Himself in and through His people (love, holiness, etc.), wouldn’t it be possible for believers to behold something of God in others without that being a love sense? We don’t have to go down a mystical road too far to simply say that there are things other than the empirical we can observe.
Jeff Cagle: I think you probably need to reframe the way you talk about this. I’m not saying (yet) that your actual view is incoherent, but the way in which you express it is incoherent. Currently, you are saying that believers and non-believers use the same senses, but that believers can observe things other than the empirical. That’s like saying, “I can see colors other than the colors one can see.”
RS: It is something like trying to describe the color of red with words and not have ostensive definitions available. Sort of like trying to describe red to a blind person or even to one who was color blind.
Jeff Cagle: Are you trying to say that believers can have greater | different insight into what they see, than unbelievers do? Or are you caught between believing that believers have a different mode of perception, but not wanting to call it a “love sense”?
RS: I am trying to say (much along the lines of trying to describe red) that the Holy Spirit in people gives understanding and insight in ways that cannot be described as “a love sense”. The Spirit is able to give people a spiritual sight of the glory of God and a spiritual sight of things that our desire to be empirical cannot explain. Faith, in this sense, corresponds to our five senses. But no, that is not the same thing as saying we have a love sense. The soul is said to see by faith, to hear by faith, to taste by faith, and so on. What is it that a soul sees by faith? What is it that a soul hears by faith? How is it that the soul is able to taste of the Lord? Clearly, it seems to me, that believers do know things by faith that unbelievers do not and cannot know. It has to do with the realm and activity of the spiritual realm.
Jeff Cagle: This unclarity is amplified because of your dismissal of words and deeds. If on the one hand you agree that we are using our senses to perceive, then words and deeds are all we have. And then, the question would be how to interpret, and at that point we could talk about additional insights.
RS: But I don’t dismiss words and deeds, I am just saying that there has to be more than that. I Cor 13 is quite clear on that. We are also told that apart from Christ we can do nothing, so clearly words and deeds are not the total picture.
Jeff Cagle: But you seem to disagree that words and deeds are all we have, which would logically force us to go to some other mode of perception, which would be a “love sense”, etc. I’m pushing you to become more clear here.
RS: Keep pushing, but so far I have found it hard to describe spiritual realities with words. You do remember Paul (no, no attempt at comparison) having seen things that he could not describe? By analogy, once again, what does a person mean when he says after a struggle to understand, “ah, now I see”? What does a poet mean when s/he speaks of words tasting a certain way? Well, the natural man does not understand the things of God, yet those born of God do. Unbelievers do not have a capacity for true love and yet believers do. Believers are able to see the glory of God and those without faith cannot see the glory of God. The Holy Spirit illumines the minds and understanding of His people in ways that He does not do for unbelievers. God teaches His people in their inner persons and yet does not do that for unbelievers. The life in the believer is not the same life as the unbeliever. The believer has fellowship with God and the unbeliever does not. I am saying that words and deeds are not adequate to describe what goes on there, but yet people can know that those things mean. Is it a love sense? No. But it is something beyond words and deeds.
One more point. Can you describe and define love apart from deeds? Clearly I Cor 13 tells us that people can do all sorts of amazing things and not have love. A person cannot be a Christian without having love in that person.
LikeLike
John Yeazel: You’re just a poor sinner, beggar and tax collector Richard. Help to set others free by the Gospel. That is our calling in this life.
RS: John, thanks for the compliments. But I am far worse than just a poor sinner, beggar and tax collector. I am a cosmic criminal who has sinned against the living God in every thought, intent of thoughts, desire, word, and deed. No one can possibly say anything about me that even approaches how bad I really am in myself since I have sinned against an infinite God. Yes, the Gospel is what we are to proclaim, but Christ in us is our hope of glory is part of that. I will also say that in heaven we will not have sin and will love Christ perfectly, so if we desire heaven (where there is no sin) then why shouldn’t we strive to be done with sin by grace and to love Christ?
LikeLike
Richard, whatever Romans 1 is talking about it’s not punishment. And so this is my worry with you. A deficient grasp of sin seems connected to a deficient grasp of the cross and what punishment is. And out pops stuff about “love sense” and “deeper and beyond” and the vain attempt at describing a color to the color blind. As with Catholics, I truly wonder what you think it means when Jesus said it is finished.
MM played the Pat Robertson parallel card at one point, and it fits, as in when he likes to suggest that terrorist attacks are God’s punishment on unbelieving nations. Yours is the personal version (mirror error). God does not punish nations or persons, Richard. The categories are providence and discipline, neither of which can be discerned or fathomed as to their specific causes or purposes. But one thing we can know without any doubt because God has plainly revealed it is that his wrath has been satisfied and punishment is no longer in play.
LikeLike
RS: “The idea is not always just to keep out unbelievers, but also to help people find a real basis for assurance. If people have a false basis for assurance, and they certainly will if they are under constant exposure to evangelicalism, then examining them is a great thing for them.”
Sean: Having been in the PCA for roughly 18 years, and watching as we drift toward broader evangellyfish and as a result filling up our pews with those same sorts, I would have to say that the evangelical doesn’t suffer from an unwillingness or lack of experience in looking inward. Now, I’m sure you would argue that they don’t know how to do it rightly or biblically, and that may be so, but the greater emphasis particularly as it regards assurance, is to teach them(myself as well) to look outward to Jesus Christ and what has been done for them, apart from them, in history. This is why RH preaching is so vital. We turn inward readily with little provocation, and we do law Rom. 2:15 innately, what we don’t have inwardly is gospel proclamation and absolution and thus assurance. Gospel is foreign and objectively and historically considered first; 1Cor. 15:7. Then we can move on to; ‘It was done for me’ and go to 2 Peter and do those things prescribed in making our calling and election sure. It’s not that there aren’t necessarily anti-nomians in our churches, but at least in the church bodies that I’m familiar with, that doesn’t seem to be the weakness. The weakness continues to be, and quite frankly it’s getting worse, a lack of accumulation or working knowledge of doctrine such that people both understand the nature of the law, it’s demands, and their failures, and the historical nature of redemption. This generally exhibits as neo-nomianism not anti-nomianism however. So we get neither law nor gospel. I haven’t seen the remedy however in turning inward, but instead getting ‘arms-length’ objective distance(doctrine, confession) and in realizing the greatness and goodness of God’s redemption for me and apart from me(what’s going on inside me). Then and quite frankly only then, do we start to see true repentance and turning from sin. It is after all the goodness of God that leads one to repentance Rom 2:4.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, whatever Romans 1 is talking about it’s not punishment. And so this is my worry with you. A deficient grasp of sin seems connected to a deficient grasp of the cross and what punishment is. And out pops stuff about “love sense” and “deeper and beyond” and the vain attempt at describing a color to the color blind. As with Catholics, I truly wonder what you think it means when Jesus said it is finished.
RS: Zrim, I can only hope you are not meaning what you appear to be saying. Read Romans 1:18 to the end of that chapter. It is talking about wrath and punishment. Romans 1:18 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,” I am not sure how one can get around the fact that the wrath of God being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness is anything but punishment.
Romans 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
RS: The conclusion is virtually unavoidable. God punishes sin by hardening the hearts of people and turning them over to more sin. As Westminster says, sin brings misery and death.
Zrim: MM played the Pat Robertson parallel card at one point, and it fits, as in when he likes to suggest that terrorist attacks are God’s punishment on unbelieving nations. Yours is the personal version (mirror error). God does not punish nations or persons, Richard. The categories are providence and discipline, neither of which can be discerned or fathomed as to their specific causes or purposes. But one thing we can know without any doubt because God has plainly revealed it is that his wrath has been satisfied and punishment is no longer in play.
RS: God has satisfied His wrath for believers in Christ, but His wrath on those who are not in Christ will never be satisfied. Pat Robertson made the mistake of saying that the planes flying into towers were the punisment of God on the US for the sin of homosexuality. I would say in the language of Romans 1:26 and the context that the sin of homosexuality was punishment and is punishment. God does punish people because of sin and as a perfeclty just God He must punish sin. He poured out His wrath on Christ who suffered that wrath for His people, but for those without Christ that judgment must still be paid. God’s wrath has only been satisfied in the case of His elect. If His wrath is no longer in play, then are you saying that hell is no longer real?
LikeLike
Sean: The weakness continues to be, and quite frankly it’s getting worse, a lack of accumulation or working knowledge of doctrine such that people both understand the nature of the law, it’s demands, and their failures, and the historical nature of redemption.
RS: When people have a weakness or lack of knowledge of the doctrines of God and of sin, they have lost a real sense of the spiritual nature of the Law and of its inward application. So I don’t think that what you say in the paragraph just above is necessarily in conflict with people needed to be guided to a knowledge of their own hearts.
Sean: This generally exhibits as neo-nomianism not anti-nomianism however. So we get neither law nor gospel.
RS: I guess I would argue that neo-nomianism is really a form of anti-nomianism or at least could be under the umbrella term. While the Pharisees tried to make a strict law that they could keep, in effect they had lowered the law. So all forms of trying to make laws we can keep is really against the law as it really is.
Sean: I haven’t seen the remedy however in turning inward, but instead getting ‘arms-length’ objective distance(doctrine, confession) and in realizing the greatness and goodness of God’s redemption for me and apart from me(what’s going on inside me). Then and quite frankly only then, do we start to see true repentance and turning from sin. It is after all the goodness of God that leads one to repentance Rom 2:4.
RS: While it is the goodness of God that leads one to repentance, I am not sure that people really understand the depths of that goodness until they see some of the depths of their own sin.
LikeLike
Richard, no, the point isn’t that God’s wrath is obsolete or that judgment isn’t to come or that hell is null and void. It’s that suggesting that God deals in punishment in the age of grace and in light of the cross is to gloss right over the import of it all. Yes, God’s eternal wrath rests upon unbelievers, but he doesn’t temporally deal with them that way. He still works through providence, not punishment.
So Robertson wasn’t wrong about God punishing the nation, just wrong in terms of the manner of punishment? Terrorism isn’t the punishment for homosexuality, but homosexuality was and is the punishment for…what? Richard, your pastoral theology for the nation, which is devoid of any category for providence, is no more than a glorified moralistic superstition.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, no, the point isn’t that God’s wrath is obsolete or that judgment isn’t to come or that hell is null and void. It’s that suggesting that God deals in punishment in the age of grace and in light of the cross is to gloss right over the import of it all. Yes, God’s eternal wrath rests upon unbelievers, but he doesn’t temporally deal with them that way. He still works through providence, not punishment.
RS: Sir, I have no idea what you are talking about, but I do know you are not talking in such a way that the Belgic or Westminster would recognize. More importantly, you are speaking in a way that is contrary to Romans 1:18-31. See especially section VI of Westminster ch. 5
Belgic: Article 13: The Doctrine of God’s Providence
We believe that this good God, after he created all things, did not abandon them to chance or fortune but leads and governs them according to his holy will, in such a way that nothing happens in this world without his orderly arrangement.
Yet God is not the author of, nor can he be charged with, the sin that occurs. For his power and goodness are so great and incomprehensible that he arranges and does his work very well and justly even when the devils and wicked men act unjustly.
We do not wish to inquire with undue curiosity into what he does that surpasses human understanding and is beyond our ability to comprehend. But in all humility and reverence we adore the just judgments of God, which are hidden from us, being content to be Christ’s disciples, so as to learn only what he shows us in his Word, without going beyond those limits.
This doctrine gives us unspeakable comfort since it teaches us that nothing can happen to us by chance but only by the arrangement of our gracious heavenly Father. He watches over us with fatherly care, keeping all creatures under his control, so that not one of the hairs on our heads (for they are all numbered) nor even a little bird can fall to the ground^20 without the will of our Father.
In this thought we rest, knowing that he holds in check the devils and all our enemies, who cannot hurt us without his permission and will.
For that reason we reject the damnable error of the Epicureans, who say that God involves himself in nothing and leaves everything to chance.
WCF: Chapter V Of Providence
I. God the great Creator of all things does uphold,[1] direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things,[2] from the greatest even to the least,[3] by His most wise and holy providence,[4] according to His infallible foreknowledge,[5] and the free and immutable counsel of His own will,[6] to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.[7]
II. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly;[8] yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.[9]
III. God, in His ordinary providence, makes use of means,[10] yet is free to work without,[11] above,[12] and against them,[13] at His pleasure.
IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men;[14] and that not by a bare permission,[15] but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding,[16] and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends;[17] yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.[18]
V. The most wise, righteous, and gracious God does oftentimes leave, for a season, His own children to manifold temptations, and the corruption of their own hearts, to chastise them for their former sins, or to discover unto them the hidden strength of corruption and deceitfulness of their hearts, that they may be humbled;[19] and, to raise them to a more close and constant dependence for their support upon Himself, and to make them more watchful against all future occasions of sin, and for sundry other just and holy ends.[20]
VI. As for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as a righteous Judge, for former sins, does blind and harden,[21] from them He not only withholds His grace whereby they might have been enlightened in their understandings, and wrought upon in their hearts;[22] but sometimes also withdraws the gifts which they had,[23] and exposes them to such objects as their corruption makes occasion of sin;[24] and, withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan,[25] whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves, even under those means which God uses for the softening of others.[26]
VII. As the providence of God does, in general, reach to all creatures; so, after a most special manner, it takes care of His Church, and disposes all things to the good thereof.[27]
Zrim: So Robertson wasn’t wrong about God punishing the nation, just wrong in terms of the manner of punishment? Terrorism isn’t the punishment for homosexuality, but homosexuality was and is the punishment for…what? Richard, your pastoral theology for the nation, which is devoid of any category for providence, is no more than a glorified moralistic superstition.
RS: You can call if whatever you wish, as I am sure you will, but after you read the Belgic and Westminster know that at least I am speaking in line with them. It is in God’s providence that He turns people over to sin. It may be the case that you are using the term “providence” in a different way than the confessions. Once again, though, going back the most important document (Holy Scripture) read Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural.” Then you might try on Romans 2:4-5 for a moment: 5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS.” I don’t think that I am guilty of a glorified moralistic superstition when I speak in accordance with Scripture and then the Belgic and Westminster confessions.
LikeLike
Richard, simply quoting the forms doesn’t do much to vindicate your idea that post-cross God still doles out punishment–in fact, the word isn’t used once in the confessional sections you cite. And you didn’t answer my question about what “the sin of homosexuality was punishment and is punishment” for. When we see homosexuality today, what is it supposed to be punishing? Or is it that, like blindness, it is not so much because somebody sinned (this man or his parents?) but part of the territory in the post-fall world?
But careful, to answer the question about what homosexuality is punishing may be to do what the disciples did and what Belgic 13 is warning against: “We do not wish to inquire with undue curiosity into what he does that surpasses human understanding and is beyond our ability to comprehend. But in all humility and reverence we adore the just judgments of God, which are hidden from us, being content to be Christ’s disciples, so as to learn only what he shows us in his Word, without going beyond those limits.”
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, simply quoting the forms doesn’t do much to vindicate your idea that post-cross God still doles out punishment–in fact, the word isn’t used once in the confessional sections you cite.
RS: I guess I am guilty of thinking that when God shows wrath He is punishing.
Zrim: And you didn’t answer my question about what “the sin of homosexuality was punishment and is punishment” for. When we see homosexuality today, what is it supposed to be punishing? Or is it that, like blindness, it is not so much because somebody sinned (this man or his parents?) but part of the territory in the post-fall world?
RS: If you read Romans 1:18-32, that is, the context of the veses I gave, it spells out the answers to those questions. God punishes sin with more sin and so sin is its own punishment. So we have Romans 1:18 telling us that “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.”
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
RS: In order to sin as they do people have to suppress the truth of God, but in doing that they are given over to more sin which suppresses the truth of God or the glory of God even more. We see in verses 21-23 that they exchanged the glory of God for other things. So verse 24 starts off with a “therefore.” In other words, because of their rejecting the truth of God and of His glory, God gave them over to degrading passions so that their bodies would be dishonored. Why? For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie. The next verse starts off with a “for this reason.” Again, Paul is using relentless logic to show the downward progression of sin as God hardens hearts and turns people over to sin because of their former sin.
Zrim: But careful, to answer the question about what homosexuality is punishing may be to do what the disciples did and what Belgic 13 is warning against: “We do not wish to inquire with undue curiosity into what he does that surpasses human understanding and is beyond our ability to comprehend. But in all humility and reverence we adore the just judgments of God, which are hidden from us, being content to be Christ’s disciples, so as to learn only what he shows us in his Word, without going beyond those limits.”
RS: The text of Romans 1 is quite clear that God punishes people for their sin of rejecting Him by turning them over to degrading passions. It is not just that they are punished for sin, but they are also punished with and by their sin. I think the text is quite clear on that.
LikeLike
Richard says: “so if we desire heaven (where there is no sin) then why shouldn’t we strive to be done with sin by grace and to love Christ?”
John Y: Our striving does no good against our sin (striving makes the sin take other forms- like neolegalism). We are to consider ourselves dead to sin because God has baptized us into Christ. Christ was the one who mastered sin and conquered it. Striving and considering are strongly opposed words. The grace is our being baptized into Christ and the Holy Spirit makes sure we stay in Christ. Your view that the Holy Spirit as the One that provides the power to strive against our sin is gravely mistaken. The Holy Spirit convicts us of our sin but the power over sin is the result of the work of Christ for the elect in that guilt and condemnation is removed in perpetuity. All the sins of the elect (past, present and future) have been removed and justly accounted for by the atoning death of Christ.
LikeLike
Zrim is saying some interesting things in ways I have not heard them said before. Providence vs. punishment. What has influenced your thinking on this? I can think of two passages in Scripture that deal with this issue. One if the tower falling and killing both “just” and “unjust” people. Another is God causing the rain to fall on the just and the unjust. When our towers fell on 9/11 was God punishing the evildoers inside and not the just people inside? We see bad things happen to “good” people everyday and good things happen to “bad” people everyday. Zrim’s interpretation seems to make more sense to me than mere mortals trying to say definitively who is being punished temporally for what. Very interesting stuff.
LikeLike
Richard – So when a homosexual gets AIDS and dies they are being justly punished? How about a baby who gets AIDS from her mother and dies? Is she being justly punished? They are both dying of the same disease.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard – So when a homosexual gets AIDS and dies they are being justly punished? How about a baby who gets AIDS from her mother and dies? Is she being justly punished? They are both dying of the same disease.
RS: I would not argue that the baby is being punished, yet the baby is by nature a child of wrath. The soul that sins shall die. The WCFCh VI sec III. “They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed;[6] and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.”
Notice that the guilt of the sin of Adam was imputed to all that came from him and so the same death in sin and corrupted nature. If we want to have the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, then we have no argument about the imputation of the sin of Adam.
You sure know how to get a firestorm going.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Zrim is saying some interesting things in ways I have not heard them said before. Providence vs. punishment. What has influenced your thinking on this? I can think of two passages in Scripture that deal with this issue. One if the tower falling and killing both “just” and “unjust” people. Another is God causing the rain to fall on the just and the unjust. When our towers fell on 9/11 was God punishing the evildoers inside and not the just people inside? We see bad things happen to “good” people everyday and good things happen to “bad” people everyday. Zrim’s interpretation seems to make more sense to me than mere mortals trying to say definitively who is being punished temporally for what. Very interesting stuff.
RS: But notice the point of Romans 1:18-32. God punishes people for their sin with more sin. Until His wrath can be explained as something that is not punishment, the verses in Romans require something more than providence. The tall of the towers fell and we don’t know all the reasons for that. However, we do know that all who were believers went into the presence of God and those who were not went to a place of torment.
LikeLike
John Yeazel: Richard says: “so if we desire heaven (where there is no sin) then why shouldn’t we strive to be done with sin by grace and to love Christ?”
John Y: Our striving does no good against our sin (striving makes the sin take other forms- like neolegalism). We are to consider ourselves dead to sin because God has baptized us into Christ. Christ was the one who mastered sin and conquered it. Striving and considering are strongly opposed words. The grace is our being baptized into Christ and the Holy Spirit makes sure we stay in Christ. Your view that the Holy Spirit as the One that provides the power to strive against our sin is gravely mistaken. The Holy Spirit convicts us of our sin but the power over sin is the result of the work of Christ for the elect in that guilt and condemnation is removed in perpetuity. All the sins of the elect (past, present and future) have been removed and justly accounted for by the atoning death of Christ.
RS: John, the Scripture says strive so we should strive. It tells us to be earnest, to labor, and to strive. But it also says that salvation is by grace alone. Both are true and they do not contradict each other.
Luke 13:24 “Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.
Matthew 11:12 “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.
1 Corinthians 9:24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win. 25 Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. 26 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; 27 but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.
Phil 2:12 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling;
13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.
RS: Notice that the text tells us to work out your salvation with fear and trembling. Why? Because it is God who is at work in you.
Colossians 1:29 For this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me
Hebrews 4:11 Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience.
LikeLike
Erik, when I read Richard on God still in the business of punishment, coupled with this idea that somehow homosexuality is a way to dole it out, I can’t help but think of when Piper speculated that tornadoes in Minneapolis were God’s judgment for the ELCA’s affirmation of practicing homosexual clergy, which really isn’t any different from Robertson’s type of thing. Scott Clark had some intriguing insights:
http://heidelblog.net/2009/08/interpreting-providence/
But this seems to be the tick in semi-revivalism–not to have any mediatorial categories like wisdom, nature, or providence to explain provisional life. There is only sin and righteousness, belief or unbelief, reward or punishment. And one of the most disturbing implications is how the work of the cross becomes deficient. What else can one conclude when it is put forward that God still punishes? Richard says that when God shows wrath he is punishing. Quite true. But the cross is where we see it. It will only come again one more time upon Jesus’ return. Whatever else we see in the meantime can’t really compare to either, so it must be something other than divine judgment.
LikeLike
Zrim: Erik, when I read Richard on God still in the business of punishment, coupled with this idea that somehow homosexuality is a way to dole it out, I can’t help but think of when Piper speculated that tornadoes in Minneapolis were God’s judgment for the ELCA’s affirmation of practicing homosexual clergy, which really isn’t any different from Robertson’s type of thing. Scott Clark had some intriguing insights:
RS: Despite what Piper and Robertson did or didn’t do, I am speaking of a particular passage of Scripture (Rom 1:18-32). It says without equivocation that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. It does not say that the wrath of God is only revealed at the cross, but that the wrath of God is revealed. The text goes on to show how this wrath is revealed. So Romans 1:18 says that the wrath of God is revealed and verses 19-32 show how that wrath is revealed.
1 Thessalonians 2:16 ” hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved; with the result that they always fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them to the utmost.” In this text the wrath has come upon them to the utmost. It is not that the wrath will come, but that the wrath has come. Again, wrath brings punishment and is not intended as a mere training method.
Zrim: But this seems to be the tick in semi-revivalism–not to have any mediatorial categories like wisdom, nature, or providence to explain provisional life. There is only sin and righteousness, belief or unbelief, reward or punishment.
RS: Not to be rude, but it is not exactly the most conservative thing to try to explain wrath away. It is not the best way to do things to put providence and punishment on opposite ends. When you do so, it makes it appear that you can interpret providence and that it can never bring judgment or punishment. God always brings punishment in accordance with perfect wisdom and by His providence.
Zrim: And one of the most disturbing implications is how the work of the cross becomes deficient. What else can one conclude when it is put forward that God still punishes?
RS: Because Jesus Christ did not suffer the wrath of God in the place of all people, but instead only for His elect. It is your position (though you may not intend it) that actually denigrates the cross of Jesus Christ. Evidently your position has Christ suffering the whole wrath of God for all people at least until eternity, but not really satisfying the whole wrath of God. That also seems to leave salvation in their own hands, but that is an implication which I am drawing so I am not saying you believe that. I can only say that your position is not the one that the Reformed have held.
Zrim: Richard says that when God shows wrath he is punishing. Quite true. But the cross is where we see it. It will only come again one more time upon Jesus’ return. Whatever else we see in the meantime can’t really compare to either, so it must be something other than divine judgment.
RS: But Romans 1:18-32 quite clearly contradicts your position. Indeed we see the wrath of God at the cross of Christ, but the wrath of God that was suffered by Christ was fully propitiated for all eternity. Your position cannot stand with the teaching of Scripture and the confessions on the definite atonement. God shows wrath every day, but His full wrath will not be unleashed until the Day of Judgment. But punishment for sin is being carried out day by day.
Heidelberg:
Question 10. Will God suffer such disobedience and rebellion to go unpunished?
Answer: By no means; but is terribly displeased (a) with our original as well as actual sins; and will punish them in his just judgment temporally and eternally, (b) as he has declared, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things, which are written in the book of the law, to do them.”
WCF Ch VI Sec VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto,[13] does in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner,[14] whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God,[15] and curse of the law,[16] and so made subject to death,[17] with all miseries spiritual,[18] temporal,[19] and eternal.[20]
LikeLike
Richard, what I am saying is that there are consequences to violating natural law and that those consequences aren’t the same as divine judgment. If someone steals bread and he goes to jail for it, his punishment is provisional, not eternal. The only way this is controversial is to be virtually bankrupt any categories for provisional life and having eternal categories rush in the fill the void.
And I’m not saying the cross satisfies the wrath of God for all people. It is only for the elect. But in the inter-advental age of grace God deals with both un/believers through providence and natural law, while believers have the additional benefit of being dealt with through the cross. It isn’t clear to me how to conceive of punishment in the age of grace—chastisement, discipline, natural consequence, yes, but not punishment. To do so seems like a confusion of law and gospel.
LikeLike
JY & RS, & Zrim,
Can “striving”, “running the race”, “working out with fear and trembling”, and “putting on the whole armour of God”, all be tied into Sanctification?
WLC #75
“Sanctification is a work of God’s grace, whereby they whom God has, before the foundation of the world, chosen to be holy, are in time, through the powerful operation of his Spirit applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them, renewed in their whole man after the image of God; having the seeds of repentance unto life, and all other saving graces, put into their hearts, and those graces so stirred up, increased, and strengthened, as that they more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life.”
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, what I am saying is that there are consequences to violating natural law and that those consequences aren’t the same as divine judgment. If someone steals bread and he goes to jail for it, his punishment is provisional, not eternal. The only way this is controversial is to be virtually bankrupt any categories for provisional life and having eternal categories rush in the fill the void.
RS: But Romans 13 does have a different view, or at least I think so.
2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
RS: It seems to me that this text teaches that even going to jail is the wrath of God.
Zrim: And I’m not saying the cross satisfies the wrath of God for all people. It is only for the elect. But in the inter-advental age of grace God deals with both un/believers through providence and natural law, while believers have the additional benefit of being dealt with through the cross. It isn’t clear to me how to conceive of punishment in the age of grace—chastisement, discipline, natural consequence, yes, but not punishment. To do so seems like a confusion of law and gospel.
RS: The punishment for sin is death. Every obituary you read about or every hearse you meet is a testimony that God’s judgment on sin is still being carried out. I have to admit that I am not quite clear on what you mean by natural consequence since God set those things up in Divine wisdom and all things are maintained by Him every moment and all those things happen according to Divine providence. So a person that breaks a natural law is doing an act decreed by God and suffers the consequence that has been decreed by God. God intends all things for good to those that love Him, but for those who hate Him it certainly appears that those things are punishment. A wise God can also bring good and punisment to different people in one act.
LikeLike
B
Posted September 19, 2012 at 9:02 am | Permalink
JY & RS, & Zrim,
Can “striving”, “running the race”, “working out with fear and trembling”, and “putting on the whole armour of God”, all be tied into Sanctification?
WLC #75
“Sanctification is a work of God’s grace, whereby they whom God has, before the foundation of the world, chosen to be holy, are in time, through the powerful operation of his Spirit applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them, renewed in their whole man after the image of God; having the seeds of repentance unto life, and all other saving graces, put into their hearts, and those graces so stirred up, increased, and strengthened, as that they more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life.”
RS: In my view they can, but we are also told to strive to enter through the narrow door since some will seek to enter and not be able. The word we translate as strive has the idea of agonizing struggle while the word we translate as seek has more of a deliberative, searching, and making some efforts to it. So the Luke 13:24 passage seems to indicate salvation while the others are indicative of sanctification. Luke 13:23 shows us that Jesus was answering a question about how many or how few would be saved.
LikeLike
Richard, do you affirm or deny continuing revelation?
LikeLike
So Richard, when something that you would interpret as “bad” happens, wouldn’t you have to go into your lengthy interview process with the person it happened to to determine whether it is punishment or not? If you determine the person is not a true believer it would be punishment. If you determine they are a believer would it then be something else? It would seem this would add yet another layer of difficulty to your pastoral approach.
LikeLike
There’s no way Ted is taking this approach. He would be in counseling all day with parishioners and his golf game would go straight to hell.
LikeLike
Richard, I’m just not sure you’re hearing me. You don’t have to convince me of the veracity of Romans 13. 2kers are routinely maligned for pointing to it to prop up the virtues of civil obedience and the vices of disobedience, as well as ground for happily obeying (and even working for) godless tyrants. But you also have to keep in mind that 2kers work with the categories of provisional and eternal, such that when Paul speaks of the temporal magistrate as the minister of God it isn’t to say he administers eternal things—he’s no more an elder than an elder is a sheriff. He administers provisional things. If you want to say God is punishing our bread stealer when he goes to jail, I suppose in some sense that works as short hand. But I don’t think Paul wants to suggest so much that the sheriff is administering eternal wrath so much as to put the fear of God into believers in order to foster civil obedience.
So your language just comes off as running roughshod over the categories I am using rather carefully (or trying). Yes, when someone dies it could feasibly be said to be judgment for sin. But it’s also a natural consequence of the order of things post-fall. The way you speak it’s as if every death can be traced back to some specific sin. The disciples’ inquiry about the blind man’s sin or his parent’s comes to mind here. I hear you asking that same question, and sorry, but it’s absurd.
LikeLike
Just a quick question, Zrim and Richard: would either or both of you consider God’s passing over the unelect and leaving them to their own hearts to be “punishment” or “discipline” or “neither”?
LikeLike
The ol’ “pot calling the kettle black,” eh Darryl? Or the ol’ “speck and log.”
Anyway, as for this:
“which is, what happens in the Anglican church stays in the Anglican church.”
Well said, same goes for the post as a whole.
Enjoying my reading of blogs these days,
Andrew
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: Richard, do you affirm or deny continuing revelation?
RS: I was wondering when this would come up. By the way, it is not a bad thing that it has, but I have simply been wondering when it would come up. My answer to this is a clear denial of continuing revelation in the sense you mean, but that is not a denial that God can open the eyes as Paul prayed in Ephesians 1:15 For this reason I too, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which exists among you and your love for all the saints, 16 do not cease giving thanks for you, while making mention of you in my prayers; 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him.” The revelation spoken of in Ephesians 1:17 is not new revelation but is more of illumination or revealing insights into what has been revealed.
On the other hand, there is the opening of the eyes to see in accordance with His Scriptures things like His providence and His hand in what is going on today. There is the opening of the eyes so that one can see His glory, for example, as in II Cor 3:18 and 4:6. But that is not new revelation as such, but is certainly opening the eyes to seeing new things.
LikeLike
Eric Charter: So Richard, when something that you would interpret as “bad” happens, wouldn’t you have to go into your lengthy interview process with the person it happened to to determine whether it is punishment or not?
RS: No, nothing that is truly bad happens to the believer since God intends and works all for good. Yet, all that happens to the unbeliever is truly bad. God gives plenty of earthly things to those whom He hates.
Eric Charter: If you determine the person is not a true believer it would be punishment. If you determine they are a believer would it then be something else? It would seem this would add yet another layer of difficulty to your pastoral approach.
RS: I suppose it may appear to be that way to you, but the reality may differ from the appearance of it.
Eric Charter: There’s no way Ted is taking this approach. He would be in counseling all day with parishioners and his golf game would go straight to hell.
RS: The things that came from hell should be sent back there.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: Just a quick question, Zrim and Richard: would either or both of you consider God’s passing over the unelect and leaving them to their own hearts to be “punishment” or “discipline” or “neither”?
RS: God’s passing over the non-elect is sovereignty. His judgment upon them is punishment. God only disciplines His children.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, I’m just not sure you’re hearing me. You don’t have to convince me of the veracity of Romans 13. 2kers are routinely maligned for pointing to it to prop up the virtues of civil obedience and the vices of disobedience, as well as ground for happily obeying (and even working for) godless tyrants. But you also have to keep in mind that 2kers work with the categories of provisional and eternal, such that when Paul speaks of the temporal magistrate as the minister of God it isn’t to say he administers eternal things—he’s no more an elder than an elder is a sheriff. He administers provisional things. If you want to say God is punishing our bread stealer when he goes to jail, I suppose in some sense that works as short hand. But I don’t think Paul wants to suggest so much that the sheriff is administering eternal wrath so much as to put the fear of God into believers in order to foster civil obedience.
RS: I am not arguing that going to jail is an administration of eternal wrath, but it is a foretaste of what is to come. I am arguing that it is the punishment of God, however. At least that is what Rom 13 sure seems to say. I think of every act of all people and everything that happens as being part of the eternal decree of God and has His purposes in it (such as WCF ch III). All authority is from Him and as such it is His punishment on the doers of evil.
Zrim: So your language just comes off as running roughshod over the categories I am using rather carefully (or trying).
RS: Perhaps if you pointed out the categories rather than assume them it might help.
Zrim: Yes, when someone dies it could feasibly be said to be judgment for sin. But it’s also a natural consequence of the order of things post-fall. The way you speak it’s as if every death can be traced back to some specific sin.
RS: But death is not the natural consequence of some order. It is the specific judgment of God upon sinful humanity. While it may appear to be a natural consequence, that is only appearances. No one would die if they were not sinners or at least had sin imputed to them. I am not sure why you interpret me as tracing death back to a specific sin as I have not said that or implied that. I am simply saying that people die because they are sinners and because God has said that the soul that sins shall die.
Zrim: The disciples’ inquiry about the blind man’s sin or his parent’s comes to mind here. I hear you asking that same question, and sorry, but it’s absurd.
RS: But that is not my position. People are born spiritually dead because of original sin, so I am not asking why people are born dead in sin. I am also not asking anything as to what you are saying (why is someone born blind). I am just saying that the whole order of things that leads to death is because of sin and is a punishment for sin. I am also saying that God is absolutely sovereign over all things and that He has decreed each and every thing that comes to pass. Indeed there are temporal punishments and there are eternal punishments, but they are still punishments that God has decreed and sovereignly brings to pass.
LikeLike
Richard – Nice non-answers. Who are you, Bryan Cross?
Eric Charter: So Richard, when something that you would interpret as “bad” happens, wouldn’t you have to go into your lengthy interview process with the person it happened to to determine whether it is punishment or not?
RS: No, nothing that is truly bad happens to the believer since God intends and works all for good. Yet, all that happens to the unbeliever is truly bad. God gives plenty of earthly things to those whom He hates.
Eric Charter: If you determine the person is not a true believer it would be punishment. If you determine they are a believer would it then be something else? It would seem this would add yet another layer of difficulty to your pastoral approach.
RS: I suppose it may appear to be that way to you, but the reality may differ from the appearance of it.
LikeLike
Richard – I’ve known a lot of evangelical baptists and I’ve known a lot of confessional reformed guys. You are definitely way more the former than the latter. In temperment and in approach to theological questions.
LikeLike
At the same time you are sounding a bit like Herman Hoeksema and the Protestant Reformed in opposing common grace. Like them you also don’t go to movies! If we can get you to embrace infant baptism we may have found you a home!
LikeLike
Richard, a fellow from National Review yesterday on NPR described Mitt Romney’s 47% remark to be like taking a handful of true statements, putting them in a blender and pouring out a concoction that makes little sense. That’s how I feel here with you. And I’m not sure what else to say without being repetitive. Basically, I think it owes to having no provisional sense and an eternal one running at high octane to make up for it. That tends to explain why you are not satisfied with basic good sense and intuition to gauge the credibility of a simple profession of faith and well lived life and suggest that believers have some sort of spiritual sense (and duty) to discern hearts above and beyond what is warranted.
LikeLike
Jeff, your question seems to pertain to eternity, so punishment seems like the right answer.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard – Nice non-answers. Who are you, Bryan Cross?
RS: Those were real answers, though it may take quite a bit of reflection on them.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: At the same time you are sounding a bit like Herman Hoeksema and the Protestant Reformed in opposing common grace.
RS: I was not aware I had said anything that would lead you to that point.
Eric Charter: Like them you also don’t go to movies!
RS: That is true, but I just see them as just a waste of time and of money. There are much better things to do like read books and shoot holes in various things in the woods.
Eric Charter: If we can get you to embrace infant baptism we may have found you a home!
RS: But I do embrace infant baptism if you call a choke hold an embrace.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, a fellow from National Review yesterday on NPR described Mitt Romney’s 47% remark to be like taking a handful of true statements, putting them in a blender and pouring out a concoction that makes little sense. That’s how I feel here with you. And I’m not sure what else to say without being repetitive. Basically, I think it owes to having no provisional sense and an eternal one running at high octane to make up for it. That tends to explain why you are not satisfied with basic good sense and intuition to gauge the credibility of a simple profession of faith and well lived life and suggest that believers have some sort of spiritual sense (and duty) to discern hearts above and beyond what is warranted.
RS: Well, I plead guilty to not being satisfied with basic good sense (whatever that means) and intuition (is that empirical enough for Jeff and isn’t that like the love sense you charged me with?). I much prefer, not to mention more biblical and confessional, to go by what the Bible says in these things. I also admit that I believe that the Bible teaches that we are to love God with all of our being at all times. I also admit that I believe the Bible teaches that we are to glorify God in all that we do at all times. By the way, that is also Westminster and Calvin. I do admit that I believe that God has decreed every single thing that happens and all things that human beings think, feel, and do have eternal consequences. So it is impossible to live in the temporal in a right way without living toward the eternal. But as to this eternal octane, Paul does tell us to fix our hearts on things above.
LikeLike
Richard,
So if I claim, “God has revealed to me that you are a not a believer” (say, hypothetically — not making that claim here!!), then would that be ‘new revelation’ or ‘God’s opening my eyes to understand new things’?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: Richard, So if I claim, “God has revealed to me that you are a not a believer” (say, hypothetically — not making that claim here!!), then would that be ‘new revelation’ or ‘God’s opening my eyes to understand new things’?
RS: Assuming that you are not given to all the things I am assuming you disagree with, and you had spoken with me and talked with me concerning issues of the heart, I would say that it would be the Spirit giving you discernment into the application of the Scriptures and to the lack of God in my heart. I wouldn’t see it as new revelation, but more of a spiritual understanding or interpretation or spiritual sight of things. It would be something like the resurrection of Lazarus in John 11. Many people saw the event, but only those who had true faith saw the glory of God in it. The others were left to their own self-centered view of things. By the way, despite the fact that I get the sense that I am on a runaway truck headed toward a cliff, I appreciate the questions.
LikeLike
OK, so let’s break the perception process down a bit.
Is your claim that by asking these questions, you hear the words they say (and observe their body language, yadayada), and then are given insight as to what their words actually mean about the state of their souls?
OR
Is your claim that in the process of asking these questions, the Spirit gives you a kind of direct line that bypasses their words and lets you peer into their hearts?
OR
Something else?
LikeLike
Richard,
Busy all day and away from my computer. None of those scripture verses had anything to do with striving against sin. They were about striving in our labors, not against our sin. You have a habit of throwing out imperative scripture verses that often are not relevant and then giving the impression that you are actually doing the imperatives 24/7/365. You don’t distinguish or you refuse to see the Law/Gospel antithesis as it applies to the individual believer. The Gospel motivates towards obedience not the Law. The Law just shows us how far short we fall. You constantly harp and pound the imperatives like the reconstructionists, the Shephardites, the neolegalists, etc. etc. Pounding the Law just makes people see their guilt more than they already do. You neolegalists think that is what you have to do. I and most at this site do not buy into your and Edwards methods. The Gospel makes believers more obedient than the Law does.
LikeLike
Actually, I don’t think Edwards deserves to be thrown into the neolegalist category. But anyways …
LikeLike
John Yeazel: Richard, Busy all day and away from my computer. None of those scripture verses had anything to do with striving against sin. They were about striving in our labors, not against our sin.
RS: Well, actually sin would be included as part of striving.
John Yeazel: You have a habit of throwing out imperative scripture verses that often are not relevant and then giving the impression that you are actually doing the imperatives 24/7/365.
RS: I cannot help the impression part because I have said repeatedly that this is not possible for anyone. I am simply saying that the commands of God do not change because He does not change. The fact that you don’t see verses as relevant may not be the sole evidence that determines the case.
John Yeazel: You don’t distinguish or you refuse to see the Law/Gospel antithesis as it applies to the individual believer.
RS: Actually, I do, but I don’t see it the same way you do. I simply don’t think that the Law is done away with and that the commands still stand. However, the Gospel of Christ teaches us that no only does Christ pay the debt we could not pay, He purchases the Spirit for His people who works love in them so that they want to obey the Law.
John Yeazel: The Gospel motivates towards obedience not the Law.
RS: True enough that it is the Gospel that motivates us toward obedience, but it is also true that obedience is still keeping the Law our of love.
John Yeazel: The Law just shows us how far short we fall.
RS: It does that, but if we fall short of the Law does the Gospel move us to want to keep it out of love for God? As Paul says, the problem is not the Law, the problem is with us. So if we are changed, shouldn’t we love the Law as the old saints did? Shouldn’t we love the Law since it is a reflection of the holiness of God?
John Yeazel: You constantly harp and pound the imperatives like the reconstructionists, the Shephardites, the neolegalists, etc. etc.
RS: Actually, I play the trumpet and not the harp or the drum. Keeping the Law out of love is not exactly what I see the Shepardites focusing on, but who knows.
John Yeazel: Pounding the Law just makes people see their guilt more than they already do.
RS: But people feel guilty because they are guilty in most cases. It is a good thing to want to see the sins of my heart uncovered before God that He may grant me repentance from them and that I may know Him more in the glory of His grace.
John Yeazel: You neolegalists think that is what you have to do.
RS: While I don’t think I am a neolegalists, I will say that we are to preach the Law because it is a tutor that leads people to Christ. But no one is saved by keeping the Law himself. Instead of that, those who are saved want to keep the Law because they love God.
John Yeazel: I and most at this site do not buy into your and Edwards methods.
RS: Well, at least you are confessing your sin now.
John Yeazel: The Gospel makes believers more obedient than the Law does.
RS: Indeed, but what is the standard of obedience? Is it the Law? Could it be the life of Christ? But Christ kept the Law perfectly His whole life. So how can we be like Christ if we don’t strive to keep the Law out of love?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: OK, so let’s break the perception process down a bit.
Is your claim that by asking these questions, 1. you hear the words they say (and observe their body language, yadayada), and then are given insight as to what their words actually mean about the state of their souls? 2. Is your claim that in the process of asking these questions, the Spirit gives you a kind of direct line that bypasses their words and lets you peer into their hearts? 3. Something else?
RS: Just remember, the list of questions I gave is simply a list of possible questions. The issue is trying to get to the things of the heart. Let me first put it into a question. Is there a difference between believing that the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone is true and a person actually being justified by grace alone through faith alone?
If we take it as true that it is possible to believe the doctrine of justification without being justified, then there is something beyond professing the creed as a whole that we should do if we are to deal with the souls of people. No, it is not an infallible method, but it is a recognition that there is a spiritual wisdom and understanding that God gives His people.
I would deny # 2 outright and not some aspects of # 1. What I am arguing is that believers have a spiritual nature and unbelievers don’t have that same spiritual nature. Believers have the Holy Spirit in them, unbelievers do not. Believers have love in them, unbelievers do not. Believers are the temple of the Holy Spirit and have Christ as their life, but unbelievers do not. Believers love true holiness, unbelievers do not. Believers love God for the proper reasons, unbelievers do not. Believers have eternal life in them, believers do not.
So I am arguing that a person with all the things that a believer has (see list above) can ask questions with enough spiritual insight that he can tell in a lot of cases (if not most) if people have the living God dwelling in them or not. This is not an infallible judgment, but it is far better for spiritually mature elders to be gently and lovingly seeking to know about a person’s true state than a person who has no idea about a spiritual state and perhaps is greatly deceived.
I would argue that a person can be given spiritual insight and behold the glory of Christ and the love of Spirit in other people. In other words, the glory of God is not invisible since we are said to be able to behold the glory of Christ. To those who know something of true love, they are able to understand the nature of true love more than those who don’t have true love. So I am arguing for the work of the Spirit in giving eyes to see and ears to hear if He is living in and dwelling in others. No, it is not new revelation and it is not deeply mystical as such. But it is something that the Spirit gives us that is not the same as rational deductions.
LikeLike
My definition of neolegalism is broader than most. Edwards had leanings towards a final justification of works. I call that neolegalism. And Tobias Crisp was accused of being an antinomian by Richard Baxter. Most who emphasize the Gospel and justification priority get accused of being antinomians. I’m all for obeying the Ten Commandments and the moral law. I just don’t think we do it the way the Law commands us to do it. And I don’t think we come close. So, what is the point of using words like striving, making progress, etc., etc. how do you measure it anyway? Through your own subjective judgments, by someone scrutinizing you on a regular basis, by your pastor keeping a log on your progress, by big brother watching you?
LikeLike
John Yeazel: My definition of neolegalism is broader than most. Edwards had leanings towards a final justification of works. I call that neolegalism.
RS: But not in terms of the biblical Gospel of justification by grace alone through faith alone. If you read James carefully, you will see a double justification with Abraham. Indeed Abraham was declared just before God on the basis of grace alone through faith alone as he looked ahead to his coming seed, Christ. But according to James he was justified by works also. There are two justifications in mind here and the second is not the same as the first. In one sense the fact that Abraham said he believed is demonstrated to be true when he was ready to sacrifice his son. This was, so to speak, a justification of his justification, which is to say it demonstrated that he did in fact believe rather than just mouth the words. Edwards was very strong that a person was justified (as Abraham in the first sense) by grace alone through faith alone and that God justified the ungodly.
John Yeazel: And Tobias Crisp was accused of being an antinomian by Richard Baxter. Most who emphasize the Gospel and justification priority get accused of being antinomians.
RS: Crisp was certainly a man who focused a lot on Christ and grace in his works, but Baxter was not the only one who accused him of that. That does not mean that they were correct, however. It is also true that preaching grace alone may indeed lead to one being accused of antinomianism, but it can also be the case that one can be an antinomian.
John Yeazel: I’m all for obeying the Ten Commandments and the moral law. I just don’t think we do it the way the Law commands us to do it. And I don’t think we come close. So, what is the point of using words like striving, making progress, etc., etc. how do you measure it anyway? Through your own subjective judgments, by someone scrutinizing you on a regular basis, by your pastor keeping a log on your progress, by big brother watching you?
RS: Do we have to have an empirical method of judging spiritual things? As I have stated before, at least I think I stated this here, regarding our own eyes we actually get much worse when the Spirit opens our eyes to see more and more sin. So of course we don’t come close, but that does not excuse our sin and it does not excuse us from striving for holiness. But we can only strive for true holiness if we have true grace working in us. It is not the work of the flesh, but is the work of Christ in us.
LikeLike
Richard, you wrote: “Believers have the Holy Spirit in them, unbelievers do not. Believers have love in them, unbelievers do not. Believers are the temple of the Holy Spirit and have Christ as their life, but unbelievers do not. Believers love true holiness, unbelievers do not. Believers love God for the proper reasons, unbelievers do not. Believers have eternal life in them, believers do not.”
If the differences are that great, why the need to ask penetrating questions? It is odd that you assert the antithesis but then undermine it by second-guessing whether a believer really is all that different. In the Old Life world, spiritual matters are more routine because God’s creation is. Believers and unbelievers share a lot in common though their motivations differ, and ferreting out those worthy of communion does not require a private eye.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart Richard, you wrote: “Believers have the Holy Spirit in them, unbelievers do not. Believers have love in them, unbelievers do not. Believers are the temple of the Holy Spirit and have Christ as their life, but unbelievers do not. Believers love true holiness, unbelievers do not. Believers love God for the proper reasons, unbelievers do not. Believers have eternal life in them, believers do not.”
D. G. Hart: If the differences are that great, why the need to ask penetrating questions? It is odd that you assert the antithesis but then undermine it by second-guessing whether a believer really is all that different. In the Old Life world, spiritual matters are more routine because God’s creation is. Believers and unbelievers share a lot in common though their motivations differ, and ferreting out those worthy of communion does not require a private eye.
RS: Because the deceiver works hard at deceiving people and their own hearts are quite deceptive as well. Then there is the deception of sin and the deceitfulness of riches. Combine that with a lot of remaining sin in people, there is the need for help in these things. As you know, the older Presbyterians and Congregationalists examined people before they gave them a token that would allow them to come to communion. So it is not like this is something new, but instead is something quite old. Perhaps the old timers understood that though creation is routine in a sense, even though atheists might upset that thought, spiritual matters are not part of the creation and the evil one loves to mimic in order to deceive.
LikeLike
Some of this interaction makes me think of what Dr. T. David Gordon says in his book “Why Johnny Can’t Preach: The Media Have Shaped the Messengers” (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2009) when he contrasts Christ-centered preaching with “Introspection” (by which he means introspective preaching). Forgive the length of the quotes, but it is good food for thought:
“Some of the neo-Puritans have apparently determined that the purpose and essence of Christian preaching is to persuade people that they do not, in fact, believe. The subtitle of each of their sermons could accurately be: “I Know You Think You Are a Christian, but You Are Not.” This brand of preaching constantly suggests that if a person does not always love attending church, always look forward to reading the Bible, or family worship, or prayer, then the person is probably not a believer…”
“The hearer falls into one of two categories: one category of listener assumes that the minister is talking about someone else, and he rejoices (as did the Pharisee over the tax collector) to hear “the other guy” getting straightened out. Another category of listener eventually capitulates and says: “Okay, I’m not a believer; have it your way. I’m just a horrible, terrible person who’s going to hell.” But since the sermon mentions Christ only in passing (if at all), the sermon says nothing about the adequacy of Christ as Redeemer, and therefore does nothing to nourish or build faith in him. So true unbelievers are given nothing that might make believers of them, and many true believers are persuaded that they are not believers, and the consolations of Christian faith are taken from them…”
“It is painful to hear every passage of Scripture twisted to do what only several of them actually do (i.e., warn the complacent that not everyone who says, “Lord, Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven). And it is absolutely debilitating to be told again and again that one does not have faith when one knows perfectly well that one does have faith, albeit weak and imperfect…”
“So no one profits from this kind of preaching; indeed, both categories of hearer are harmed by it. But I don’t expect it will end anytime soon. The self-righteous like it too much; for them, religion makes them feel good about themselves, because it allows them to view themselves as the good guys and others as the bad guys – they love to hear the minister scold the bad guys each week. And sadly, the temperament of some ministers is simply officious. Scolding others is their life calling; they have the genetic disposition to be a Jewish mother.” (pp. 83-84)
BTW, I highly recommend Gordon’s little book, both for preachers and laity. “Take up and read.”
LikeLike
I don’t think rs and the Protestant Reformed would be a good fit. David Engelsma, in The StandardBearer (1/15/1991) writes: “To the brash, presumptous question sometimes put to me by those of a revivalist, rather than covenantal, mentality, When were you converted?, I have answered in all seriousness, When was I not converted?”
I am so glad that I don’t have to agree with the PRC, however, to disagree with the scolding done by RS. To the Mormons and Romanists I say– I know you got authentic love in your heart, but did you do enough today to prove it? Are you sure? How much did you need to do? Or was it enough that you really wanted to do it in your heart? You intended to do it? You didn’t deny you should have done it? You did it better than others you could name?
great quotation from David Gordon!
LikeLike
Geoff (and TDG), bingo. That is precisely what we are getting in Richard’s semi-revivalism, a stoking of doubt instead of a building up of assurance.
LikeLike
Those puritans who advocated “the practical syllogism” read II Peter 1 as teaching that we must add virtues to our lives in order to maintain assurance. They don’t exegete it. They assume it says what they think it says and, if you question them about it, they switch over and do the same thing with I John.
I agree with Walter Marshall (The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification) who points out that II Peter 1 teaches that we have to make our calling and election sure in order to even know if our added works and virtues are acceptable and pleasing to God.
We need to think about what gospel it was by which we were called. Were we called by a gospel which conditioned our end on our having enough virtues? Or were we called by the true gospel which says that we must be accepted by God in Christ’s righteousness before we can do anything acceptable to God?
Legalists of course are careful to say that their works are the evidence of Christ’s work in them. Nevertheless, legalists do not test their works by the gospel doctrine of righteousness. Most legalists think you can be wrong about the gospel doctrine, and nevertheless still show off your salvation by your life of piety. Preachers like Paul Washer raise doubts about those who don’t “make more effort to have a changed life”, but they don’t have these same doubts about “sincere and hard-working” Arminians and Roman Catholics and other “family-values” folks.
Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
LikeLike
Edwards, WJE 24:1171—“They fail to distinguish first and second justification. The first justification,
which is at conversion, is a man’s coming to have a righteousness imputed to him. This is by faith alone. The second is at the judgment, which is that by which a man is proved and declared to be righteous. This is by works and not by faith only.”
Benjamin Keach, (1640-1704) The Marrow of True Justification: The Biblical Doctrine of Justification Without Works, Solid Ground Books, Birmingham, Alabama USA, 2007, p 80—” “Once we are
justified, we need not inquire how a man is justified after he is justified. By that righteousness of Christ which is out of us, though imputed to us, the Justice of God is satisfied; therefore all Works
done by us, or inherent in us, are excluded in our Justification before God.”
LikeLike
Gotta love Dr. Gordon.
LikeLike
Jonathan Edwards, Sermons of JE, 115: “We can’t be saved without being good…All whose hearts come to Christ will be good, and if men aren’t good, their hearts never will come to Christ…”
Douglas Sweeney, “Justification by Faith Alone?, in Jonathan Edwards and Justification, ed Josh Moody, 2012, Crossway, p148—-“God requires all His people to cooperate with Him to increase in
sanctification. They accomplish this, however, as they abide in the Lord, letting God govern their hearts and bear divine fruit in their lives. For Edwards, there are levels of grace and laurels for the godly.”
mark: When regeneration is given priority over justification, so that the imputation of righteousness is conditional on regeneration, we need to be very clear about what we mean by regeneration and “participation in the divine nature”. If ontological participation gave us hearts good enough to come, then surely those hearts will continue to be good enough (or want to be good enough) so that we won’t need to find assurance in Christ alone or in His finished work outside our hearts
Do we believe to get into Christ or do we believe the gospel because we are elect in Christ and in Him become the Righteousness of God?
I Cor 1:28 “God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being would boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of God you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
LikeLike
Richard thinks he has the same job as the Holy Spirit (like all revivalists do). He wants to make sure that nobody settles into some kind of false assurance- especially the elect. I think it is best to let God take care of that. He does a better job of it anyways. I have told you this before Richard and I offer it up again- go out and sin boldly and then this upcoming Sabbath boldly confess your sin to God. About 10 good Guinnes’s with some friends might do you some good.
LikeLike
Richard, but how do you know that you are not deceived in the way you interpret answers? If sin affects the potential church member, doesn’t it affect the examiner?
I see no check on your quest for certainty that doesn’t wind up with Descartes. I believe therefore I am right in my judgments.
LikeLike
mark mcculley: I am so glad that I don’t have to agree with the PRC, however, to disagree with the scolding done by RS.
RS: Scolding? When did it get beyond a discussion?
mark mcculley: To the Mormons and Romanists I say– I know you got authentic love in your heart, but did you do enough today to prove it? Are you sure? How much did you need to do? Or was it enough that you really wanted to do it in your heart? You intended to do it? You didn’t deny you should have done it? You did it better than others you could name?
RS: But the Mormons and the Romanists do not have authentic love in their hearts because they are not born of God and they don’t know God. But once again, the text that comes fromt does not say that those who love are born of God and know about God. It says they know God.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, but how do you know that you are not deceived in the way you interpret answers? If sin affects the potential church member, doesn’t it affect the examiner?
RS: But of course sin always has an influence and power in both the examined and the examiners. But one would hope that elders would have more practice and wisdom in seeing the deceptions of the evil one than most people who are potential members.
D.G. Hart: I see no check on your quest for certainty that doesn’t wind up with Descartes. I believe therefore I am right in my judgments
RS: But surely there was a reason that the Holy Spirit inspired John in each word when he was writing I John. We are given the reason that the Holy Spirit wrote this book and it was written so that you may know that you have eternal life. Descartes did not inspire I John and that is why the book is not about looking for a rock bottom certainty if God exists, but is about examining the heart and life to see if a person has eternal life. That is not just about RS who is dubbed a wacko because he believes that elders should help people examine their hearts, but it is what the Word of God sets forth with clarity.
LikeLike
Geoff Willour: Some of this interaction makes me think of what Dr. T. David Gordon says in his book “Why Johnny Can’t Preach: The Media Have Shaped the Messengers” (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2009) when he contrasts Christ-centered preaching with “Introspection” (by which he means introspective preaching). Forgive the length of the quotes, but it is good food for thought:
RS: Without arguing that there is not some merit to what Gordon is saying, let us also recall the way Jesus preached to the religious people of His day who were orthodox and had much confidence that they were righteous. In one place it is called the Sermon on the Mount. Without question it is a sermon that drives truths to the heart in order to make people examine themselves. Perhaps there is a great difference between doing that some of the time and all of the time. The fact that Jesus did it might tell us that the practice has much to commend itself, though doing nothing but that can be a problem. I might add that the orthodox religious people of that day hated it when Jesus went to their hearts.
LikeLike
Mark Mcculley: Those puritans who advocated “the practical syllogism” read II Peter 1 as teaching that we must add virtues to our lives in order to maintain assurance. They don’t exegete it. They assume it says what they think it says and, if you question them about it, they switch over and do the same thing with I John.
RS: But they do exegete that passage. Just read Thomas Adams in his large commentary on II Peter. It is true that they did not have the benefit of all the modern Barthians to help them do away with all the spiritual things and the supernatural things in the text, but they got by and did some exegesis despite being a little early in history to benefit from the things we get to endure.
Mark Mcculley: We need to think about what gospel it was by which we were called. Were we called by a gospel which conditioned our end on our having enough virtues? Or were we called by the true gospel which says that we must be accepted by God in Christ’s righteousness before we can do anything acceptable to God?
RS: It appears that you continue to make the same mistake over and over. The true Gospel is that sinners are accepted based on the work of Christ alone. However, Christ is the life of His people and if He is in them He will work holiness in them.
LikeLike
Geoff – Great Gordon quote. This sounds like a book that I would be underlining the whole way through!
LikeLike
Zrim: Geoff (and TDG), bingo. That is precisely what we are getting in Richard’s semi-revivalism, a stoking of doubt instead of a building up of assurance.
RS: So despite what Paul said in II Cor 13:5 and the book of I John and of course Peter in his second epistle, you continue to think of this as stoking of doubt. Assurance is not like the modern view of self-esteem which thinks it has to be pumped up on a constant basis. Assurance is not something arrived at through positive preaching and positive things that are said, it can only be arrived at in the way that the Bible sets out. I fear that some on OldLife are imbibing too much of modern methods.
LikeLike
Richard – You show that you are an evangelical at heart in that, like them, you want to assume the gospel and put all of your focus on works (what you call “holiness”). Like them you say, “O.K., Jesus has done his part, now it’s up to you to do yours”. You fail to understand that it is the gospel that provides the impetus and the power to do good works. Most of the Federal Visionists came out of evangelicalism — some not very long ago. Perhaps that is your true church home? Do you conclude, like many of them, that we are saved not by faith, but by “faithfulness”?
LikeLike
mark mcculley: Edwards, WJE 24:1171—”They fail to distinguish first and second justification. The first justification, which is at conversion, is a man’s coming to have a righteousness imputed to him. This is by faith alone. The second is at the judgment, which is that by which a man is proved and declared to be righteous. This is by works and not by faith only.”
RS: Mark, read the passage in James very closely and you will see that James says with clarity that Abraham was justified by works. But James was speaking of Abraham with Isaac which is recorded in Genesis 22 which is many, many years after Genesis 15 which is where Abraham was declared righteous by faith. The works, then, according to the Bible, do not declare a man just before God, but they do demonstrate to the person and to others that a person is justified. According to James, though I know you don’t like the fact that the same word “justification” is used, there is a second justification.
James 2:19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.
20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?
22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;
23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,” and he was called the friend of God.
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?
26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.
LikeLike
mark mcculley: Jonathan Edwards, Sermons of JE, 115: “We can’t be saved without being good…All whose hearts come to Christ will be good, and if men aren’t good, their hearts never will come to Christ…”
RS: In other words, as the confessions teach, a man must have his heart changed before he will come to Christ.
Mark Mcculley: Douglas Sweeney, “Justification by Faith Alone?, in Jonathan Edwards and Justification, ed Josh Moody, 2012, Crossway, p148—-”God requires all His people to cooperate with Him to increase in sanctification. They accomplish this, however, as they abide in the Lord, letting God govern their hearts and bear divine fruit in their lives. For Edwards, there are levels of grace and laurels for the godly.”
RS: Indeed, a person that is not sanctified has never been justified.
mark: When regeneration is given priority over justification, so that the imputation of righteousness is conditional on regeneration, we need to be very clear about what we mean by regeneration and “participation in the divine nature”. If ontological participation gave us hearts good enough to come, then surely those hearts will continue to be good enough (or want to be good enough) so that we won’t need to find assurance in Christ alone or in His finished work outside our hearts
RS: But it is not ontological participation. It is a trinitarian participation. The Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father. When the Spirit brings us into Christ because of the purchase price Christ fulfilled, people are enabled to participate in the love that flows between the Father and the Son. This finding assurance is not just because there are works, but because there is a Christ dwelling in the Soul and He is working those things in and through them by love. Remember, God has prepared good works for His people to do. If they are not doing them, then there is no evidence that they are His workmanship in Christ Jesus.
Mark Mcculley: Do we believe to get into Christ or do we believe the gospel because we are elect in Christ and in Him become the Righteousness of God?
RS: Yes
Mark Mcculley: I Cor 1:28 “God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being would boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of God you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
RS: Of course that is true. But if Christ is our sanctification, then how can you say that we are not to live holy lives if we have Christ in us and are in union with Him? The words the believer do not earn salvation, but they are Christ in the soul and the soul manifesting Christ.
LikeLike
John’s “sin boldly” idea — not so good. Let’s avoid sin where we can. Stop at one beer and you should always be o.k…
LikeLike
John Yeazel: Richard thinks he has the same job as the Holy Spirit (like all revivalists do).
RS: No, just that the Spirit does use the preaching of the Word.
John Yeazel: He wants to make sure that nobody settles into some kind of false assurance- especially the elect.
RS: Amazing how my view on this is in line with the Bible. Are you saying that you don’t agree with the Bible in this? There is a reason that Calvinists have for years taught on perseverance of the saints. The saints must persevere in the truth of the Gospel and in holiness.
John Yeazel: I think it is best to let God take care of that. He does a better job of it anyways.
RS: He can also preach justification much better than we can, but that does not mean that we are not to preach it.
John Yeazel: I have told you this before Richard and I offer it up again- go out and sin boldly and then this upcoming Sabbath boldly confess your sin to God.
RS: I don’t think that sinning on purpose is really conducive to a true confession of sin.
John Yeazel: About 10 good Guinnes’s with some friends might do you some good.
RS: But of course. The Bible says that drunkeness is a sin and that drunks will not enter the kingdom. You tell me to go drink so that some good will result. Maybe I am right about what true assurance entails.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard – You show that you are an evangelical at heart in that, like them, you want to assume the gospel and put all of your focus on works (what you call “holiness”).
Richard: Eric, there is no need to get nasty and call me an evangelical. I don’t think I want to assume the Gospel at all. In fact, I preached this past Sunday on the new birth and the grace of the new birth. In one part I told them that we never get beyond our need for the Gospel and we never grow so that we don’t need the Gospel. I then went into a part on the imputed righteousness of Christ and the work of Christ in removing the wrath of God as necessary to the walk of the believer. So it may the the case that you are assuming something that may not be accurate in my case.
Eric Charter: Like them you say, “O.K., Jesus has done his part, now it’s up to you to do yours”.
RS: No, I am not like that at all and have repeatedly asserted that. Any good work we do must be Christ doing it in us or it is not good.
Eric Charter: You fail to understand that it is the gospel that provides the impetus and the power to do good works. Most of the Federal Visionists came out of evangelicalism — some not very long ago. Perhaps that is your true church home? Do you conclude, like many of them, that we are saved not by faith, but by “faithfulness”?
RS: As I have asserted repeatedly on this BLOG or forum or Oldlife, one is saved by grace alone through faith alone. In other words, one is saved by Christ alone. However, a regenerated and justified sinner has Christ dwelling in him and is the temple of the Holy Spirit. That person will live differently. As the second Person of the eternal Trinity took human flesh to Himself and so it was necessary that in that human flesh He would be holy and do good works, so when Christ dwells in His people today of necessity they will seek holiness and do good works. Truly good works can only come from a regenerate and justified person (they are born of God and know Him as I John 4:7-8 says) and they can only come to us because we are the branches and He is the vine. The only faithfulness that saves us is the Son’s faithfulness to the Father.
LikeLike
Zrim: Geoff (and TDG), bingo. That is precisely what we are getting in Richard’s semi-revivalism, a stoking of doubt instead of a building up of assurance.
RS: This view is rather scary to say the least (Zrim’s, at least as I am perceiving it). It appears to assume that assurance can come simply because another can stay away from doubt and say positive things. That is truly a scary view if that that is what you are saying. Assurance must be based on the evidence of God in the soul which is grace working in the soul rather than a pumping up of people of positive things. True assurance is something that can only come when it is based on reality rather than the unreality of positive thinking.
2 Corinthians 13:5 Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you– unless indeed you fail the test?
Psalm 26:2 Examine me, O LORD, and try me; Test my mind and my heart.
Psalm 139:23 Search me, O God, and know my heart; Try me and know my anxious thoughts;
Lamentations 3:40 Let us examine and probe our ways, And let us return to the LORD.
1 Corinthians 11:28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
1 Corinthians 11:31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged.
Galatians 6:4 But each one must examine his own work, and then he will have reason for boasting in regard to himself alone, and not in regard to another.
Hebrews 4:1 Therefore, let us fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it.
Hebrews 12:15 See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many be defiled;
Revelation 3:3 ‘So remember what you have received and heard; and keep it, and repent. Therefore if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come to you.
Titus 1:13 This testimony is true. For this reason reprove them severely so that they may be sound in the faith,
1 Corinthians 9:24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win.
James 4:4 You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.
Titus 1:16 They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed.
1 Corinthians 9:27 but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.
Hebrews 6:8 but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.
I John 2:4 The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:
6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.
1 John 3:1 See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are. For this reason the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.
2 Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is.
3 And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.
4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
5 You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.
6 No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.
1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
LikeLike
Richard, this is not about helping people examine their hearts. Pastors do that regularly, from the pulpit, family visits, everywhere they minister the word. You don’t need a host of probing questions to help people examine. It’s as if you don’t trust the regular means — preaching and the Holy Spirit — so you’re going to make sure this profession is really credible.
Still, I don’t think you do justice to how skeptical your examinations may go. If you don’t want self-satisfied professions of faith, why not be wary of self-satisfied elders who may think they can discern a credible profession. Once you start having people doubt their words, it has to go to the elders and pastor also.
This is one big bowl of doubt that you are serving up ironically as a helping of assurance.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, this is not about helping people examine their hearts. Pastors do that regularly, from the pulpit, family visits, everywhere they minister the word. You don’t need a host of probing questions to help people examine. It’s as if you don’t trust the regular means — preaching and the Holy Spirit — so you’re going to make sure this profession is really credible.
RS: 2 Timothy 4:1 I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom:
2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,
4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.
D.G. Hart: Still, I don’t think you do justice to how skeptical your examinations may go. If you don’t want self-satisfied professions of faith, why not be wary of self-satisfied elders who may think they can discern a credible profession. Once you start having people doubt their words, it has to go to the elders and pastor also.
RS: But of course that is part of the issue which is why elders should be men who deal with their own hearts.
D.G. Hart: This is one big bowl of doubt that you are serving up ironically as a helping of assurance.
RS: But the devil will always fight to deceive true believers. If they are not helped in this, they will always doubt because they will not have their hearts trained to see through the darts of the evil one. Remember Ephesians 6? The people of God are in a war and the evil one will fight. He does this by fighting against the people of God and by casting doubt in all sorts of ways. It is not casting aspersion at preaching to say that people must be taught the ways of the heart in order to see through the wiles of the devil and find true assurance. In fact, one of those nasty old Purtitans (actually, more than one wrote on this) wrote a book on Precious Remedies Against Satan’s Devices. If people don’t know those and know how to deal with their own hearts, they can assume they are believers as that is one of Satan’s devices when they are not and they can fight horrible doubt when in fact they are.
LikeLike
Darryl : ………….why not be wary of self-satisfied elders who may think they can discern a credible profession.
Sean: Yep. Nothing stirs up the aura of suspicion quite the way being grilled by an elder about your ‘heart’ motivations in session does. That was special. I assured him it was worse than I knew or cared to know, but thank God for Jesus Christ, He had/has a true heart. We still look at each other sideways to this day, but it’s getting better.
LikeLike
Erik Charter wrote: “Geoff – Great Gordon quote. This sounds like a book that I would be underlining the whole way through!”
GW: Yep, I have filled my copy of this short book with lots of yellow highlighter marks.
LikeLike
“Richard Smith” wrote: “So despite what Paul said in II Cor 13:5 and the book of I John and of course Peter in his second epistle, you continue to think of this as stoking of doubt.”
GW: In the context of his quote Dr. Gordon was not denying the existence of such passages, nor was he denying the need to (from time to time) challenge the complacent to consider the state of their souls. Rather, his concern (and mine as well) is with introspective preaching that constantly, incessantly and obsessively over-emphasizes self-examination to the near exclusion of Christ’s objective redemptive work outside of us (which is the ultimate, foundational basis of all true assurance). The kind of neo-puritan preaching that Gordon is criticizing is unbalanced in giving so much stress on the subjective evidences/marks of grace (“marks” which neither Gordon nor I would deny) that the objective means of grace and the proper focus of Christian preaching upon the perfections of Christ’s Person and Work get sidelined or deemphasized (even if they happen to be mentioned by such preachers of introspection).
I find it interesting to observe that even in addressing the most troubled congregations (the churches of Corinth and Galatia come to mind), the Apostle Paul almost always begins his epistles addressing the congregants in such a way that he assumes the best about them (addressing them in the judgment of charity as “saints,” “brothers,” etc.); this is even the case in epistles where he feels compelled in the body of the epistle to issue sharp rebukes and solemn calls to self-examination. It seems to me that in the New Testament as a whole there is far more stress on fostering faith and assurance in believers than there is in challenging professing believers to question (“doubt”) whether or not they “really, really, really, truly, sincerely” believe. IMO, Gordon’s quote is a call for the church to recapture this New Testament balance of emphasis in its preaching through more pervasively Christo-centric preaching which emphasizes and centers upon the adequacy, sufficiency and perfection of Christ the Redeemer (extrospection), rather than upon the inner workings of the soul (introspection).
LikeLike
Erik,
That is a old tactic the Lutherans and Calvinists used to use against the pietists all the time back in the day, ie. that go out and sin boldly thing. That is one way they dealt with them. Luther used to challenge his friends to beer guzzling duels (probably within the pietists hearing range)- He could get past the Holy Spirit in his 36 oz. Trinity mug. There had to be someway to distract from all the pressure of your enemies wanting to slit your throats. They made fun of the pietists with biting sarcasm all the time. While the pietist accused them of not being regenerate and tolerating all sorts of wickedness.
LikeLike
BTW, I’m not advocating drinking for anyone who has scruples against it. I just refuse to let pietists dictate how I act and what I can say around them as they try to intimidate others into their pietistic and holiness pipedreams. We have all been around them and may have even been one at one time like myself. The first 19 years of my Christian life was spent in that mentality. I got to dislike it immensely. And they love to throw the imperatives at others and try to convict them of their sin. Get a life and mind your own business please. God has other ways and means of dealing with his people.
LikeLike
Assurance must be based on the evidence of God in the soul which is grace working in the soul rather than a pumping up of people of positive things. True assurance is something that can only come when it is based on reality rather than the unreality of positive thinking.
Richard, assurance is fostered neither by diving into the self nor from “positive thinking.” It is derived from placarding Christ before the sinner the way the serpent was raised up in the desert. It is telling that you find this scary.
LikeLike
Mark Mcculley: Do we believe to get into Christ or do we believe the gospel because we are elect in Christ and in Him become the Righteousness of God?
RS: Yes
mark: who’s being Barthian now?
I Cor 1:28 “God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being would boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of God you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
RS: Of course that is true. But if Christ is our sanctification, then how can you say that we are not to live holy lives if we have Christ in us and are in union with Him?
mark: it never takes you long to get to the “but” and the “however”. One, I have never ever said that sanctified people are not to live holy lives. I have never even said that un-sanctified people are not to live holy lives. So it’s not a sanctified thing to do for you to report me as saying as something I never said. At the least, you might say that you have inferred that I should be saying this, if I were not so dumb as to not see the logical inconsistency in my not saying it.
Two, I have said (along with Walter Marshall and many others) that we are to examine the fruit by the tree. If people are not sanctified, they can’t live holy. People don’t live holy to get holy. People don’t live “more holy” to become “more holy”. This is why II Peter warns people to make their calling and election sure. Without assurance, all the virtues and the working is unacceptable to God. Therefore, any idea that adding virtues and working will get you assurance is counter-productive to “be ye holy”.
And you can say (maybe you already did) that the assurance of the practical syllogism is a “by-product” and not a direct goal of your efforts, but I don’t think that will make any existential difference. The practical syllogism always directs our attention from Christ’s finished work to the supposed work of the Spirit in us. Why tell people that Christ paid for their sins when instead you can tell them about the grace in them which keeps them from sinning?
As for your above “Christ in us and we are in union with Him”, it remains to be seen that we mean the same thing when we use the words. Is Christ in people before they are in Christ or are people in Christ before Christ gives them His Spirit? You can always give another Barthian yes, but you cannot refuse the choice in your preaching and teaching.
LikeLike
John – We’re cool. One beer is probably enough to upset the pietist, though (ha,ha).
Sean’s story above is really important. Elders wake up on the wrong side of the bed sometimes just like everyone else. They need to be really careful about getting on those under their care in a way that can do damage to weak faith or weak consciences. This is a huge concern with Richard’s paradigm and why we keep saying to just point people to Christ’s work and righteousness and trust the Holy Spirit to do His work. Elders should primarily just encourage people to not neglect the means of grace (Word and Sacrament).
LikeLike
I’ve been helping an evangelical friend this week who was fired from a church he had worked at for a decade. The two charismatic pastors, backed by comparatively weak elders, sent out an e-mail to something like 600 members that made all sorts of statements about the conditions of this man’s heart. I was with him yesterday and he seemed just like the guy I have known for 20 years. A very, very sad and unnecessary situation.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, assurance is fostered neither by diving into the self nor from “positive thinking.” It is derived from placarding Christ before the sinner the way the serpent was raised up in the desert. It is telling that you find this scary.
RS: But again, the book of I John was breathed forth by the Holy Spirit to teach us if we have eternal life or not. It does not say what you say. It is scary because you are not saying what it is saying.
LikeLike
Richard – The early church came up with the Apostles Creed, not the Apostles Personal Spiritual Inventory, no?
By the way – Your sermon as you retold it sounded pretty good. I would have to know what you said in the rest of the time to fully evaluate it. Your emphases in the sermon did not seem to match your emphases here. What kind of church did you preach it in?
LikeLike
I sort books at the local public library and see all manner of religious stuff come in. 90% of it is crap. The stuff we are talking about here is rare and precious. Richard is even far superior to most of what I see come in.
LikeLike
mark mcculley (old post) Mark Mcculley: Do we believe to get into Christ or do we believe the gospel because we are elect in Christ and in Him become the Righteousness of God?
Old Post RS: Yes
mark: who’s being Barthian now?
RS: It is not me. The two things you give above are not opposites. Perhaps you mean something that is not clear to me by the first point. Of course we believe the Gospel because we are elect, but God gives the elect faith and so they receive Christ by faith.
McMark: I Cor 1:28 “God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being would boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of God you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
Old Post RS: Of course that is true. But if Christ is our sanctification, then how can you say that we are not to live holy lives if we have Christ in us and are in union with Him?
mark: it never takes you long to get to the “but” and the “however”. One, I have never ever said that sanctified people are not to live holy lives. I have never even said that un-sanctified people are not to live holy lives. So it’s not a sanctified thing to do for you to report me as saying as something I never said. At the least, you might say that you have inferred that I should be saying this, if I were not so dumb as to not see the logical inconsistency in my not saying it.
RS: The reason that I say things like that is because you seem to be constantly slamming that type of thing. When I assert that people should seek holiness, you say that I am teaching works and so on.
McMark: Two, I have said (along with Walter Marshall and many others) that we are to examine the fruit by the tree. If people are not sanctified, they can’t live holy. People don’t live holy to get holy. People don’t live “more holy” to become “more holy”. This is why II Peter warns people to make their calling and election sure. Without assurance, all the virtues and the working is unacceptable to God. Therefore, any idea that adding virtues and working will get you assurance is counter-productive to “be ye holy”.
RS: As to the last sentence, that is simply not correct. The Bible is free to use terms as it wants them to and it does not use the concordant method with words. Of course a person must be holy in the sense you are speaking of, but there is also the sense that people grow in their practice of holiness or grow in the life of Christ in them. We are commanded to be holy as He is holy, which is of course a command to be more holy.
I Peter 1: 14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, 15 but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; 16 because it is written, “YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.”
RS: The text above, and I don’t think that it can be denied, is speaking of a practical holiness. It tells us to be holy in all our behavior, so it is using the word “holy” in a different sense than you are using it. But we must let the Bible speak as it speaks rather than trying to force our theories (however true they may be in their own place) upon it.
McMark: And you can say (maybe you already did) that the assurance of the practical syllogism is a “by-product” and not a direct goal of your efforts, but I don’t think that will make any existential difference. The practical syllogism always directs our attention from Christ’s finished work to the supposed work of the Spirit in us. Why tell people that Christ paid for their sins when instead you can tell them about the grace in them which keeps them from sinning?
RS: But the Bible says that Christ died ” to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds” (Titus 2:14-15). Christ died in order to purchase the Holy Spirit for His people (Gal 3:13-15). The life and work of Christ has to do with the glory of God first and foremost and He did not just save them and send them on their way. part of what Christ purchased for His people was for them to be holy in practice. The holiness of the practice comes from the tree, yes, but if the fruit is not there then something is wrong with the tree.
McMark: As for your above “Christ in us and we are in union with Him”, it remains to be seen that we mean the same thing when we use the words. Is Christ in people before they are in Christ or are people in Christ before Christ gives them His Spirit? You can always give another Barthian yes, but you cannot refuse the choice in your preaching and teaching.
RS: Perhaps not, but the real issue is what Scripture teaches. According to Ephesians 1, I simply say that people are in union with Christ and that means Christ in them and they are also in Christ. You cannot have one without the other. In His sovereign grace God regenerates souls and unites them to Christ. Souls which are united to Christ are in Him and He in them.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard – The early church came up with the Apostles Creed, not the Apostles Personal Spiritual Inventory, no?
RS: True, but the application of the truth…
Eric Charter: By the way – Your sermon as you retold it sounded pretty good. I would have to know what you said in the rest of the time to fully evaluate it. Your emphases in the sermon did not seem to match your emphases here. What kind of church did you preach it in?
RS: But it does match what I teach, though with the constant “banter” it seems as if some think that is not the issue. I argue that Christ lived, died, and was resurrected for sinners (not forgetting the ascension and mediation) and that has purchased the Holy Spirit for them who gives the elect regeneration, union with Christ, justification, and a holy life. The holiness is part of what He has purchased. It is not earning merits or anything like that.
Erik Charter: I sort books at the local public library and see all manner of religious stuff come in. 90% of it is crap. The stuff we are talking about here is rare and precious. Richard is even far superior to most of what I see come in.
RS: Your kindness is leaving me almost speechless.
LikeLike
Richard – Nothing would leave you speechless (ha, ha!)
LikeLike
Richard, even the Holy Spirit doesn’t want us looking for evidence of him for assurance. He wants us to look to Christ for it. That’s the whole function of his office, to point us away from the third person and to the second. I’m tempted to feed you your own semi-revivalist medicine and wonder why you disagree with the Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, even the Holy Spirit doesn’t want us looking for evidence of him for assurance. He wants us to look to Christ for it. That’s the whole function of his office, to point us away from the third person and to the second. I’m tempted to feed you your own semi-revivalist medicine and wonder why you disagree with the Holy Spirit.
RS: I know that is a popular saying and all, and there is even a lot of truth to it. However, there are a few verses on these things. There is that verse on the fruit of the Spirit, so if we are looking for fruit we are looking for what the Holy Spirit has worked in us. Then just a couple more. So I don’t disagree with the Holy Spirit since He breathed forth the words below.
1 John 3:24 The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.
1 John 4:13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.
LikeLike
Richard – “I know that is a popular saying and all, and there is even a lot of truth to it”
Erik – It’s really not popular — but it’s Reformed, and biblical, which is why we are fighting you so hard on this. What you are touting is what’s popular. You have all of evangelicalism behind you.
Wikipedia – “Monergism describes the position in Christian theology of those who believe that God, through the Holy Spirit, works to bring about effectually the salvation of individuals through spiritual regeneration without cooperation from the individual.”
You seem to embrace Monergism for justification, but not for sanctification. You would share the latter with evangelicals but not the former.
LikeLike
rs has this theory he keeps imposing onto the Scripture about some holy people being more holy than other holy people. My sarcastic reply–but my words are always practical and also they agree every time with Scripture. And rs would know that if he read more carefully.
Hebrews 9:14–”How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”
The problem with using works “done after you are in the family” to get assurance is that works done without assurance are not pleasing to God. The light of the gospel exposes work done to obtain assurance as “dead works”. And “dead works” are sins.
John 3:19– “And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”
Certainly God commands us all to be moral. But morality can be done in the flesh. To doubt that you are justified or will be justified because of what you have done or not done is to take the focus away from Christ’s work for elect sinners. To say that the “in us” means as much as the “in Christ” is to make assurance of being in Christ depend on what we think is in us.
But at least now we have some antithesis.
mcmark: any idea that adding virtues and working will get you assurance is counter-productive to “be ye holy”.
RS: As to the last sentence, that is simply not correct.
LikeLike
As long as you give credit to God for your works, many Calvinists have no problem basing assurance in part on their works. If you are too “introspective” of course, they will tell you to look to Christ. But if you look to Christ too much, still they are not satisfied, and so they advise you to look more carefully inside yourself.
Hafemann (p188): “Still others consider obedience to God’s law to be the necessary evidence of faith. For them, if one believes, then obedience becomes the mandatory sign of something else, namely faith, which is the human response to God’s grace that actually saves us. Faith must lead to obedience as a sign that it is real.”
While that it is an accurate description of most Calvinists’ theory about assurance, it is not biblical assurance. We do not work to get assurance. We must have assurance before our works are acceptable to God.
Legalists think you can have an “inadequate understanding of the atonement” and still have assurance of justification. They are not “doctrinal legalists”, but when it comes to proving to yourself that you are justified, they agree with Arminians that morality is the best test.
Despite being sinners who continue to sin as a pattern of life, legalists find assurance from the “tenor of their life”. Sinners sinning, and yet they somehow know that they are different from other folks who profess to believe the gospel.
If the standard for judging is not by profession of the gospel, we need to move on to other standards. How enthusiastic are you? How much money did you give the poor this week? Do you remember to be happy?
Don’t you know it takes more effort to frown than it does to smile?
But frowning is how I do my daily workout.
.The workers who came before the the judgment in Matthew 7 were pretty confident about the tenor of their lives. They were not insincere hypocrites. They probably believed in election also (or at least the unconditional right of Israel to the land!). But instead of pleading a Savour with a complete righteousness, they made pleas based on their lives.
They didn‘t say they had “faith alone”. They were not into “easy believism”. They avoided the law/gospel antithesis. They confessed themselves servants of the Lord.
Yet they discovered themselves lost. Was it because they lacked “good hearts” or was it because they trusted in the false gospel? They perished because they were born with bad hearts. Since they had never came to believe the gospel which pleads Christ’s righteousness, we know that those who perished died with the same bad hearts with which they were born.
LikeLike
Richard, don’t look now, but John seems to think the keeping of commandments indicates a true inward reality. Why are you disagreeing with the Bible?
LikeLike
Richard, why would you want to help the devil? You say, the devil fights “against the people of God and by casting doubt in all sorts of ways. It is not casting aspersion at preaching to say that people must be taught the ways of the heart in order to see through the wiles of the devil and find true assurance.” But you’re also sowing the seeds of doubt.
It sounds like it’s a form of deprogramming. We break them down, then we brainwash them.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, why would you want to help the devil? You say, the devil fights “against the people of God and by casting doubt in all sorts of ways. It is not casting aspersion at preaching to say that people must be taught the ways of the heart in order to see through the wiles of the devil and find true assurance.” But you’re also sowing the seeds of doubt.
It sounds like it’s a form of deprogramming. We break them down, then we brainwash them.
RS: 1) The devil works to deceive unbelievers into thinking they are believers and an assurance of that. 2) The devil also works to deceive believers into doubting and building on false foundations.
Such a serious problem requires some direct attention.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, don’t look now, but John seems to think the keeping of commandments indicates a true inward reality. Why are you disagreeing with the Bible?
RS: It could be that John is assuming what Jesus taught in Matthew 5 and what Paul taught in I Cor 13 which is also taught in I John.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard – “I know that is a popular saying and all, and there is even a lot of truth to it”
Erik – It’s really not popular — but it’s Reformed, and biblical, which is why we are fighting you so hard on this. What you are touting is what’s popular. You have all of evangelicalism behind you.
RS: But you are not fighting with the old Reformed or biblical position. I don’t have any evangelicalism behind me. If you think that, then you are not understanding what is being said.
Erik: Wikipedia – “Monergism describes the position in Christian theology of those who believe that God, through the Holy Spirit, works to bring about effectually the salvation of individuals through spiritual regeneration without cooperation from the individual.”
You seem to embrace Monergism for justification, but not for sanctification. You would share the latter with evangelicals but not the former.
RS: I am not sure how you can continue to assert that when I have repeatedly said that our works are the works of the Christ and the Spirit and sanctification is by grace as well.
LikeLike
Richard – Re. what Jesus taught in Matthew 5: How are you doing obeying all of that? And what Paul teaches in 1 Cor. 13? Are you doing pretty good? Do you grade yourself? If you give you my address will you mail me your coat? Winter’s coming and I need a new one. Send me your extra coat, too.
LikeLike
Here’s another way to approach this – Have you served on a Consistory? Did you ever practice church discipline? What did you practice it for? What did you not practice it for? Of the things that you turned up in your interviews that you did not like the answers on, what steps did you take?
LikeLike
mark mcculley: rs has this theory he keeps imposing onto the Scripture about some holy people being more holy than other holy people. My sarcastic reply–but my words are always practical and also they agree every time with Scripture. And rs would know that if he read more carefully.
RS: No, the Scripture is imposing its views on me. Of course Christ has made all of His people holy and blameless. But in terms of the practice of holiness, in His grace God has worked more holiness in some than others.
McMark: Hebrews 9:14–”How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”
The problem with using works “done after you are in the family” to get assurance is that works done without assurance are not pleasing to God. The light of the gospel exposes work done to obtain assurance as “dead works”. And “dead works” are sins.
RS: No, works done without faith are not pleasing to God (see Hebrews 11:6). A person can have faith as a mustard seed and still have faith. The point, however, is that a person with faith as a mustard seed has Christ. But your point just above would seem to defeat your point above that (one person being more holy than another). A new believer with a small amount of faith might not have as many works or as much trust in Christ. Is that person (in a practical way of life) as holy as an elder who has lived for years in Christ?
John 3:19– “And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”
Certainly God commands us all to be moral. But morality can be done in the flesh. To doubt that you are justified or will be justified because of what you have done or not done is to take the focus away from Christ’s work for elect sinners. To say that the “in us” means as much as the “in Christ” is to make assurance of being in Christ depend on what we think is in us.
RS: But you have to virtually do away with I John and James (not to mention places in Paul) to say that works have nothing to do with assurance. Once again, though I don’t have much faith that you will hear this time either, our good works have been planned by God and we are His craftsmanship when He has done and then He planned those good works for us to do. Christ died in order that we would be zealous for good works. It is not as if a truly good work can come from our flesh and for motives that are anything less than love for Him and His glory. The works of a believer are in reality the manifestation of God through the believer. What Christ has done for justification should not be totally removed in what Christ has done in purchasing the Spirit and all spiritual blessings for His people. A sinner that is truly justified has all spiritual blessings in Christ and that will be worked out in the timing of God.
McMark: But at least now we have some antithesis.
RS: Not really. There is no contradiction between the Gospel of grace alone and that same grace working love for God and good works for His glory. There is no contradiction between God saving sinners to the glory of His grace and God’s grace working in sinners to live for His glory. There is no contradiction between God making people holy in Christ and those people then having Christ in them and that life being lived in the pursuit and love of holiness.
LikeLike
mark mcculley: As long as you give credit to God for your works, many Calvinists have no problem basing assurance in part on their works. If you are too “introspective” of course, they will tell you to look to Christ. But if you look to Christ too much, still they are not satisfied, and so they advise you to look more carefully inside yourself.
RS: But of course if Christ dwells in the person, one can look in themselves for Christ.
McMark: Hafemann (p188): “Still others consider obedience to God’s law to be the necessary evidence of faith. For them, if one believes, then obedience becomes the mandatory sign of something else, namely faith, which is the human response to God’s grace that actually saves us. Faith must lead to obedience as a sign that it is real.”
While that it is an accurate description of most Calvinists’ theory about assurance, it is not biblical assurance. We do not work to get assurance. We must have assurance before our works are acceptable to God.
RS: No, we must have faith before our works are acceptable to God (Heb 11:6). I am assuming that a mustard seed of faith is necessary as opposed to a perfect faith.
McMark: Legalists think you can have an “inadequate understanding of the atonement” and still have assurance of justification. They are not “doctrinal legalists”, but when it comes to proving to yourself that you are justified, they agree with Arminians that morality is the best test.
Despite being sinners who continue to sin as a pattern of life, legalists find assurance from the “tenor of their life”. Sinners sinning, and yet they somehow know that they are different from other folks who profess to believe the gospel.
RS: True enough legalists can find assurance from their tenor of life. But so can antinomians and heretics of all kinds.
McMark: If the standard for judging is not by profession of the gospel, we need to move on to other standards. How enthusiastic are you? How much money did you give the poor this week? Do you remember to be happy?
RS: Abraham believed and it was reckoned to him as righteous (Gen 15). Yet in Genesis 22 it says that he was justified by works when he offered up Isaac. Did Abraham really believe what God said in Genesis 15? Genesis 22 says that he did. The devil believes there is a God and the devil believes that the Gospel is true. Many people believe that the Gospel is true in terms of its facts, but that does not mean that they are converted at all. The grace that saves a soul is the grace that changes the soul and gives it a love for holiness.
McMark: Don’t you know it takes more effort to frown than it does to smile? But frowning is how I do my daily workout.
RS: I can only say that I frown on your use of this as an illustration.
McMark: The workers who came before the the judgment in Matthew 7 were pretty confident about the tenor of their lives. They were not insincere hypocrites. They probably believed in election also (or at least the unconditional right of Israel to the land!). But instead of pleading a Savour with a complete righteousness, they made pleas based on their lives. They didn‘t say they had “faith alone”. They were not into “easy believism”. They avoided the law/gospel antithesis. They confessed themselves servants of the Lord.
Yet they discovered themselves lost. Was it because they lacked “good hearts” or was it because they trusted in the false gospel? They perished because they were born with bad hearts. Since they had never came to believe the gospel which pleads Christ’s righteousness, we know that those who perished died with the same bad hearts with which they were born.
RS: Yet Christ told them this:
23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’
24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock.
25 “And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock.
26 “Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.
27 “The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell– and great was its fall.”
RS: He told them to depart from Him because they practiced lawlessness. He then kept on pushing the point by comparing those who hears He words and acts on them to those who hear His words and do not act on them. Is that contrary to justification by grace alone through faith alone? No, not at all. However, He did not tell them to depart from Him because they had a false understanding of this or that, but because they practiced lawlessness. Perhaps, then, we should pay attention to people who do practice lawlessness whether in their external lives or in their hearts.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard – Re. what Jesus taught in Matthew 5: How are you doing obeying all of that?
RS: But again, that chapter points to the need of a new heart and of grace in the heart. Jesus gave us the proper interpretation of those commands and of the spiritual nature of them. This should drive us to the cross and His imputed righteousness and then to grace for strength to grow in keeping those commands.
Erik C: And what Paul teaches in 1 Cor. 13? Are you doing pretty good? Do you grade yourself?
RS: It is not a grade, but it is II Cor 13:5. In seaching the heart one is looking to see if Christ is there.
Eric: If you give you my address will you mail me your coat? Winter’s coming and I need a new one. Send me your extra coat, too.
RS: I will mail you my coat if you really, really need it. I would even bring it to you. But for some reason I doubt you really need it. I know, you will think I am judging your heart.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Here’s another way to approach this – Have you served on a Consistory?
RS: No, by duties consisted of being a pastor/elder.
Erik C: Did you ever practice church discipline?
RS: Yes
Erik C: What did you practice it for?
RS: If you are speaking of excommunication, then it was scandalous behavior of continued and unrepentant things which are the things outlined in Scripture.
Erik C: What did you not practice it for?
RS: Of things that were not outlined in Scripture.
Erik C: Of the things that you turned up in your interviews that you did not like the answers on, what steps did you take?
RS: Non-membership. For example, one lady said she had been a Christian for years. But upon a few and gentle questions, it became obvious that she did not know the Gospel. She professed faith and professed that she knew Christ, but when asked a few and simple questions she was clueless as to the Gospel of grace alone. You (and others) seem to think of these things as someone under a spotlight being grilled, but that is not how it is. People are to be questioned gently and carefully with each situation being different.
I would challenge you (don’t take that wrong) to simply start up conversations with people in your church (or another) and ask them non-leading questions about the Gospel. If they say A, then ask them what they mean. Ask them the difference between knowing about A and how that is in their heart and life. See what happens. Once you get below the surface, you might understand why I think it is important to ask questions. Remember, Jesus did that a lot.
LikeLike
Those are clear answers. Thanks. I am in a class all day today so I don’t have time to respond now. I suspect others will. I don’t need your coat.
LikeLike
Pastor/elder would be part of a consistory (or session) as Presbyterians call them.
LikeLike
mcmark: rs won’t even agree that we disagree–he says i am incorrect but then he says it’s incorrect to think that we disagree. But if rs would pay attention to what I say, then at least he would agree on what we disagree about.
rs: our good works have been planned by God and we are His craftsmanship when He has done and then He planned those good works for us to do. Christ died in order that we would be zealous for
good works.
mark: But of course I have never disagreed with this, but rs keeps arguing as if I did. Here’s my one sentence summary of my comments on I Peter and John 3 and I john. “Any idea that adding virtues and working will get you assurance is counter-productive to ‘be ye holy’.”
I agree that there are good works and rs agrees that there are “dead works”. But I claim works motivated by a quest for assurance are dead works, and here rs disagrees and insists that assurance is one of the reasons we work. I say that working for assurance comes from the
flesh, not from faith in the true gospel.
rs: It is not as if a truly good work can come from our flesh and for motives that are anything less than love for Him and His glory.
mark: Is working to see if you believe motivated by a love for God’s glory? I am not assuming that a discussion about the nature of faith and assurance is simple. As others have noticed, there is some
difference between the Westminster Confession and the Heidelberg. Historically a lot of Calvinists don’t like what Calvin wrote about assurance. Some of these folks do these elaborate readings–if I hear Calvin, he’s saying….and what they hear Calvin saying sounds a lot more like what they think than what Calvin wrote. But my point is that I don’t think my conclusion (or that of Walter Marshall) is “obvious”. But I would like to discuss it, even disagree about it, instead of rs continuing to ignore what I wrote for the sake of things I didn’t.
mcmark: “Any idea that adding virtues and working will get you assurance is counter-productive to ‘be ye holy’.”
RS: As to the last sentence, that is simply not correct.
mcmark: But at least now we have some antithesis.
RS: Not really. There is no contradiction between the Gospel of grace alone and that same grace working love for God and good works for His glory. There is no contradiction between God saving sinners to the glory of His grace and God’s grace working in sinners to live for His glory.
mcmark: But nobody here ever said there was a contradiction between grace and grace causing works. What I said was that assurance cannot be found in works, since works must be motivated by assurance. If you don’t agree with that, then talk about that, and stop talking about stuff you need to say to somebody else (or that you already said to the last person).
You can’t just look to Christ outside of you? You can’t just do that alone? You can’t do too much of it? Some people need to look more to Christ outside of them, and some people need to look more inside themselves? And some people get it just right? Or is it that nobody ever gets the balance right, so whatever you are doing now is probably wrong? Or is it that some people can look both places at once? Not just over there back then, but here and now, can’t you see the Holy Spirit in me?
Matthew 5: 14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 In
the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.
mcmark: One, good works are not the light. Two, the light is in order that people can see your good works. Three, the light is the gospel of Christ’s finished work. Four, the light of that gospel shows that we are NOT justified or sanctified by our good works. Five, the light of the gospel shows people that we do NOT believe in our good works and that we do NOT find assurance in our good works.
btw, Richard Gamble’s new book “city on a hill” just came out!
mcmark: any idea that adding virtues and working will get you assurance is counter-productive to “be ye holy”.
RS: As to the last sentence, that is simply not correct.
LikeLike
It seems like the lady who didn’t have the right answers was more of a candidate for instruction vs. exclusion. After an extended time of instruction if she did still not embrace the gospel exclusion might be appropriate. I would still invite her to continue to attend services, however, as long as she was not disrupting the faith of others.
In the URC (as opposed to the OPC) we require members to agree with our confessions (they don’t have to subscribe to them like office-bearers do, but they do have to agree with them). Part of this would be understanding and affirming the gospel. I assume the OPC would have some type of membership class or interview as well, even if they don’t require agreement with all that is in the confessions. Not sure what the PCA & other Reformed & Presbyterian churches require.
LikeLike
It appears that your assessment of the lady was based on her words — her profession of faith or lack thereof. Yet you say you are discerning her heart. I don’t know how you do that apart from listening to her words and observing her actions. It reminds me of Larry David in “Curb Your Enthusiasm” trying to tell if someone is lying or not based on staring into their eyes really hard.
LikeLike
mark: But of course I have never disagreed with this, but rs keeps arguing as if I did. Here’s my one sentence summary of my comments on I Peter and John 3 and I john. “Any idea that adding virtues and working will get you assurance is counter-productive to ‘be ye holy’.”
I agree that there are good works and rs agrees that there are “dead works”. But I claim works motivated by a quest for assurance are dead works, and here rs disagrees and insists that assurance is one of the reasons we work. I say that working for assurance comes from the
flesh, not from faith in the true gospel.
RS: But Mark, the way you worded your question (1st paragraph above)) is not the same thing that you are arguing for in the second paragraph. Here are your statements lined up :
Statement 1: “Any idea that adding virtues and working will get you assurance is counter-productive to ‘be ye holy’.”
Statement 2: But I claim works motivated by a quest for assurance are dead works, and here rs disagrees and insists that assurance is one of the reasons we work. I say that working for assurance comes from the flesh, not from faith in the true gospel.
RS: I don’t think of the two statements above as being necessarily the same claim. I would certainly agree with statement 2 in that a person working simply for the sake of obtaining assurance would be using dead works at that point to do so. I do agree that working for assurance (if that is the motive) would be from the flesh. My position is that we are told to do certain things in Peter and that assurance is one of the results. I thought you were arguing against that position.
LikeLike
Old Post mcmark: “Any idea that adding virtues and working will get you assurance is counter-productive to ‘be ye holy’.”
Old Post RS: As to the last sentence, that is simply not correct.
Old Post mcmark: But at least now we have some antithesis.
Old Post RS: Not really. There is no contradiction between the Gospel of grace alone and that same grace working love for God and good works for His glory. There is no contradiction between God saving sinners to the glory of His grace and God’s grace working in sinners to live for His glory.
mcmark: But nobody here ever said there was a contradiction between grace and grace causing works. What I said was that assurance cannot be found in works, since works must be motivated by assurance. If you don’t agree with that, then talk about that, and stop talking about stuff you need to say to somebody else (or that you already said to the last person).
RS: So in the previous post I agreed that works motivated by a desire to have assurance would be works of the flesh. But that is not the same thing as saying assurance cannot be found in works. By the way, you sure can be mighty bossy. If person A finds that he is working and is truly motivated by love for Christ, that is evidence that can lead to assurance. II Peter 1:4-10 sure seems to teach that much. No, a person should not look to their works for assurance in any way if they don’t believe the true Gospel, but when a person does things out of a true love for God that is evidence.
Mark: You can’t just look to Christ outside of you? You can’t just do that alone?
RS: Where is Christ outside of me? If a person wants to know if s/he is converted, then the evidence of that is Christ in them the hope of glory (Col 1:27) and of eternal life in them (I John 5:13). Sure enough Christ is infinite in His divine nature, but that is true for all people. The New Covenant people of Christ are His temple. So we are to look and see if Christ is in us to see if I am part of His temple. The kingdom of Christ is His reign and rule in the hearts of people, so I am to look in my heart in terms of beliefs and of practice to see if Christ is indeed ruling over me in that way.
McMark: You can’t do too much of it? Some people need to look more to Christ outside of them, and some people need to look more inside themselves? And some people get it just right? Or is it that nobody ever gets the balance right, so whatever you are doing now is probably wrong? Or is it that some people can look both places at once? Not just over there back then, but here and now, can’t you see the Holy Spirit in me?
RS: It is not like we can look inside of us to see the Holy Spirit as in looking with our physical eyes, but we are looking for the evidence of the Spirit like the fruits of the Spirit. One can believe as facts all the truths of the Bible but unless God has regenerated them and in fact they have Christ all those beliefs will not convert them any more than working for salvation will convert them. It is not that we believe something and so God is grateful and so saves us, but God saves us and so we have real faith from the heart because we have new hearts. Those who are talented at philosophy can arrive at a Christian philosophy and have many truths fortified with all kinds of arguments, but those are works of the mind apart from love for Christ. A belief that something is true never saved a person, but only those with true faith have been saved by God. Remember, the devil believes all of these great truths are true.
Matthew 5: 14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.
mcmark: One, good works are not the light. Two, the light is in order that people can see your good works. Three, the light is the gospel of Christ’s finished work. Four, the light of that gospel shows that we are NOT justified or sanctified by our good works. Five, the light of the gospel shows people that we do NOT believe in our good works and that we do NOT find assurance in our good works.
RS: If you are using it in that way, that is, that people who work are motivated to get assurance by those works, then certainly that is correct. But the context of the passage in Matthew 5 may not support all you say. Indeed Jesus is the light.
McMark: btw, Richard Gamble’s new book “city on a hill” just came out!
RS: I don’t gamble either.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: It seems like the lady who didn’t have the right answers was more of a candidate for instruction vs. exclusion. After an extended time of instruction if she did still not embrace the gospel exclusion might be appropriate. I would still invite her to continue to attend services, however, as long as she was not disrupting the faith of others.
RS: Of course she still needed to come and hear the Gospel. But she did not even understand the Gospel and so should not have been allowed to join the church.
Erik C: In the URC (as opposed to the OPC) we require members to agree with our confessions (they don’t have to subscribe to them like office-bearers do, but they do have to agree with them). Part of this would be understanding and affirming the gospel. I assume the OPC would have some type of membership class or interview as well, even if they don’t require agreement with all that is in the confessions. Not sure what the PCA & other Reformed & Presbyterian churches require.
RS: Well, in order to prevent a long and heated discussion, I will not respond with a lot of words to this point. 1. How does one know that they agree to the confessions? 2. How does one know that they really understand the Gospel without questions?
LikeLike
Erik Charter: It appears that your assessment of the lady was based on her words — her profession of faith or lack thereof. Yet you say you are discerning her heart. I don’t know how you do that apart from listening to her words and observing her actions. It reminds me of Larry David in “Curb Your Enthusiasm” trying to tell if someone is lying or not based on staring into their eyes really hard.
RS: Did Larry David have the Holy Spirit? Did the others have the Holy Spirit? Are there eternal things that can be discerned from people? Does a believer and an unbeliever differ in the way they talk about spiritual things and the things they say? Can one believer “see” something of the glory of God in the fact of Christ in others who truly have Him? Is it possible to tell something about a person by speaking to them about the things they love and what the deepest parts of their hearts go toward? In this particular lady, she did not understand the basics of the Gospel. There was no need to go beyond that.
LikeLike
Richard, it is true that John, Jesus, and Paul were all in harmony. But how any of that adds up to your basic posture of doubting more than exercising a judgment of charity in response to an orthodox faith and life remains unclear. More true statements getting put into a blender and pouring out odd concoctions.
Like Geoff has pointed out, the point here isn’t to give cover to complacency. It’s to build up the saints and push back on the world, the flesh, and the devil, all of whom never stop working against them to tell them they are anything but saints. I understand that semi-revivalists don’t like giving hypocrisy false hope, and it can be admirable. But when it comes at the collateral expense of tearing down God’s own, it starts to look like all those aforementioned enemies.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: It appears that your assessment of the lady was based on her words — her profession of faith or lack thereof. Yet you say you are discerning her heart. I don’t know how you do that apart from listening to her words and observing her actions. It reminds me of Larry David in “Curb Your Enthusiasm” trying to tell if someone is lying or not based on staring into their eyes really hard.
RS: Is there a difference between a person saying the Lord’s Prayer from memory or perhaps another prayer and just uttering the words of a “prayer” and one that is seeking God from the heart? Can you tell the difference?
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, it is true that John, Jesus, and Paul were all in harmony. But how any of that adds up to your basic posture of doubting more than exercising a judgment of charity in response to an orthodox faith and life remains unclear. More true statements getting put into a blender and pouring out odd concoctions.
RS: This “judgment of charity” thing is not biblical when applied to salvation. In this case, true love must take over. Yes, it bothers people and upsets them, but I have also had people thank me for the help they have received in “peeling back” the things of their hearts that were hidden to them.
Zrim: Like Geoff has pointed out, the point here isn’t to give cover to complacency. It’s to build up the saints and push back on the world, the flesh, and the devil, all of whom never stop working against them to tell them they are anything but saints. I understand that semi-revivalists don’t like giving hypocrisy false hope, and it can be admirable. But when it comes at the collateral expense of tearing down God’s own, it starts to look like all those aforementioned enemies.
RS: The collateral expense is perhaps greater than you either realize or are willing to admit. Do you realize the teachings of Jesus on how few are saved? Do you realize how easy it is for the evil one to deceive people? Of course people have to be built up IN THE FAITH, but they have to be truly in the faith to be built up. If they are not really in the faith, we could be building them of and giving them assurance while they are not in the faith. But part of the issue is also giving people a sound foundation for true assurance. People struggle with doubt a lot because they don’t have a good understanding of biblical assurance. So I see your position as having almost no upside to it in terms of unbelievers or believers. Another downside is bringing wolves into the same fold as the sheep.
Ephesians 5:1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children;
2 and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.
3 But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints;
4 and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.
5 For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.
7 Therefore do not be partakers with them;
8 for you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light
9 (for the fruit of the Light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth),
10 trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord.
11 Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them;
12 for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret.
13 But all things become visible when they are exposed by the light, for everything that becomes visible is light.
LikeLike
RS: But in terms of the practice of holiness, in His grace God has worked more holiness in some than others.
Well, yeah. So on a scale of 1 – 100, some people are at 0.005 and some people are at 0.010.
Fantastic.
LikeLike
RS: Certainly God commands us all to be moral. But morality can be done in the flesh.
Yes, precisely. So we consider now Alice and Bob.
Alice is “moral”, by faith.
Bob is “moral”, by the flesh
(oversimplifying — no-one walks perfectly by faith).
So do the works provide assurance to Alice or Bob? No, because they are the same for both. If you can have salvation OR not have salvation with works, then works are not helpful as evidence.
Instead, what is evidentiary to Alice is the fact of her faith. Why? Because she looks to Christ.
So consider carefully how the Confession speaks about assurance:
“…yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love Him in sincerity, endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before Him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed.
2. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God, which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption”
Notice that works are a necessary but not sufficient condition for assurance. Without works, no assurance. With works, assurance is grounded on the promises and the inward evidence of those graces to which these promises are made.
“Those graces” does not refer (I don’t think) to “what God has done in us” but “what God promises to us.”
—
Now, Charlie is on the session when Alice and Bob walk through the door for membership. He asks them to give testimony to their faith in Christ.
Of course, he will make every reasonable effort to determine sincerity. Having done so, what can he do further? Unless he can claim some kind of revelation from God, I can’t see what he might do further. He is not in Alice or Bob’s reference frame, to be able to speak to the condition of their hearts. So he judges based on their words and deeds.
LikeLike
RS: The collateral expense is perhaps greater than you either realize or are willing to admit. Do you realize the teachings of Jesus on how few are saved?
Yes. Do you realize the strong certainty of election?
See, if election were uncertain, then our role would be to struggle mightily to drill down to certainty.
But since election is certain, our role is to faithfully discharge our God-given responsibilities and let Him work as He will.
What are those God-given responsibilities? To preach the Gospel in season and out; to teach sound doctrine; etc.
NOT to “help people peel back layers.”
It might be the part of love to do that at times (that is, a matter of wisdom), but it is not something God has charged us to do as a necessary component of fencing the visible church.
RS: Another downside is bringing wolves into the same fold as the sheep.
Now this is a good point. And it goes to this: we should not be quick to ordain. Having observed failures in this matter before, I would suggest that most ordination failures happen because of failure to maintain doctrinal standards, NOT heart issues.
LikeLike
Erik, or Dubya looking into Putin’s eyes and getting a sense of his soul.
LikeLike
Or put another way, if we believe that doctrine has real impact on life, then we can often ID heart issues by watching how doctrinal issues get fudged or kludged.
Hm. Wonder what heart issue is under discussion here? Dunno. Just asking out loud.
LikeLike
Richard, yes, I understand how easy it is for our enemies to deceive us. But greater is he who is us than he who is the world. Speaking of 1 John, does this really sound like a man who thinks a judgment of charity is unbiblical:
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
Boy, sure sounds like he exercises an immense judgment of charity of his hearers.
On the difference between praying the Lord’s Prayer from memory and an extemporaneous prayer: the Lord commanded his word to be hidden in the heart (what some call memorized) and his form be prayed. Nothing against extemporaneous prayer, but why would someone want to favor their form over Jesus’?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle” RS: But in terms of the practice of holiness, in His grace God has worked more holiness in some than others.
Jeff Cagle: Well, yeah. So on a scale of 1 – 100, some people are at 0.005 and some people are at 0.010.
Fantastic.
RS: The grace that saves is the same grace that works more holiness in one than another and has prepared some to do more works than another. There is no merit involved and it is God who makes one to differ from another. Since true holiness comes from God and is by grace alone, there is no room to boast and there is no reason to be sarcastic in what God does in His people.
I Cor 4:5 Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men’s hearts; and then each man’s praise will come to him from God.
6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.
7 For who regards you as superior? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?
Mat 5:3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
5 “Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.
6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
10 “Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.
12 “Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: “Certainly God commands us all to be moral. But morality can be done in the flesh.”
Jeff C: Yes, precisely. So we consider now Alice and Bob. Alice is “moral”, by faith. Bob is “moral”, by the flesh (oversimplifying — no-one walks perfectly by faith). So do the works provide assurance to Alice or Bob? No, because they are the same for both. If you can have salvation OR not have salvation with works, then works are not helpful as evidence.
RS: There is another option which is why James says faith without works is dead. It is that if there is no works, then there is no faith. The absence of works is a glaring piece of evidence.
Jeff C: Instead, what is evidentiary to Alice is the fact of her faith. Why? Because she looks to Christ.
RS: What does it mean to look to Christ? Couldn’t both Alice and Bob claim to look to Christ?
Jeff C: So consider carefully how the Confession speaks about assurance:
“…yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love Him in sincerity, endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before Him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed.
2. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God, which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption”
Back to Jeff C: Notice that works are a necessary but not sufficient condition for assurance. Without works, no assurance. With works, assurance is grounded on the promises and the inward evidence of those graces to which these promises are made.
RS: Did you say inward evidence? Where does one look for inward evidence?
Jeff C: “Those graces” does not refer (I don’t think) to “what God has done in us” but “what God promises to us.”
RS: Does God promise to give His elect a new heart? Does God promise to put His laws in the minds of His elect and write those laws on their hearts? Does God promise to give His people the Holy Spirit? Does God promise to give HIs people eternal life? Those are all graces too.
—
Jeff C: Now, Charlie is on the session when Alice and Bob walk through the door for membership. He asks them to give testimony to their faith in Christ. Of course, he will make every reasonable effort to determine sincerity. Having done so, what can he do further? Unless he can claim some kind of revelation from God, I can’t see what he might do further. He is not in Alice or Bob’s reference frame, to be able to speak to the condition of their hearts. So he judges based on their words and deeds.
RS:
1. Ask some questions based on the spiritual nature of the Law.
Romans 7:14 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.
2. Speak to them seeking if the words they use are words taught by human wisdom or words taught to them by the Spirit. Spiritual men are to be able to give a spiritual appraisal.
1 Corinthians 2:13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. 14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.
3. Try to determine if they are spiritual people or fleshly people.
1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ.
4. Try to discern if they have the spiritual blessings of Christ.
Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,
5. Try to discern if they have been filled with the knowledge of His will in spiritual wisdom and understanding, or if they are limited to fleshly wisdom.
Colossians 1:9 For this reason also, since the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding,
6. Etc.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: The collateral expense is perhaps greater than you either realize or are willing to admit. Do you realize the teachings of Jesus on how few are saved?
Jeff Cagle: Yes. Do you realize the strong certainty of election? See, if election were uncertain, then our role would be to struggle mightily to drill down to certainty. But since election is certain, our role is to faithfully discharge our God-given responsibilities and let Him work as He will.
What are those God-given responsibilities? To preach the Gospel in season and out; to teach sound doctrine; etc. NOT to “help people peel back layers.”
RS: Are spiritual men supposed to help people who struggle spiritually? Remember, the people are in a spiritual battle and their real fight is not with flesh and blood. The doctrine of election tells us that God will certainly save His elect, but so far He has not shown us who those elect are before He saves them. I don’t know if God has ordained that I die of starvation or not, so I go ahead and eat rather than wait to see what He has ordained. The problem with your stated position is two-fold. One, we are to help those who are deceived by sin, the devil, and their own hearts. That is part of what a pastor is supposed to do. Two, even if the person is not elect, that is no excuse for them to remain in their sin. They must be warned about the deceptiveness of their hearts as well.
Jeff C: It might be the part of love to do that at times (that is, a matter of wisdom), but it is not something God has charged us to do as a necessary component of fencing the visible church.
RS: As long as men are to be spiritual and to appraise things in a spiritual manner, then I think that they are to do things like I have been talking about and also giving many verses. If we are not to help people spiritually, then what are we to do?
Old RS: Another downside is bringing wolves into the same fold as the sheep.
Jeff C: Now this is a good point. And it goes to this: we should not be quick to ordain. Having observed failures in this matter before, I would suggest that most ordination failures happen because of failure to maintain doctrinal standards, NOT heart issues.
RS: Which, I would think, is clearly false. The problem with doctrinal problems is usually a heart problem. It is not that people are not smart enough, it is that they are too sinful. A person that goes off into doctrinal error is one that has been deceived and is going after certain loves of his heart.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: Or put another way, if we believe that doctrine has real impact on life, then we can often ID heart issues by watching how doctrinal issues get fudged or kludged.
Hm. Wonder what heart issue is under discussion here? Dunno. Just asking out loud.
RS: But what if people could examine their hearts and learn to discern something about the deception of them before they went off into a doctrinal area? You do know the evil one works on the passions of the souls and drives men and women into doctrinal error in that way? Our doctrines are not just issues of the brain.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: Or put another way, if we believe that doctrine has real impact on life, then we can often ID heart issues by watching how doctrinal issues get fudged or kludged.
Hm. Wonder what heart issue is under discussion here? Dunno. Just asking out loud.
RS: Meditate deeply on the words of Ephesians 4 below. It has a lot to say about your questions above.
Eph 4: 7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift.
8 Therefore it says, “WHEN HE ASCENDED ON HIGH, HE LED CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES, AND HE GAVE GIFTS TO MEN.”
9 (Now this expression, “He ascended,” what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.)
11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,
12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;
13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.
14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;
15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ,
16 from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.
17 So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind,
18 being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart;
19 and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness.
20 But you did not learn Christ in this way
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, yes, I understand how easy it is for our enemies to deceive us. But greater is he who is us than he who is the world. Speaking of 1 John, does this really sound like a man who thinks a judgment of charity is unbiblical:
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
Boy, sure sounds like he exercises an immense judgment of charity of his hearers.
RS: But read the rest of I John. There is more to the story.
Zrim: On the difference between praying the Lord’s Prayer from memory and an extemporaneous prayer: the Lord commanded his word to be hidden in the heart (what some call memorized) and his form be prayed. Nothing against extemporaneous prayer, but why would someone want to favor their form over Jesus’?
RS: But Jesus gave a form of prayer and not the exact prayer that is to be prayed. He demonstrated the form (skeleton or outline of Matthew 5 ) in John 17. In other words, instead of just repeating the words the Lord’s Prayer is an outline of what grace does in our hearts to enable us to pray. Our love is to for the honor and glory of God, so we pray for His name to be hallowed first. Why do people think preachers should preach rather than read the Bible? People are to go to God in prayer not because He needs to be changed, but because they need to be changed.
LikeLike
429 comments in and Richard is still doing; :”yea, but……..” If that isn’t some reformed baptists for ya……………………. Seeking a more perfect biblicism.
LikeLike
You got it Sean, Richard is a trip. He likes the attention.
LikeLike
John Yeazel: You got it Sean, Richard is a trip. He likes the attention.
RS: Indeed, all this attention is just wonderful. It is just so enjoyable being misunderstood, accused of various things, and that along with the fruit of name-calling. Dare I add the judgments of my motives. You know, like I do this just to get attention? It could be that I just like the truth but the truth along with spirit. It is kind of like true worship, you know. It is in spirit and in truth. Just having the words of the truth is not true worship.
LikeLike
sean: 429 comments in and Richard is still doing; :”yea, but……..” If that isn’t some reformed baptists for ya……………………. Seeking a more perfect biblicism.
RS: Spoken like a true Presbyterian…………… Being satisfied with less than biblicism. By the way, Zrim says that you cannot be Reformed and Baptist. You can be a Calvinist and Baptist, but not Reformed.
LikeLike
You keep posting Richard, no one has a gun to your head!!
LikeLike
Yet, that is
LikeLike
Just kidding of course. Please don’t take that seriously
LikeLike
Richard, It’s not my fault you’re true to type. Zrim’s right, but then he does has his feet up on my ottoman and drinks my beer. Ecclesiology matters.
LikeLike
John Yeazel: Just kidding of course. Please don’t take that seriously
RS: Don’t take the statement that you are kidding seriously?
LikeLike
sean: Richard, It’s not my fault you’re true to type. Zrim’s right, but then he does has his feet up on my ottoman and drinks my beer.
RS: So that is why he makes no sense and slurs his words when he types.
Sean: Ecclesiology matters.
RS: Indeed, but one can go beyond Scripture with their views.
LikeLike
RS: So that is why he makes no sense and slurs his words when he types.
Sean: Now, now, nobody likes a sorehead.
RS:Indeed, but one can go beyond Scripture with their views.
Sean: Indeed. That’s why J.E. spent his last days among the Stockbridge Indians………………
His best work, BTW, the humbling did him some good. Found a more sure footing in the ordinary as opposed to the extraordinary.
LikeLike
Off-topic but I saw “The Master” last night. Absolutely terrible. I have a long essay on the films of Paul Thomas Anderson percolating. I need to write it to process how bad this movie was.
LikeLike
Richard, it’s a very limited medium, but I wonder if you’ve noticed how the judgment of charity (that “popular thing” you like to deride) has been more or less exercised all along the way this thread, including by you. Sure, we’ve all pushed, cajoled, even snarked, but between those who profess the Reformed faith through these damned pixels and have very different conceptions of things, a judgment of charity has more or less remained intact. It might be worse for wear, but you might consider giving it a little more credit since it has seemed to serve us pretty well in this little corner of the world.
LikeLike
Richard, to go with Zrim’s point, I wonder what you make of all your critics here. Tennent would have thought we were unconverted, at least in 1740. Since you are dubious about many professions of faith and want to make sure they are genuine, what do you think of the professions of faith on display here, especially since they regard as dubious your understandings of spiritual discernment?
Are we deceiving ourselves? Or are we simply mistaken?
But then if you can tolerate believers who are mistaken, why do you have to unearth a really, really, really credible profession of faith?
LikeLike
sean: RS: So that is why he makes no sense and slurs his words when he types.
Sean: Now, now, nobody likes a sorehead.
RS:Indeed, but one can go beyond Scripture with their views.
Sean: Indeed. That’s why J.E. spent his last days among the Stockbridge Indians………………
His best work, BTW, the humbling did him some good. Found a more sure footing in the ordinary as opposed to the extraordinary.
RS: One could argue, which I do, that in the providence of God (I know, some don’t like interpreting providence) Edwards was sent to Stockbridge in order that he would have more time to write. That is where several of his writings were written. In other words, he was sent there not so much to get him away from his extaordinary views, but in order that he might preserve them in his writings.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, it’s a very limited medium, but I wonder if you’ve noticed how the judgment of charity (that “popular thing” you like to deride) has been more or less exercised all along the way this thread, including by you.
RS: I am not so sure that I deride it in all cases, but I do think we need to be careful in how we use it. So are your feet off the ottoman and are you free from the spirits?
Zrim: Sure, we’ve all pushed, cajoled, even snarked, but between those who profess the Reformed faith through these damned pixels
RS: Please, watch your language. The spirits?
Zrim: and have very different conceptions of things, a judgment of charity has more or less remained intact. It might be worse for wear, but you might consider giving it a little more credit since it has seemed to serve us pretty well in this little corner of the world.
RS: Okay, you win in this context. However, I am still not sure that it should be used so broadly in the context of having people join the church.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, to go with Zrim’s point, I wonder what you make of all your critics here.
RS: No need to go into all of that here. I would rather type behind their back.
D. G. Hart: Tennent would have thought we were unconverted, at least in 1740.
RS: But you were unconverted in 1740.
D. G. Hart: Since you are dubious about many professions of faith and want to make sure they are genuine, what do you think of the professions of faith on display here, especially since they regard as dubious your understandings of spiritual discernment?
RS: I might add that the discussion came up over church membership (as I recall), or at least it began to focus on that. I would also say that I am not sure that many have taken the time to profess faith here and there is no real opportunity to do much (if any) personal discussion.
D. G. Hart: Are we deceiving ourselves? Or are we simply mistaken?
RS: I cannot speak to the deceiving of yourselves or not. But man oh man are you mistaken, though I wouldn’t refer to it as “simply” mistaken.
D. G. Hart: But then if you can tolerate believers who are mistaken, why do you have to unearth a really, really, really credible profession of faith?
RS: I don’t have to make a judgement whether people are believers or not unless I am an elder in a church and people are coming to join or are coming to me to help them with in determining if they are converted or not.
LikeLike
O.K. – My P.T. Anderson essay is up. I have purged and feel much better. You need to do a post on film again, D.G. so I have an appropriate place to put this stuff.
LikeLike
JRC: I would suggest that most ordination failures happen because of failure to maintain doctrinal standards, NOT heart issues.
RS: Which, I would think, is clearly false. The problem with doctrinal problems is usually a heart problem. It is not that people are not smart enough, it is that they are too sinful.
Sure, I agree with both the latter two sentences. But that’s my point: ordination failures happen because people treat doctrine as if it were a head issue instead of a heart issue. So if there’s a doctrinal failure, then people (sometimes) chalk it up to “smarts” or “not being well-read enough”, rather than considering that the doctrinal failure is evidence of a heart issue.
I think on this point we are working with the same basic model: Out of the heart springs …
LikeLike
The whole debate is over to what degree we can see someone else’s heart. Richard thinks it’s relatively easy, pretty much everyone else thinks it’s not. It’s maybe easy to see a bad heart, but it’s exceptionally difficult to truly see a good heart — becuase people can and do fool us.
Also, sometimes those who have a bad heart can and do change. That’s what the gospel does.
LikeLike
Richard, on the one hand I’m glad that you take church membership seriously enough that you’re willing to not let a judgment of charity work like putty. Neither do I want it to make the gates more broad than narrow. But on the other, I wonder if you see how that’s because church membership means something and should actually work as something of an affirmation to someone that’s God’s shepherds have seen fit to extend the right hand of fellowship? My guess, though, is that such an idea makes you ill at ease because it smacks of the potential for complacency. Again, an admirable concern as far as it goes. But confessionalists don’t view membership “ex opere operato”; as the sacraments serve to affirm faith, we really do think membership should serve to buttress assurance instead of semi-revivalism’s tendency convey that “one isn’t out the woods yet.”
The irony for me in all of this is how confessionalism is cast as the harrumph party, while semi-revivalism has the reputation for spiritual uplift. The more I read you guys the less cause for uplift I see and how, speaking of spiritual deceit, reputations can be crafty tools.
LikeLike
I always thought the biblical position on someones heart is that it is desperately wicked and who can know it except God Himself? God reveals to us our wicked hearts so we can turn to his Son. He also circumcises our heart so we are enabled to become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which we have been commited (Romans 6:17). Our righteousness is an alien righteousness and we remain simultaneously justified yet sinful at the same time. I see a constant interplay between good and evil in the redeemed. We can still either walk in the flesh or walk in the Spirit. While the sin and evil has been put to death we have to daily consider that so and present ourselves (our members) as instruments of righteousness (Christ’s imputed righteousness) When we don’t do this we walk in the flesh and present our members as instruments of unrighteousness. The key seems to be to continually consider yourself under grace rather than under the law (Romans 6:14). That is why we need to be talking about the Gospel more than the law. Our flesh still wants us to be directed by and walk by the law instead of walking by the Spirit which directs us to the Gospel. The antithesis is between flesh/law and Spirit/Gospel.
Romans 7 then continues the discussion between being under law and being under grace. We often do not understand our own actions (Rom 7:15). And we do those things that we do not want to do. So, someone is lying to themselves when they say this dynamic does not occur within them and then do actions they are latter ashamed of. That does not go away post-regeneration (or effectual call). And even when this happens we are still to continue to consider ourselves dead to sin because we are not under law but under grace. The power of that sin can no longer condemn us because our sin has been imputed to Christ and taken care of. And we continually have his imputed righteousness as our alien righteousness. The Gospel puts our sin to death.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted September 22, 2012 at 4:30 pm | Permalink
Richard, on the one hand I’m glad that you take church membership seriously enough that you’re willing to not let a judgment of charity work like putty. Neither do I want it to make the gates more broad than narrow. But on the other, I wonder if you see how that’s because church membership means something and should actually work as something of an affirmation to someone that’s God’s shepherds have seen fit to extend the right hand of fellowship? My guess, though, is that such an idea makes you ill at ease because it smacks of the potential for complacency. Again, an admirable concern as far as it goes. But confessionalists don’t view membership “ex opere operato”; as the sacraments serve to affirm faith, we really do think membership should serve to buttress assurance instead of semi-revivalism’s tendency convey that “one isn’t out the woods yet.”
RS: While one may or may not regard membership as “ex opere operato; as an official position, that does not mean that the vast majority of the people do not regard it as a sign of salvation. When they are allowed to join a church on the basis of their profession and their outward life, the vast majority will view that as a statement that they are Christians. As you stated, “membership should serve to buttress assurance.” If that is your view, despite how you view membership, your practical view is that you will be using it to help assure people that they are saved. That is a dangerous position. The Bible never gives church membership as evidence of salvation.
Zrim: The irony for me in all of this is how confessionalism is cast as the harrumph party, while semi-revivalism has the reputation for spiritual uplift. The more I read you guys the less cause for uplift I see and how, speaking of spiritual deceit, reputations can be crafty tools.
RS: If you think of uplift as positive thinking and trying to get people to think well of themselves, then your uplift is only in appearance. Perhaps the real analogy in this is that the humble will receive grace and it is the servants and the lowly who will be uplifted in the end.
LikeLike
Richard, I know you don’t think so, but confessionalists want to be just as careful about the dangers of presuming upon the things of baptism, membership, ordination, etc. But we also want to be careful about undermining these things to the point of actually reducing them to the mere formalities. And, irony upon irony, that’s exactly what seems to happen in semi-revivalism. The efficacy of sacrament and membership get sucked down a drain, allegedly replaced with heart religion’s affections. Nobody is to take any affirmation and assurance in the institutional things God has ordained, yet those things must remain. What’s the point of membership and sacrament if nobody can take any assurance from them, Richard?
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, I know you don’t think so, but confessionalists want to be just as careful about the dangers of presuming upon the things of baptism, membership, ordination, etc. But we also want to be careful about undermining these things to the point of actually reducing them to the mere formalities. And, irony upon irony, that’s exactly what seems to happen in semi-revivalism. The efficacy of sacrament and membership get sucked down a drain, allegedly replaced with heart religion’s affections. Nobody is to take any affirmation and assurance in the institutional things God has ordained, yet those things must remain. What’s the point of membership and sacrament if nobody can take any assurance from them, Richard?
RS: That is a good question. Do we see anywhere in the Bible that church membership provides assurance of salvation? Do we see anywhere in the Bible that the point of the sacrament is to give us assurance of salvation? I John was written with assurance in mind and yet no mention of church membership and of the sacrament.
LikeLike
I am teaching Sunday school on the Puritans tomorrow. I am going to try to work some of this debate with Richard into the discussion, especially if we have some time to use up at the end. Hopefully someone has a smart phone that I can bring the internet up on. Richard definitely fits the Puritan mode (with the exception of baptism — they didn’t like baptists). By the second generation the Puritans were having to resort to the half-way covenant so their methods were not even very effective for them for very long.
LikeLike
Richard Smith wrote: “I John was written with assurance in mind and yet no mention of church membership and of the sacrament.”
GW: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” (1 Jn. 2:19, ESV) The “antichrists” (vv. 18, 22) – i.e., false teachers, heretics & their followers in the Johannine church – who departed from the church and its membership showed by that action of severing themselves from the church that they were not true believers. Membership in the visible church is not of itself an infallible sign that one in fact belongs to Christ (and hence it is not in itself to be rested upon for assurance of salvation). However, wilful separation/schism from membership in the visible church is an evidence that one does not belong to Christ, and hence that the one who commits such schism has no basis for entertaining assurance of salvation. So, yes, there is a connection between church membership and assurance in First John (that connection being that those who separate themselves from membership in the true visible church have no basis for thinking that they are in a saved state).
LikeLike
Erik Charter: I am teaching Sunday school on the Puritans tomorrow. I am going to try to work some of this debate with Richard into the discussion, especially if we have some time to use up at the end. Hopefully someone has a smart phone that I can bring the internet up on. Richard definitely fits the Puritan mode (with the exception of baptism — they didn’t like baptists). By the second generation the Puritans were having to resort to the half-way covenant so their methods were not even very effective for them for very long.
RS: But Presbyterianism didn’t last very long at all either.
LikeLike
Geoff Willour: Richard Smith wrote: “I John was written with assurance in mind and yet no mention of church membership and of the sacrament.”
GW: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” (1 Jn. 2:19, ESV) The “antichrists” (vv. 18, 22) – i.e., false teachers, heretics & their followers in the Johannine church – who departed from the church and its membership showed by that action of severing themselves from the church that they were not true believers. Membership in the visible church is not of itself an infallible sign that one in fact belongs to Christ (and hence it is not in itself to be rested upon for assurance of salvation). However, wilful separation/schism from membership in the visible church is an evidence that one does not belong to Christ, and hence that the one who commits such schism has no basis for entertaining assurance of salvation. So, yes, there is a connection between church membership and assurance in First John (that connection being that those who separate themselves from membership in the true visible church have no basis for thinking that they are in a saved state).
RS: But are you sure they were members of a church in any semblance or manner of the modern term?
LikeLike
Richard, I’m disappointed because I think you weaseled out. You went all formal on me — church membership, officer in a church, all of these categories that confessionalists regard as important and that experimental Calvinists have often times questioned (a la Tennent) because the forms are not as important as the Spirit. If you were a true Edwardsean, you’d have reservations about the folks here because we question the premise of your understanding of devotion — just remember all those Bible verses you quote. And now you back off and say you can’t say.
What’s happened to you? Have you been hanging out too long with the Pharisees?
So I’ll ask more directly, do you think I’m converted? I’m not trying to bait you. I assume that you think I am. But I also assume that you think confessional views aren’t sufficiently committed to true religion. So I don’t understand why you are willing to hang out here with the formalists without continually chastising us.
LikeLike
Richard, there you go again dissing contemporary Presbyterians. We still exist. Or do you think you are blogging in a dream?
LikeLike
Richard, add to Geoff’s comment 1 Cor. 5:
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
Paul is clearly using institutional categories (i.e. inside/outside the church, assembled in the name of Jesus). And I don’t know about you, but being handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh sure doesn’t sound assuring. Contrariwise, if I’m not being purged as the evil person but find fellowship among the brethren, I see no reason not to take assurance from it. And again, I fail to see how semi-revivalism isn’t ironically guilty of reducing things like membership and sacraments to mere formalism when there is at once the retention of these things but the emphasis of the non-efficacy.
LikeLike
Richard – I can point to a lot of faithful Presbyterian churches that are still in existence that probably aren’t that much different than the churches that existed at the time the first U.S. Presbytery was formed in Philadelphia in 1706. Where are your Puritan churches today? As mentioned, you don’t even fit in with them as a Baptist.
Do you favor their congregational church polity? They did have elders, but they served at the pleasure of the congregation, I believe. I was in an E-Free church awhile back where we had elders. They were always having to battle the ladies on the Christian education committee for authority…
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, there you go again dissing contemporary Presbyterians. We still exist. Or do you think you are blogging in a dream?
RS: I am not sure how I dissed contemporary Presbyterians, but even if I did “Blessed are the Meek” is still true. Are you referring about my remark to Erik C? Where I said that the Presbyterians didn’t last long? I was referring to the fact that Presbyterianism almost disapperared within a very short time after the WCF.
LikeLike
Richard, Presbyterians in England had their problems, but one of the biggest was the Puritan, Oliver Cromwell.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, I’m disappointed because I think you weaseled out.
RS: I am disappointed that you are disappointed, but still no need to call me a weasel.
D. G. Hart: You went all formal on me — church membership, officer in a church, all of these categories that confessionalists regard as important and that experimental Calvinists have often times questioned (a la Tennent) because the forms are not as important as the Spirit. If you were a true Edwardsean, you’d have reservations about the folks here because we question the premise of your understanding of devotion — just remember all those Bible verses you quote. And now you back off and say you can’t say.
RS: I simply don’t think I can make such blanket statements one way or the other. This is the WWW and it is not in person. Having reservations about certain things does not mean that this would give me the right to pass judgment on people I have never met. I don’t know which people are playing along and which people are in earnest (as to being on this medium). I don’t know what particular person is arguing a position for whatever reason and which person is defending his convictions.
What’s happened to you? Have you been hanging out too long with the Pharisees?
D.G. Hart: So I’ll ask more directly, do you think I’m converted? I’m not trying to bait you. I assume that you think I am.
RS: True, that is what I thought and I am still not sure (the baiting).
D.G. Hart: But I also assume that you think confessional views aren’t sufficiently committed to true religion. So I don’t understand why you are willing to hang out here with the formalists without continually chastising us.
RS: Not all confessionalists are the same and not all formalists are the same. There are those who profess a confession and it does not go down that deep and there are those who truly believe that the confession teaches that the Bible teaches and they think so because they have really studied the Bible. So perhaps some are not merely formalists and some are not merely those who profess the confession. Why would I assume that all of the folks are unconverted?
So why do I enjoy some of the discussions here and why would I hang out? Well, to be honest I am Baptist but wish someone could convince me otherwise. Yes, it is true, it is very hard being a Calvinist and a Baptist at the same time. I keep thinking that somewhere there will be someone who will present an argument and the light will go on. I can believe that Calvin was wrong and all the other confessional types, but how could Edwards be wrong? Two, there is a lot to be learned whether I agree or not.
But back to your question of whether I think you are converted or not. I am sure you don’t remember but I met you four or five years ago (you were Doling out a few things) and there was a few moments discussion about how bad the evangelicals were.. No need for details on that. But I am simply saying, holding to the basic principles, that how can I say one is or one is not based on a few moments discussing how evangelicals are so bad? Then, on this forum, true enough you don’t like Edwards, but while that is a venial sin it is not quite a mortal one. So, in an effort to make Zrim happy, in the judgment of charity I just think of people as believers without passing judgment on things I have no access to more knowledge.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard – I can point to a lot of faithful Presbyterian churches that are still in existence that probably aren’t that much different than the churches that existed at the time the first U.S. Presbytery was formed in Philadelphia in 1706. Where are your Puritan churches today? As mentioned, you don’t even fit in with them as a Baptist.
RS: Erik, I made that statement based on your point about second generation Puritans. It was not a shot at Presbyterians, but it was simply a rejoinder about what lasted and what did not.
Erik: Do you favor their congregational church polity? They did have elders, but they served at the pleasure of the congregation, I believe. I was in an E-Free church awhile back where we had elders. They were always having to battle the ladies on the Christian education committee for authority…
RS: I bet the ladies won most of the time too. But I know of a Presbyterian church where the ladies sure seem to win on the Christian ed committee as well.
LikeLike
Anybody yet read Carl Trueman’s The Creedal Imperative?
Does being a member of a “mainline” denomination that tolerates universalism make one’s profession of faith more or less creditable?
Does being a member of a visible congregation associated with “the Roman Catholic church” make one’s profession of faith more or less creditable?
Does being a member of a visible congregation associated with a Reformed denomination that tolerates “federal visionism” make one’s profession of faith more or less creditable?
Do we expect anybody to believe us if we say we never make charitable judgments about those outside our own visible congregation?
LikeLike
It’s interesting that Lord protector Cromwell doesn’t get any more attractive in Geneva than he was in Rome. Jack*** really is forever.
LikeLike
Richard, I wasn’t clear. Tennent believed that critics of revival were not converted. You see lots of criticism of revivalism here. Do you think critics of revival are converted? Does criticism of revival give you a read on the heart of the critic? Tennent thought it did. Are you soft?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, I wasn’t clear. Tennent believed that critics of revival were not converted. You see lots of criticism of revivalism here. Do you think critics of revival are converted?
RS: Tennent was in the midst of a real movement of God, though he was most likely blinded to some of the not so good things that were also happening. Things are not the same now not to mention that we are in post Finney days and many other heretics that championed things that they called “revival.” I was a severe critic of the so-called Brownsville revival and other things like that. I criticize people who plan revivals and have a speaker to come in and speak, for a true revival cannot be planned by men. Then there are those who are led astray by historians who criticize revival. So I don’t think that it is a sure sign that a person is unconverted if that person criticizes revival. In most cases they are probably correct.
D.G. Heart: Does criticism of revival give you a read on the heart of the critic?
RS: It does give a read on a person to some degree, but not necessarily the heart of the critic. Again, things are so different today from the days of real revival that it is easy to understand how people would be critics of it. Misguided perhaps, but does not give a read on the heart of the critic.
D.G. Hart: Tennent thought it did.
RS: Different day, different circumstances, and a different history.
D.G. Hart: Are you soft?
RS: Most likely.
LikeLike
Read about Gilbert Tennent in Hart’s P&R Dictionary yesterday. It sounds like as time went on he took back a lot of the things he had written, including taking back “The Danger of an Unconverted Ministry”. Did I read that right?
I think this debate over Richard’s Puritanism is something we see again and again throughout Presbyterianism. Presbyterians have always had to deal with the “Old” vs. “New” debate. The objective vs. the subjective. Logic vs. emotion. Head knowledge vs. the buring in the bosom. Talked about this in Sunday School yesterday and there were a lot of opinions among the lay people. We will continue to discuss it for weeks or months to come.
LikeLike
I asked people whose family members were not P & R what they heard about our church from their family members who visited. One lady said her parents said our church was “dead”. This lady’s mom is allowed to stand in the back and paint while she listens to the sermon in her church. How does mere word & sacrament compete with that? I wonder how Richard would evaluate her soul?
LikeLike
Erik Charter wrote: “I asked people whose family members were not P & R what they heard about our church from their family members who visited. One lady said her parents said our church was “dead”.”
GW: I’ve heard this kind of criticism too, mainly from charismatic-leaning and revivalist-sympathetic individuals. In OPC circles we are sometimes criticized (whether seriously or tongue-in-cheek) as the “frozen chosen.” I find it ironic that those of a revivalist bent who are so quick to criticize us confessional Presby and Reformed types and our confessionalist churches as being “dead,” “lifeless,” “devoid of the Spirit,” “mere formalists,” etc., seem often to be the same ones to accuse us of being hyper-critical, judgmental, lacking in charity and arrogant. To be honest I get weary of the double standard, insensitivity and lack of charity of such revival types, and I sometimes stand befuddled by their seeming blindness to the double standard they employ. (Back when I was pastoring in New Jersey I was talking to a charismatic-type visitor after the service who had come to church with a friend, and in the course of trying to make polite, friendly conversation with her she stated her firm conviction that “denominations are of the devil.” While I sought to be polite and welcoming, it kind of blew my mind that this Christian sister would be so insensitive to unthinkingly blurt out her opinion in that context when she had just worshiped in a denominationally-affiliated church. This is an example of the type of insensitivity and double standard of which I speak.)
I have learned from experience as a pastor that I can plan worship services that are filled with Scripture readings, God-centered hymns and psalms that exalt the greatness and amazing grace of God in Christ, clearly expound law and gospel, etc.; and even if the congregation sings the hymns energetically, and even if I preach earnestly, with sincerity of heart and faithfulness to the text (which is the way I always strive to preach); on occasion there will still be revivalist types visiting the church who will judge the service to be “dead” just because we lack the razzle-dazzle found in the mega-church mart and/or just because we follow a structured (“formal”) liturgy. Seems that for some the Spirit is absent (or at least stifled) and the church is “dead” unless people are jumping pews, rolling in the aisle, raising their hands, or otherwise whooping it up in revivalist frenzy. IMO it takes a certain maturing in the faith for those discipled in a revivalist paradigm to get “deprogrammed” from their attachment to a theology of glory and power religion and to come to embrace a theology of the cross. Only a seasoning in the faith (often combined with a disillusionment with or burnout from revivalism) can cure a revivalist of addiction to the sensational and extraordinary and bring him/her to rest content with the ordinary means of grace and the more gradual (less dramatic) but more stable life in Christ offered in the context of confessional churches.
LikeLike
Erik and Geoff, my favorite evangelical assessment of the local P&R church is “too Catholic.”
But I’ll not soon forget some years ago visiting a fine little PCA in southern Florida where the pulpit was being filled by a semi-revivalist. What was being passed off as a sermon was an extended rant that propped up sentimental religiosity and undermined the decent and orderly Reformed liturgy, stopping every once and a while to remind us all that he had studied under Lloyd-Jones. Evidently, being generally unprepared and disorganized was made up for by turning up the decibels, literally pounding the pulpit, and being painfully repetitive. The Reformed virtue of simplicity is almost always the first to go under semi-revivalism. To add insult to injury was the the regular pastor sitting in front adding his ‘”Amen!” to the other outbursters. Right or wrong, I’ve always considered the scene to be a small snapshot of the triumph of revivalism even in otherwise Reformed outposts. Lost soul indeed.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Read about Gilbert Tennent in Hart’s P&R Dictionary yesterday. It sounds like as time went on he took back a lot of the things he had written, including taking back “The Danger of an Unconverted Ministry”. Did I read that right?
RS: I have yet to see where Tennent took back what he took back, but would like to read it if I could find out where he did so.
Erik Charter: I think this debate over Richard’s Puritanism is something we see again and again throughout Presbyterianism. Presbyterians have always had to deal with the “Old” vs. “New” debate. The objective vs. the subjective.
RS: The real issue, once again, is not over objective vs. subjective. The Old view claims that what it has is objective, but it is really just as subjective as the New. It is different, though. The New view is actually quite objective though it is ridiculed as subjective. Whatever God does is an objective act whether it is inside the soul or outside the soul. As demonstrated time and again in history, the Old view is not as objective as people want it to be.
Erik C: Logic vs. emotion.
RS: Again, more myth. Logic only works when one has the correct premisses and when one has true information. Emotion is not the same thing as the affections of the soul and the affections of the soul are as biblical as logic.
Eric C: Head knowledge vs. the buring in the bosom.
RS: But head knowledge is known to be contrary to faith and the burning in the bosom is from either Mormonism or spicy food.
Eric C: Talked about this in Sunday School yesterday and there were a lot of opinions among the lay people. We will continue to discuss it for weeks or months to come.
RS: In other words, you didn’t find objective truth and the people told you how they ” felt” about things?
LikeLike
Erik Charter: I asked people whose family members were not P & R what they heard about our church from their family members who visited. One lady said her parents said our church was “dead”. This lady’s mom is allowed to stand in the back and paint while she listens to the sermon in her church. How does mere word & sacrament compete with that? I wonder how Richard would evaluate her soul?
RS: I would most likely paint a different picture of the situation than she does.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: I asked people whose family members were not P & R what they heard about our church from their family members who visited. One lady said her parents said our church was “dead”. This lady’s mom is allowed to stand in the back and paint while she listens to the sermon in her church. How does mere word & sacrament compete with that? I wonder how Richard would evaluate her soul?
RS: “Mere word & sacrament” is an interesting phrase. So is “word and sacrament.” I have wondered why it is not “word and Spirit” which certainly seems to be more biblical.
Ephesians 6:17 And take THE HELMET OF SALVATION, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
1 Thessalonians 1:5 for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake.
1 Thessalonians 1:6 You also became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much tribulation with the joy of the Holy Spirit,
LikeLike
Zrim: Erik and Geoff, my favorite evangelical assessment of the local P&R church is “too Catholic.” But I’ll not soon forget some years ago visiting a fine little PCA in southern Florida where the pulpit was being filled by a semi-revivalist. What was being passed off as a sermon was an extended rant that propped up sentimental religiosity and undermined the decent and orderly Reformed liturgy, stopping every once and a while to remind us all that he had studied under Lloyd-Jones. Evidently, being generally unprepared and disorganized was made up for by turning up the decibels, literally pounding the pulpit, and being painfully repetitive. The Reformed virtue of simplicity is almost always the first to go under semi-revivalism. To add insult to injury was the the regular pastor sitting in front adding his ‘”Amen!” to the other outbursters. Right or wrong, I’ve always considered the scene to be a small snapshot of the triumph of revivalism even in otherwise Reformed outposts. Lost soul indeed.
RS: I was in a heavily liturgical (yes, Presbyterian) church not long ago. The pastor was “praying” (obviously following a written prayer) when all of a sudden there was a long silence. I opened my eyes and looked up. He was retrieving the paper that his prayer was written out on. He started “praying” again and stopped. He then said, “whoops, I already prayed that.” In other words, he had lost his place in the written prayer. Is that evidence against all the liturgical practice of churches or is it simply one church? If it is just of one, as I would argue, then why not do the same with the semi-revivalist? Not all are the same.
LikeLike
Zrim wrote: “Erik and Geoff, my favorite evangelical assessment of the local P&R church is “too Catholic.””
GW: Yep, knee-jerk anti-Romanism is common among evangelicals of a revivalist bent. If the Catholics do it, it must be wrong. The Catholics have their version of communion every week, so weekly communion must be avoided. The Catholics use scripted prayers, so the occasional use of written out prayers by the congregation must be avoided. The Catholics recite the creeds in their worship services, so we must avoid the recitation of creeds in worship. Of course, rarely does this knee-jerk anti-Romanism get taken to its logical conclusion. The Catholics have their version of a sermon (usually called a “homily”?) in every service, but I don’t see too many evangelicals arguing that we do away with weekly sermons (although some emergent types might). The Catholics baptize with water in the name of the Trinity, so maybe we should stop baptizing people with water and use something else (honey? milk? root beer?) instead? The Catholics use the Lord’s Prayer in their services, but few evangelicals would dispute the legitimacy of using the Lord’s Prayer in worship. Seems that evangelical knee-jerk anti-Romanism is usually quite selective and arbitrary.
LikeLike
Richard, your example is simply of a man being human in the course of being Reformed. So what?
LikeLike
Geoff, plus more irony: pietism and ritualism have more in common with each other than either have with Protestantism.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, your example is simply of a man being human in the course of being Reformed. So what?
RS: If you would read that story and think just a little about it, there is more than than the first glance might give you. I don’t think that this guy was Reformed at all. Are you saying your example was more than that simply of a man being human?
LikeLike
Zrim: Geoff, plus more irony: pietism and ritualism have more in common with each other than either have with Protestantism.
RS: But of course that would mean that you would be arguing that Calvin and Luther were not pietistic to any degree. That, of course, would not be an argument you would want to make if you draw your lines about being pietistic too tightly.
LikeLike
Richard, I don’t have your powers of perception. I read what you provided and gave it some thought. If I missed something you’ll just have to point it out for those of us given to plain reading. And, yes, I am saying that where your example seems to be a man being human in the course of being Reformed, mine is of a man undermining being Reformed by being semi-revivalist.
LikeLike
Richard, by nature we’re all pietsists (and ritualists), so I am not saying Calvin and Luther weren’t. I’m saying Protestantism is the corrective.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, I don’t have your powers of perception.
RS: I have noticed.
Zrim: I read what you provided and gave it some thought. If I missed something you’ll just have to point it out for those of us given to plain reading. And, yes, I am saying that where your example seems to be a man being human in the course of being Reformed, mine is of a man undermining being Reformed by being semi-revivalist.
RS: So semi-revivalism in your conception is not compatible with being Reformed. Interesting, though I am not sure you could be Reformed and not be in some way and to some degree a semi-revivalist.
Zrim: Richard, by nature we’re all pietsists (and ritualists), so I am not saying Calvin and Luther weren’t. I’m saying Protestantism is the corrective.
RS: So Protestantism is the corrective to both Calvin and Luther. Hmmm
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, by nature we’re all pietsists (and ritualists), so I am not saying Calvin and Luther weren’t. I’m saying Protestantism is the corrective.
RS: As I read the Beatitudes listed below, I have a hard time reading them without thinking that the affections of the soul are inescapable in them. If so, is Protestantism the corrective for the Beatitudes?
Mat 5:3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
5 “Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.
6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
LikeLike
Geoff,
Not to get off topic, and your point is well taken and I agree with it, but the few times I have experienced (not participated) RC “worship” there was neither creed or Lord’s Prayer recited. I often hear people talk about RCs adherence to the Apostles creed, but I have never heard the RC laity mention it or for that matter a priest in my run-ins with them.
Is it part of their official order of worship?
Regarding the Lord’s Prayer, I have only seen them use it with the endless repetition and penance of the rosary and not in an ordinary manner in the mass like we may expect to see in a Reformed church worship service. I also have not heard it incorporated into prayer as will often be the case in Protestant churches and homes.
Like I said, I know this is off topic, but I am wondering what your experience has been on this or if there is documentation out there on RC guidelines for the use of these items in their mass. I have a number of RC relatives and it is a struggle to teach them the truth and they do not seem to know the supposed creeds of their church.
Thank you,
B
LikeLike
Wow, Richard took his Metamucil and his large, caffeinated coffee this morning. He is letting it rip.
Geoff I liked your first comment after mine. I’m sure a lot of P&R ministers have the same frustrating experiences. I know mine does. I’m going to repost that.
LikeLike
Richard, sorry, but I’m still not clear on what is askew about a pastor preparing (what I presume is) a written intercessory prayer for public and formal worship. In fact, it seems to me that more preparation and forethought would help many out anymore.
LikeLike
Regarding the use of formal (scripted) liturgical prayers and prepared (written out) pastoral prayers: Due to my Presbyterian liturgical sensitivities, I do not think that such formal prayers should entirely take the place of spontaneous “free” prayer in the worship services. However, while I’m obviously not Episcopalian, I would much prefer the dignified, often biblically-rich prayers of the Book of Common Prayer to the typical, shallow “spontaneous” evangelical sort of praying (which, ironically, often becomes quite repetitive). You know, those prayers taken from the evangelical “just” liturgy: “Lord, we just love you; we just want to praise you. We just pray that you would bless us. We just…we just…we just…” (you get the point).
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, sorry, but I’m still not clear on what is askew about a pastor preparing (what I presume is) a written intercessory prayer for public and formal worship. In fact, it seems to me that more preparation and forethought would help many out anymore.
RS: I was not speaking about written prayer in and of itself, but of the fact that one can read a written prayer and not pray what is written. Simply reading what is written on a sheet is not prayer in and of itself. If one is truly praying what was written, it would not matter if one prayed that again.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Wow, Richard took his Metamucil and his large, caffeinated coffee this morning. He is letting it rip.
RS: I don’t drink coffee. It is the part of me that is not Reformed, not calvinistic, and not the semi-revivalist part. It is the Mormon part of me.
LikeLike
Geoff Willour: Regarding the use of formal (scripted) liturgical prayers and prepared (written out) pastoral prayers: Due to my Presbyterian liturgical sensitivities, I do not think that such formal prayers should entirely take the place of spontaneous “free” prayer in the worship services. However, while I’m obviously not Episcopalian, I would much prefer the dignified, often biblically-rich prayers of the Book of Common Prayer to the typical, shallow “spontaneous” evangelical sort of praying (which, ironically, often becomes quite repetitive). You know, those prayers taken from the evangelical “just” liturgy: “Lord, we just love you; we just want to praise you. We just pray that you would bless us. We just…we just…we just…” (you get the point).
RS: It seems as if you are hitting at a nice balance. Which means, of course, that you now share a balanced view with a covenantal, baptistic, and semi-revivalist. Sorry to point that out. The Valley of Vision has some really good Puritan prayers as well.
LikeLike
B,
They generally use the Nicene creed, but there is allowance to substitute the Apostle’s creed.
LikeLike
But, Richard, we’re back to the problem you fail to acknowledge: an extemporaneous prayer is just as vulnerable to mere rote as a written prayer, and a written prayer can be more sincere than an extemporaneous one. But sincerity can also be over rated at the expense of obedience. So I still don’t know what the point of your example is. Is it that the pastor had a wrinkle in his reading? So? Extemporaneous prayers sometimes stumble and pause–does that mean sincerity is absent, or just that most people aren’t silver eyed or tongued?
LikeLike
Zrim: But, Richard, we’re back to the problem you fail to acknowledge: an extemporaneous prayer is just as vulnerable to mere rote as a written prayer, and a written prayer can be more sincere than an extemporaneous one.
RS: No, I have not failed to acknowledge that, or at least I don’t think I failed to. Prayer has to do with the deepest desires of the heart and can be written or extemporaneous. But if it is not from the heart, then regardless of the words it is not prayer. Since prayer is an aspet of worship, and worship must be of spirit and truth, it has to be from the inner soul.
Zrim: But sincerity can also be over rated at the expense of obedience. So I still don’t know what the point of your example is. Is it that the pastor had a wrinkle in his reading? So?
RS: No, the wrinkle was in the aspect of the nature of true prayer.
Zrim: Extemporaneous prayers sometimes stumble and pause–does that mean sincerity is absent, or just that most people aren’t silver eyed or tongued?
RS: Stumble and pause is not the issue. It is that prayer must be of the heart or the inner man or the soul.
LikeLike
Richard, so sincerity is what makes prayer legitimate? Again, nothing against sincerity, but this overestimation of sincerity tends to overlook the importance also of obedience. After all, there is praying sincerely to a false god or to the true God falsely.
Still, not to be a pain, but I still don’t see what your example shows. I keep re-reading it. The point above about sincerity aside, my guess is that you mean to say sincerity was absent the pastor’s prayer and that therefore it should be obvious that liturgical worship is dubious. But, first, how do you know sincerity was absent, and second, even if it was, how is it obvious that this weighs against liturgical as opposed to experiential worship? Again, both are vulnerable to hypocrisy (because people are involved). The question really is, at least for those who take seriously the principle of doing all things decently and in order: Which form of worship is most conducive to decency, decorum, and order?
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, so sincerity is what makes prayer legitimate? Again, nothing against sincerity, but this overestimation of sincerity tends to overlook the importance also of obedience. After all, there is praying sincerely to a false god or to the true God falsely.
RS: Sincerity in prayer is perhaps not the only issue as there are issues such as praying according to the will of God and faith. Then the issue (once again) of a true desire which flows out of what my true love is (God or self).
Zrim: Still, not to be a pain,
RS: Too late
Zrim: but I still don’t see what your example shows. I keep re-reading it. The point above about sincerity aside, my guess is that you mean to say sincerity was absent the pastor’s prayer and that therefore it should be obvious that liturgical worship is dubious.
RS: The point was not that liturgical worship is dubious. It was that one can pray a written prayer and it not be prayer.
Zrim: But, first, how do you know sincerity was absent, and second, even if it was, how is it obvious that this weighs against liturgical as opposed to experiential worship? Again, both are vulnerable to hypocrisy (because people are involved). The question really is, at least for those who take seriously the principle of doing all things decently and in order: Which form of worship is most conducive to decency, decorum, and order?
RS: Knowing that it is too late for me to be a pain to you as well, though I am a pain in your neck while I have a much lower opinion of the pain you cause, we can tip our hat to decency, decorum, and order. Yet there is also the matter of worship needing to be in spirit and truth along with that other matter of faith.
LikeLike
A former modernist Methodist who came to abandon modernism for a more classically orthodox, broadly evangelical version of Methodism, Professor Thomas C. Oden, makes some very appropriate comments about the issue of extemporaneous prayer vs. prepared (written out & liturgical) prayer: “It is a fanatical notion that we interfere with the Holy Spirit if we make any preparation for prayer. The theological deficit in that assumption is that the Holy Spirit would not have us reason or use foresight or imagination or fit language (Wesley, Appeals, 1975 ed., pp. 51 ff.). It assumes incorrectly that the only part of us that the Spirit wishes to work through is emotive impulsivity and spontaneous feeling-flow. It assumes incorrectly that the Holy Spirit does not also work through discipline, reason, reflection, and organization.” (p. 99 in Pastoral Ministry: Essentials of Ministry (HarperSanFrancisco, copyright 1983 by Thomas C. Oden)) Though as a confessional Presbyterian I obviously do not agree with Professor Oden’s Methodism, I heartily “amen!” his comments above.
LikeLike
Richard, well whatever. If the point was that one can pray a written prayer and it not be prayer then the counter-point is that what is good for the prepared prayer goose is good for the extemporaneous gander. But my anecdote was to show how semi-revivalism is the default setting even among those who might otherwise conceive themselves as liturgicals. In other words, you enjoy the majority’s favor. That should ease some pain.
LikeLike
Geoff, Oden always tempts me to outburst as well. How about a modest “bingo, baby.”
LikeLike
I’ve heard good things about Oden’s book “After Modernity…What?”. Great title.
Another sharp Methodist is White Horse Inn favorite William Willimon. I have some respect for men who stay in mainline churches fighting what they must know is a losing battle. I’m sure there are many such men in the CRC (I know it’s debatable if they are mainline yet or not).
There was a picture of the new CRC minister in Ames, Iowa in the local paper the other day. He looked like he had just got done skateboarding or something. His background is in youth ministry. I shouldn’t be too hard on him, but maybe put a suit on for the picture in the paper (or at least a shirt with a collar). It’s fruitless for a CRC church to try to beat the Baptists & non-denominational evangelicals at the “relevant” game. As I heard Doug Wilson say when I went to hear him speak in the Twin Cities several years ago, “When the nerd gets to the party, the party’s over.”
LikeLike
Correction: The Oden book I quoted from is “Pastoral Theology: Essentials of Ministry”, not “Pastoral Ministry: Essentials of Ministry”.
LikeLike
Geoff Willour: A former modernist Methodist who came to abandon modernism for a more classically orthodox, broadly evangelical version of Methodism, Professor Thomas C. Oden, makes some very appropriate comments about the issue of extemporaneous prayer vs. prepared (written out & liturgical) prayer: “It is a fanatical notion that we interfere with the Holy Spirit if we make any preparation for prayer. The theological deficit in that assumption is that the Holy Spirit would not have us reason or use foresight or imagination or fit language (Wesley, Appeals, 1975 ed., pp. 51 ff.). It assumes incorrectly that the only part of us that the Spirit wishes to work through is emotive impulsivity and spontaneous feeling-flow.
RS: Since I am not arguing that all read prayers are of no use, my disagreement here may not be totally appropriate. However, I don’t think that all would agree that the assumption Oden is making by assuming that people think that the only part that the Spirit wishes to work though is emotive inpulsivity and spontaneous feeling-flow.” There are those who are strong in their conviction that men should be walking with God enough that they can pray and preach without the prayer and the sermon being written out. It has littlt to nothing to do with “emotive inpulsivity and spontaneous feeling-flow.” We can possibly assume that some assert that, but not all and perhaps very few would agree with the way Oden put it.
Geoff Willour quoting Thomas Oden:: It assumes incorrectly that the Holy Spirit does not also work through discipline, reason, reflection, and organization.” (p. 99 in Pastoral Ministry: Essentials of Ministry (HarperSanFrancisco, copyright 1983 by Thomas C. Oden)) Though as a confessional Presbyterian I obviously do not agree with Professor Oden’s Methodism, I heartily “amen!” his comments above.
RS: This is the other part that is far from what I have heard people argue. They would say that you prepare your mind and heard through discipline, reason, reflection, and organization while in prayer over those things. They would say that is what helpls to prepare a man to stand up and speak by the power and guidance of the Spirit.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, well whatever. If the point was that one can pray a written prayer and it not be prayer then the counter-point is that what is good for the prepared prayer goose is good for the extemporaneous gander. But my anecdote was to show how semi-revivalism is the default setting even among those who might otherwise conceive themselves as liturgicals. In other words, you enjoy the majority’s favor. That should ease some pain.
RS: I perceive myself as being out of the majority on this, but who knows. When one things that the charismatics and evangelicals are out of line in this regard, not to mention the liturgical folks, it is hard to see where that majority comes from. My argument is that prayer as worship should be from spirit and truth which includes the true desires of the soul. If a person does not truly desire for God’s name to be hallowed, it is hard to see a read prayer or an extemporaneous one on that line as true prayer. After all, if they don’t truly desire what they are saying, how is that prayer at all?
LikeLike
Geoff, and what goes with the Prayer Book is a book, bound pages inside a cover. If we’re going to use written prayers, we may want to use pages that don’t fall. And we certainly don’t say “whoops” when they do. This is about dignity and sobriety, after all. Books are such.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: There was a picture of the new CRC minister in Ames, Iowa in the local paper the other day. He looked like he had just got done skateboarding or something. His background is in youth ministry. I shouldn’t be too hard on him, but maybe put a suit on for the picture in the paper (or at least a shirt with a collar). It’s fruitless for a CRC church to try to beat the Baptists & non-denominational evangelicals at the “relevant” game. As I heard Doug Wilson say when I went to hear him speak in the Twin Cities several years ago, “When the nerd gets to the party, the party’s over.”
RS: While I mystified with the antipathy people show toward a Christianity of the heart, I am also a little surprised that you be concerned about what this man is wearing (if modest and decent) when a picture was published of him. Just because he was dressed in a way that was comfortable does not necessarily mean that his primary motive was an effort to be relevant. Perhaps he focuses on the Word and sacrament at church and beyond that he tries to be comfortable.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart wrote: “Geoff, and what goes with the Prayer Book is a book, bound pages inside a cover. If we’re going to use written prayers, we may want to use pages that don’t fall. And we certainly don’t say “whoops” when they do. This is about dignity and sobriety, after all. Books are such.”
GW: Good point. Personally I would not be adverse to the OPC developing its own equivalent to the PCUSA’s old Book of Common Worship (not as a binding liturgy, but as recommended by GA as supplemental to and applicatory of the Directory for Worship, and available for use by OP ministers and churches choosing to use it). Of course, even if the OPC GA were to agree to such a project, given how long it took us to revise the Directory for Public Worship we probably wouldn’t see such a project completed in our lifetime.
LikeLike
When you go to see your lawyer, your banker, or your doctor you expect them to be dressed in a way that matches (1) The money you are paying them, and (2) the seriousness of their work. I don’t want to entrust my soul to someone who does not dress in a way that matches the seriousness of his office. Even Joel Osteen, who is weak in many ares of theology, knows how a minister is supposed to dress. Rick Warren is the poster child for the under-dressed minister, wearing Hawaiian shirts in the pulpit over his ample frame. I’m not saying a minister always needs to wear a suit, but his “comfort” has to take a backseat to the seriousness of his office.
LikeLike
Richard – Part of the problem of this so-called “Christianity of the Heart” (TM) that you advocate (you do realize that you are beginning to approach the CTCers “The Church That Jesus Christ Himself Founded” (TM) ? is this:
(1) I am a man
(2) God is my father
(3) Jesus was and is a true man
Evangelicals just do not get this in how they approach worship and what they ask men to do. A dude does not sing love songs and get emotive with another dude. I love my human father and I appreciate many of his attributes, but I don’t feel the same way about him in my “heart” as I do about my wife. There is a lot of feminization going on in this “Christianity of the Heart” (TM) business.
I went to an evangelical church for several years before seeing the light and it was no coincidence that many of the wives in that church were assertive and many of the husbands were passive. A lot of them even did the cooking! (Sorry D.G.).
LikeLike
Erik Charter: When you go to see your lawyer, your banker, or your doctor you expect them to be dressed in a way that matches (1) The money you are paying them, and (2) the seriousness of their work.
RS: In all honesty, I want them to be clean and beyond that I don’t care. I don’t go to a doctor that wears a suit or a tie and that is fine with me. I want them to know what they are doing rather than dress like they want to send a message that they know what they are doing. Have you ever seen a surgeon in the operating room with a suit? As for lawyers, those shark-skin ties are a little too much/
Eric: I don’t want to entrust my soul to someone who does not dress in a way that matches the seriousness of his office.
RS: What kind of dress matches the seriousness of the office? What is the biblical mandate for the attire of a minister? Clean, modest, and ????
Erik C: Even Joel Osteen, who is weak in many ares of theology, knows how a minister is supposed to dress.
RS: Weak in all areas of theology. How many thousands of dollars do you think his suits cost? Does it take an expensive suit for him to know how to dress or just any suit? Maybe Osteen knows how to look rich and get the people who come in the doors and watch on television to want to be rich. But he does not look like a minister at all. Ministers preach the Word of God with Christ and Christ alone at the center.
Erik C: Rick Warren is the poster child for the under-dressed minister, wearing Hawaiian shirts in the pulpit over his ample frame. I’m not saying a minister always needs to wear a suit, but his “comfort” has to take a backseat to the seriousness of his office.
RS: Point taken with Warren. I am not confident, however, that the seriousness of the office is exemplified by wearing a suit and tie. Even wolves can wear those.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard – Part of the problem of this so-called “Christianity of the Heart” (TM) that you advocate (you do realize that you are beginning to approach the CTCers “The Church That Jesus Christ Himself Founded” (TM)
RS: I am not talking about that kind of thing at all. The Bible speaks to this issue over and over and over again. It is not enough to believe the right things and it is not enough to do the right things. It is the heart that must be changed and it is the heart that Christ must dwell in. The heart is not simply feelings as such, but it is the core aspect of the soul. It is the core love of the soul as opposed to a love we can tack on there and there. It is the inner man that must love Christ and it is the inner man that must strive after the commandments. But of course the inner man cannot do these things apart from grace. However, the heart must have grace. Look at some of the issues with the heart in the Sermon on the Mount. The Christianity of the heart is the Christianity of the Bible. Without a new heart, no one will enter the kingdom.
Mat 5: 21 “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER ‘ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’
22 “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’;
28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
29 “If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
30 “If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’
44 “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
Mat 6:19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.
20 “But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal;
21 for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
LikeLike
Richard, when you make the case for heart religion you often point to the “you have heard it said, but I say to you” texts. I’m not sure you realize how you’re actually making the case for Do Better religion. Jesus is raising the bar of righteousness on his hearers (who have lowered it) to raise awareness of the depths of depravity, which is the set up for the need for even greater grace. So nobody here is against a truly circumcised heart. The skepticism comes in when the reality of abiding sin gets glossed over and heart religionists seem incognizant of how the heart spins new, affection-oriented ways of self-righteousness.
LikeLike
Richard – Your response to my comments about evangelical worship is revealing. You emphasize heart religion, but if an evangelical or a pentecostal comes to your worship service they are most likely going to make the same kind of judgments about you that you are making about P&R churches. They’ll say you are wordy, overly theological, spiritually dead, all about head knowledge, etc. because you are not giving them all of the bells & whistles they are used to. It’s a slippery slope once the focus turns from the objective to the subjective.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, when you make the case for heart religion you often point to the “you have heard it said, but I say to you” texts. I’m not sure you realize how you’re actually making the case for Do Better religion.
RS: No, I am not doing that though you are reading it that way. Jesus is speaking of the need for the heart to keep the commandments and not just the external man. It is one of the strongest cases for heart religion that can be made among those who believe the Scriptures. The text clearly teaches that the externals are not enough and the law is spiritual as Paul taught as well.
Zrim: Jesus is raising the bar of righteousness on his hearers (who have lowered it) to raise awareness of the depths of depravity, which is the set up for the need for even greater grace. So nobody here is against a truly circumcised heart. The skepticism comes in when the reality of abiding sin gets glossed over and heart religionists seem incognizant of how the heart spins new, affection-oriented ways of self-righteousness.
RS: I don’t think that Jesus raised the bar of righteousness but instead stated what was already taught in the Old Testament. The standard has always been the same, but Jesus shows us how that looks when someone keeps it. There is no need for skepticism, but instead one should examine the Scriptures closely to find out what this heart religion is. Instead of being satisfied with a lesser standard because we cannot be perfect, we are to strive for Christ and for the life of grace in the soul. It is not a matter of my not being incognizant about a new self-righteousness, but instead I realize that those who are poor in spirit (having not one shred of righteousness they can claim as their own and without any ability to obtain it) are blessed because they have the reign of Christ in them. It appears to me that you want a grace that forgives your sin but does not make much of a difference. The religion of the heart says Christ reigns in the heart, He is the righteousness of that heart, and He is the life of that heart. In the heart that Christ reigns in there is a big difference, but it is all by grace. Indeed remaining sin is still there, but there is no need to give in to it and be passive to it.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard – Your response to my comments about evangelical worship is revealing. You emphasize heart religion, but if an evangelical or a pentecostal comes to your worship service they are most likely going to make the same kind of judgments about you that you are making about P&R churches. They’ll say you are wordy, overly theological, spiritually dead, all about head knowledge, etc. because you are not giving them all of the bells & whistles they are used to. It’s a slippery slope once the focus turns from the objective to the subjective.
RS: Perhaps it is a slippery slope, but all things are on a slippery slope. In other words, we don’t flee from the truth because it may be on a slippery slope. The problem with many evangelicals and pentecostals is that they are not speaking of a true heart religion. The focus of true heart religion is not on the objective, but is still on the subjective. It is about Christ in the heart which is true heart religion and is at the heart of historical Christianity. The work of Christ on the cross was objective, but what can we say about those who deny the truth of it? They say that those who believe in the cross of Christ believe it in a subjective way rather than looking at it in an objective way. What about the resurrection of Christ? Is that simply an objective truth that all must believe who think they believe in objective truth?
Then we get into the application of the work of Christ and the resurrection of Christ to the souls of His people. Are those objective works or subjective works? What about spiritual fruit? Is that objective or subjective? It may be the case that these lines of objective versus subjective that you draw are not all that objective. Is it the case that you have a subjective view of what is objective or what you count as objective? Dr. Hart says he believes certain things because they bring him comfort while reading Edwards gives him the willies. Are those objective or subjective reasons? People who like things raional without feeling and calm as opposed to a little less calm can indeed be operating according to a subjective preference for silence and calmness. Again, the lines between the objective and the subjective are not as clear as one things. I think that the joy of the Spirit is an objective work.
LikeLike
Richard, yes, the heart must be circumcised, but sin still deeply abides and it is grace alone that does the work. I know you concede this, but heart religionists seem to give it a rote tip of the hat, and instead of accenting grace end up accenting striving. Instead of at the center, Christ always seems in the peripheral. And here is the semi-ness coming through–Christ isn’t pushed out as in full blown human-centered theology, but edged out.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, yes, the heart must be circumcised, but sin still deeply abides and it is grace alone that does the work. I know you concede this, but heart religionists seem to give it a rote tip of the hat, and instead of accenting grace end up accenting striving. Instead of at the center, Christ always seems in the peripheral. And here is the semi-ness coming through–Christ isn’t pushed out as in full blown human-centered theology, but edged out.
RS: I think my focus or center is at least close to Paul’s. He spoke of striving as well. He even spoke of laboring more than them all, yet it was the grace of God in him. I am not convinced that there is a way of accenting grace without accenting the aspect of grace that strives and labors. It is Christ in the soul, so it is not edging Christ out, it is setting forth Christ Himself.
Colossians 1:29 For this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me.
1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me.
LikeLike
I just want to see if I can have the final word on this lengthy comments thread without Richard chiming in with a final word of his own. (Or will Richard feel compelled to respond?) 🙂
So, here goes (you can do it, Richard; you can keep yourself from responding; just use the force!):
Word.
LikeLike
?
LikeLike
Word…
LikeLike
from the Gospel Coalition Blog (http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/09/24/two-major-streams-of-reformed-theology/?comments#comments#comment-40280)
John – You would be wrong to say that Baptist churches are not reformed. They arise out of the same movement — the Reformation, committed to Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, etc. — and have a common confession of faith, the 1689 London Baptist Confession, largely copied from the Westminster Confession. One could make a better case that infant-baptizing churches are not truly “reformed” because they practice something — sprinkling of babies and calling it “baptism” — that is not found in scripture and hence is a violation of Sola Scriptura and the regulative principle of worship. I wouldn’t argue that but someone could make the case and be on better ground than denying that Reformed Baptists are, in fact, really Reformed.
Erik – John – I can point to the United Reformed Churches of North America and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church as two groups that are thriving today that can trace their churches back to the Reformation. Can you cite a similar body of Baptists (not just one church, a whole denomination or federation)? My criticism of Reformed Baptists, New Calvinists, Three Point Calvinists, and groups like the RCA & CRC is they want to used the term “Reformed” but want to shy away from a lot of what it has meant throughout history to be Reformed – Confessionalism (and actually teaching people the confessions), Covenant theology with infant baptism being a key part, A church polity that includes strong leadership from male elders, the regulative principle of worship with a focus on word & sacrament, etc. There is a lot of false advertising going on. I challenge you to bring your views to oldlife.org for debate. There is a lone puritan-influenced Reformed Baptist debating there of late and he could use some help.
LikeLike
He’s from Covenant Reformed Baptist Church in Caswell County, North Carolina and has a Ph.D. in church history.
LikeLike
John wrote: “One could make a better case that infant-baptizing churches are not truly “reformed” because they practice something — sprinkling of babies and calling it “baptism” — that is not found in scripture and hence is a violation of Sola Scriptura and the regulative principle of worship.”
GW: Of course, we reformed confessional paedobaptists do believe that there is scriptural warrant for the practice of infant baptism, not in the form of a “thou shalt baptize babies” direct command, but by good and necessary inference (WCF 1.6) from covenantal continuity of God’s dealings with sinners in the administration of the covenant of grace (Gal. 3:15-18, 28-29; Rom. 2:28-29; 4:9-12; 11:16; Col. 2:11-12, etc.), and from the fact that the New Testament affirms the principle of the children of believers being included within the sphere of the visible covenant community (Acts 2:39, compared with Gen. 17:7; 1 Cor. 7:14; Mk. 10:13-16; the household baptisms in Acts), and hence having a right to the sign of initiation into the covenant community. In terms of violating Sola Scriptura and the regulative principle of worship, we believe our baptist brethren do just this by forbidding the children of believers to receive the covenant sign and by often adding a completely man-made ceremony to the Divinely-commanded worship of God — namely, baby dedication. (Where does the Bible command or prescribe the ceremony of baby dedications? It is nothing but a pure human tradition. But by inventing such a “dry baptism” ceremony our baptist brethren show that they feel the pull & power of the covenant sign which they refuse to administer to their children.)
I guess I won’t be getting in the final word on this never ending thread after all. 🙂
LikeLike
Erik – John – I can point to the United Reformed Churches of North America and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church as two groups that are thriving today that can trace their churches back to the Reformation.
RS: That sounds like a Roman Catholic argument. The issue, once again, if we are to follow the Reformed principle of Sola Scriptura and the WCF, is what doth the Word of God say.
Erik C: Can you cite a similar body of Baptists (not just one church, a whole denomination or federation)?
RS: Some have argued that they can trace this all the way back to Jesus. Of course I am not concinced they are correct, but then again I don’t see the need to do so either.
Erik C: My criticism of Reformed Baptists, New Calvinists, Three Point Calvinists, and groups like the RCA & CRC is they want to used the term “Reformed” but want to shy away from a lot of what it has meant throughout history to be Reformed – Confessionalism (and actually teaching people the confessions), Covenant theology with infant baptism being a key part, A church polity that includes strong leadership from male elders, the regulative principle of worship with a focus on word & sacrament, etc. There is a lot of false advertising going on.
RS: You may be surprised someday to find out that there are more Baptists than you think doing all of the above. Of course the infants they baptize are infants in Christ.
Eric C: I challenge you to bring your views to oldlife.org for debate. There is a lone puritan-influenced Reformed Baptist debating there of late and he could use some help.
RS: Help? Who needs help. “One little word will fell” or vanquish all who take their stand against the truth.
LikeLike
Geoff Willour: I guess I won’t be getting in the final word on this never ending thread after all.
RS: Eternity will never end and you won’t get the final word there either. Neither will I and both of us won’t mind a bit.
Proverbs 16:1 The plans of the heart belong to man, But the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.
Proverbs 16:9 The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.
LikeLike
Geoff Willour: In terms of violating Sola Scriptura and the regulative principle of worship, we believe our baptist brethren do just this by forbidding the children of believers to receive the covenant sign and by often adding a completely man-made ceremony to the Divinely-commanded worship of God — namely, baby dedication. (Where does the Bible command or prescribe the ceremony of baby dedications? It is nothing but a pure human tradition. But by inventing such a “dry baptism” ceremony our baptist brethren show that they feel the pull & power of the covenant sign which they refuse to administer to their children.)
RS: Not all have that as a practice. I don’t think that many who think of themselvs as Reformed do that, though it is common among Arminian Baptists. I will not make an effort to go to great lengths to draw a line from what Arminian Baptists do to what paedobaptists do in this matter, but it is interesting to note. Both will argue that the promises of God are linked in baptism and are contingent to some degree on the person receiving baptism. I would argue, though, that what some do in that (infant dedication ceremony) is a far different matter than what paedobaptists do when they apply a little water to the head of the infant.
LikeLike
GW: Of course, we reformed confessional paedobaptists do believe that there is scriptural warrant for the practice of infant baptism, not in the form of a “thou shalt baptize babies” direct command, but by good and necessary inference (WCF 1.6) from covenantal continuity of God’s dealings with sinners in the administration of the covenant of grace (Gal. 3:15-18, 28-29; Rom. 2:28-29; 4:9-12; 11:16; Col. 2:11-12, etc.),
RS: Point one for paedobpatists, covenantal continuity.
GW: and from the fact that the New Testament affirms the principle of the children of believers being included within the sphere of the visible covenant community (Acts 2:39, compared with Gen. 17:7; 1 Cor. 7:14; Mk. 10:13-16; the household baptisms in Acts), and hence having a right to the sign of initiation into the covenant community.
RS: Point two for paedobaptists, children of believers are in the visible covenant comunity.
Geoff, and others, is this an accurate assessment of what you just set out? Is there anything else you would like to add?
LikeLike
“Geoff Willour: I guess I won’t be getting in the final word on this never ending thread after all.
RS: Eternity will never end and you won’t get the final word there either. Neither will I and both of us won’t mind a bit.
Proverbs 16:1 The plans of the heart belong to man, But the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.
Proverbs 16:9 The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.”
GW again: Sheesh…lighten up, brother Richard. 🙂
LikeLike
“Richard” wrote: “Geoff, and others, is this an accurate assessment of what you just set out? Is there anything else you would like to add?”
GW: Sure, lots more could be said, and has been said (and said much better) by many others. If you really want to learn more about the biblical-reformed defense of covenantal paedobaptism, I would recommend you read some (or all) of the following:
Christian Baptism by John Murray (P & R Publishing)
The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant by Lewis Bevens Schenck (P & R Publishing)
Children of Promise: The Case for Baptizing Infants by Geoffrey Bromily (Eerdmans)
Children of Promise: The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism by Robert R. Booth (P & R Publishing)
The Meaning and Mode of Baptism by Jay E. Adams (P & R Publishing)
We & our Children: The Reformed Doctrine of Infant Baptism by Herman Hanko (Reformed Free Publishing Association)
Word, Water and Spirit by J.V. Fesko (Reformed Heritage Books)
The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, Edited by Gregg Strawbridge (P & R Publishing)
LikeLike
Geoff Willour: “Richard” wrote: “Geoff, and others, is this an accurate assessment of what you just set out? Is there anything else you would like to add?”
GW: Sure, lots more could be said, and has been said (and said much better) by many others. If you really want to learn more about the biblical-reformed defense of covenantal paedobaptism, I would recommend you read some (or all) of the following:
Christian Baptism by John Murray (P & R Publishing)
RS: Got it
The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant by Lewis Bevens Schenck (P & R Publishing)
Children of Promise: The Case for Baptizing Infants by Geoffrey Bromily (Eerdmans)
Children of Promise: The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism by Robert R. Booth (P & R Publishing)
RS: Got it.
The Meaning and Mode of Baptism by Jay E. Adams (P & R Publishing)
RS: Got it
We & our Children: The Reformed Doctrine of Infant Baptism by Herman Hanko (Reformed Free Publishing Association)
RS: Got it
Word, Water and Spirit by J.V. Fesko (Reformed Heritage Books)
The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, Edited by Gregg Strawbridge (P & R Publishing)
RS: Got it
RS: So, which of the books above do you rate as the top two? If you can remember, what is the best argument(s) of each of those two books?
LikeLike
Perhaps a more interesting approach to this issue is to ask the person defending baptism position A to rank the best books defending the approach of baptism position B.
I’ve read through and closely studied almost all of the books listed above, but I think Doug Wilson’s “To a thousand generations” tops them all. I would recommend it as the best book written on infant baptism – even better than Murray’s, which was really good. I read Booth’s with hope and expectation that it would change my mind – after all, he was reputed to be a former Reformed Baptist who had seen the error of his ways.
But I could not get past the obvious statements about practice of our Lord (John 4:1); his command to his church (Matt 28); and the promise outlined by Peter and then applied not to “believers and their children” but to all adults and children who call on the name of the Lord (Acts 2). I concluded that only disciples and all disciples are to be baptized. But I came to that conclusion only after spending several years of patiently working through many defences of a position I had hoped to adopt.
So I ask the other participants on this thread whether they would like to list the best defences of the position on this subject which they reject. Then we might begin to flush out a few straw men.
LikeLike
Richard – It’s not a “Roman Catholic argument” to accuse Reformed Baptists of misusing the term “Reformed”. If Reformed people starting calling themselves “Catholics” the Roman Catholics would have a valid beef. You’re confused on your logic here.
When the best a “Reformed Baptist” can do is cite the London Baptist Confession of 1689 in order to link themselves to the Reformation that’s pretty weak. Calvin was born in 1509 and Luther posted the 95 theses in 1517. We’re almost 200 years later by 1689.
LikeLike
Erik, sorry to jump in on your conversation. But I think your argument proves too much, and also invalidates the claims to “Reformed” identity of subscribers to the Westminster Confession (1647) or Savoy Declaration (1658), which are almost as late as the Second London Confession of Faith (which was published in 1677 but only adopted by the General Assembly of the Particular Baptist churches in 1689).
I for one am quite relaxed about whether Reformed Baptists should be allowed the identity of “Reformed.” Historically, “Particular Baptist” is the more relevant “denominational” label. Baptists only tried to become “Reformed” after the establishment of the Banner of Truth, right? That was when Reformed identity become so light on ecclesiology that anybody could own it.
By the way – the Savoy Declaration is an interesting case to consider in defining “Reformed.” I suppose we all agree that John Owen was “Reformed.” But the confession he more or less authored denied presbyterian church government and the church membership of children, from what I can remember.
LikeLike
C – One thing that was persuasive for me as a former baptist was understanding covenant theology and seeing how circumcision was the sign in the OT. It seems logical to me that baptism would replace that in the NT. If baptism was not meant for children I think Jesus and the NT writers (Jews) would have made that explicit. It would have been a real paradigm shift for a Jewish audience.
As far as “Reformed Baptists” claiming the Reformation they need to get past Luther and Calvin embracing infant baptism.
LikeLike
C – Everyone jumps in on everyone’s conversation here. No problem at all. I will gladly yield the term “Particular Baptist”.
I have recently dealt with a group of Baptists who are middle of the road on election. They basically say it is a mystery and that anyone who comes down hard one way or another is out of line. They have been dealing with a very public church discipline situation and are making a total mess of it. They are an “elder led” church but without a church order and without higher bodies to be accountable to they are kind of lost. I know the guy who is the victim of all of this and it’s really sad. My point – Don’t just dabble in things like being “Reformed” or “Elder Led” unless you’re going to go all the way.
LikeLike
It’s like the guys who tried to drive out demons and ended up fleeing the house bleeding and naked. Being Reformed is tough — as I heard recently about the OPC – “It’s the best church around…if you can stand it.” As Talking Heads famously said, “This ain’t no party. This ain’t no disco. This ain’t no fooling around.” Now back to work. I’ll check in later.
LikeLike
Erik, for sure! Baptists should be extremely cautious in claiming the Reformation.
Baptists should remember that Reformers oversaw the drowning of Anabaptists, and that English and Scottish Puritans passed legislation to imprison Baptists, irrespective of their “Calvinist” soteriology.
Baptists can identify with many of the most important contributions of the Reformation. But Reformed people can’t identify with the Reformation without proper qualification either.
I’d be interested to know why modern Reformed people can say they are Reformed while denying the important confessional statements about the theonomic responsibilities of government, while denying Baptists the same label for denying other parts of the same confessional heritage (given the basic similarity between WCF and 1689). Isn’t everyone doing the same thing with the confessions, while still claiming the same label?
Thanks for your comments on Scripture above. I’d be happy to talk about that, but I suppose this blog isn’t really intended for that kind of defence … and I’m a guest!
LikeLike
Erik, just for fun, like: can you define “Reformed”?
I’m happy to live without the label – after all, the apostles managed to – but I’d be interested to know what you’re using the term to mean.
Will you point me to a single document, or a tradition of documents which may differ from one another?
If the former, does it exist in a single edition, or are there multiple editions with differences, and if so, which is authoritative (eg competing and contradictory versions of the WCF)?
If the latter, who defines which documents are in the tradition, and doesn’t the fact that one document effectively supersedes the previous document mean that the tradition is in a constant state of flux, with no-one knowing whether a doctrine which is unassailable in one age will be rejected in the next, with those responsible for the rejection claiming to uphold the same rubric of “Reformed tradition” (eg the theonomic responsibilities of the state, which c17th Presbyterians believed would be denied only by extreme heretics)?
LikeLike
Erik old post – John – I can point to the United Reformed Churches of North America and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church as two groups that are thriving today that can trace their churches back to the Reformation.
RS old post: That sounds like a Roman Catholic argument.
Erik C: Richard – It’s not a “Roman Catholic argument” to accuse Reformed Baptists of misusing the term “Reformed”. If Reformed people starting calling themselves “Catholics” the Roman Catholics would have a valid beef. You’re confused on your logic here.
When the best a “Reformed Baptist” can do is cite the London Baptist Confession of 1689 in order to link themselves to the Reformation that’s pretty weak. Calvin was born in 1509 and Luther posted the 95 theses in 1517. We’re almost 200 years later by 1689.
RS: My point was and is that the argument that we have the most direct line to point A in history is a Roman Catholic style of argument and that has been argued against on this particular site. The Particular/covenantal/creedal Baptist argument is that the truth of Baptism is taught in Scripture and so our position goes back to Scripture and is founded on Scripture. Allow me to quote from Stephen Charnock from his comments on I Cor 2:2:
“Observe, the bvest churches are like the moon, not without their spots. The purest times had their imperfections; a pure state is not allowed to this, but is reserved for another world. Church antiquity is a very unsafe rule. Other chruches at some distance from this apostles’ time were as subject to error as this. Pride and ambition were less likely to keep out of them than of Christ’s family. Had the history of this church’s practices and tenents, without teh corrective epistle of the apostle, been transmitted to other ages, they would have used it as a patter. Not the church, but Scripture authority, is to be followed; fathers must not be preferred before apostles; church practices are no pattersn, but as they are parallel to the grand and unerring rule.”
LikeLike
C – I jumped back on for a minute. I would go from Calvin, to Knox, to Scottish Presbyterianism, to Westminster in order to claim Westminster. Am I out of line?
LikeLike
C – You’re not a guest. No membership dues. The only requirement is a certain level of snarkiness and a thick skin. I’m fairly new myself and I take over whenever I can. Raid D.G.’s fridge and take all the good snacks — don’t cost nothin’.
LikeLike
Erik, thanks, I have a thick-ish skin.
So my next question is – which version of Westminster? And on whose authority?
The snacks might be free but Hart books can be expensive.
LikeLike
I would define Reformed as holding to either the Three Forms of Unity (Continental Reformed) or the Westminster Standards (Scottish Presbyterianism). I would say the URC & the OPC are the most thoroughly Reformed groups in the U.S. Today (along with some smaller faithful groups). The PCA is Reformed on it’s better days, but has trouble keeping everyone in line. The CREC (is that what they are still called?) is too new and is thoroughly infected with the Federal Vision so I can’t embrace them. If you are a theonomist be prepared to be thoroughly taken to task. This is largely a 2K group. I’m close to finishing Van Drunen’s shorter book as we speak.
LikeLike
Hart’s used books do hold their value. I just paid $20 for his 300 year Presbyterian history.
I think having the civil magistrate overly involved in spiritual affairs just makes a mess of things and leads to a lot of dead people.
LikeLike
If those 19 “witches” in Salem could have been dealt with by the church instead of the civil magistrate we might have avoided that stain that is still with us 300+ years later. When a woman claims to have not been somewhere and the prosecution replies, “Well, you were there in spectral form” a wise elder might have been able to reach a better conclusion than a judge. Monty Python wouldn’t have had such fertile ground, though.
LikeLike
C – If you’re into ultimate authority you should head over to Called to Communion. They are really into that kind of thing.
LikeLike
I’d be interested to know why modern Reformed people can say they are Reformed while denying the important confessional statements about the theonomic responsibilities of government, while denying Baptists the same label for denying other parts of the same confessional heritage (given the basic similarity between WCF and 1689). Isn’t everyone doing the same thing with the confessions, while still claiming the same label?
C Gribben, some Reformed would like to know how anyone can claim there are “theonomic responsibilities of the government” given WCF 19. It could be that to affirm what the Confession clearly opposes makes claims to being Reformed dubious. By the same token, how to affirm as Reformed those who embrace what Belgic 34 deems a “detestable error”? So I don’t the inconsistency or cherry picking you imply. What I see is that theonomy and credo-baptism getting no cover whatever in the confessional statements.
LikeLike
I can see where you are going with this – Why do I accept the Reformers paedobaptism but not their Constantinian Paradigm? My answer is that their paedobaptism was Biblical (Sorry, Richard), but their Constantinianism was not. I would actually prefer going to Richard’s Puritan Baptist church over a Theonomic Presbyterian Church. We are not Theocratic Israel in possession of the promised land. We are more akin to exiled Israel in Babylon. Van Drunen is brilliant on this point, as he is on distinguishing between the covenants made with Noah and Abraham. It’s a great book.
LikeLike
Zrim, nice to meet you. Totally with you on the general confessional rejection of credo-baptism. But there is also a general confessional rejection of a non-confessional state, isn’t there?
On theonomy and the WCF, you might consult “Samuel Rutherford and liberty of conscience,” Westminster Theological Journal 71:2 (2009), pp. 355-73. I extract:
On 9 February 1646 the divines debated the “abrogation” of both the ceremonial and judicial laws. Their position had moderated by the final draft of the Confession, however, when only the ceremonial laws were described as having been “abrogated,” while the “general equity” of the “expired” judicial laws was thought to remain in force (WCF 19.3-4). Similarly, on 26 March 1646 the Assembly discussed a draft chapter on Christian liberty and liberty of conscience, concluding that “the gospel consists. . . in freedom from. . .the ceremonial and judiciallaw.” By the final draft of the Confession, however, the status of the judicial laws had again been implicitly changed; WCF 20 contains no reference to the believer’s freedom from the judicial law, though WCF 20.1 does refer to both moral and ceremonial categories. Discussion of the public aspects of the judicial laws seems to have been deferred to WCF 20.4, which discourses on the power of the godly magistrate
without explicitly referring to the biblical mandate for his rule. Westminster Confession of Faith 20.4 demands that those who publish opinions or maintain practices contrary to the “light of nature,” the “known principles of Christianity,” or the “power of godliness,” or those whose opinions or practices are “destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church,” may be called to account by the “censures of the Church, and by the power of the civil magistrate.” Although care must be exercised in arguing from the Confession’s proof texts—which were inserted by the divines with the utmost reluctance, and only after sustained pressure from Parliament—it is significant that the proof texts for this latter assertion include Deut 13:6-11.
LikeLike
Erik, it’s ok – living where I do and in the wake of revealed horrors it’s difficult to see much attractive about the work of Called to Communion.
My point is just that different Presbyterian communions operating at present use different and competing versions of the WCF. The American one is different from the Scottish one; and the Scottish denominations’ adoption of the confession was always of a qualified version of the original, which I think only a tiny minority of hardcore puritan-Presbyterians use today.
So tell me – is the first edition of the WCF less “Reformed” than the version adopted by the OPC? Isn’t the Constantinian paradigm part of the same tradition you adhere to?
And, by the way, the best book opposing theonomy is Chris Caughey’s “A Tale of Two Adams”.
LikeLike
C – You’ve correctly identified a debate within the Reformed community, which gets me back around to my original point about Reformed Baptists not being Reformed. The mode of Baptism is not a debate within the Reformed community. It was an issue that was resolved 400 years ago.
I am a URC guy so I don’t subscribe to any particular version of the Westminster. I do embrace the changes made by the CRC to Article 36 of the Belgic, though, which I think is pretty much the same issue you are talking about.
LikeLike
Gents, just to be clear here:
Zrim says that the confessions give “no cover” to theonomic statements.
Erik, by contrast, says that the Reformers (and their confessions? He can clarify) do advance a Constantinian Paradigm.
I may be falsely compounding theonomy and Constantinianism, and I realise there are nuances, but this apparent contradiction makes me wonder whether you are reading the confessions differently – or merely reading different confessions.
To clarify: Others may identify me as a “Reformed Baptist” but I’m happy to lose the “Reformed” label. And I don’t think I’d have been queuing up to identify with Luther or Rutherford, who would have been much less gracious to me than you are being this evening. I don’t mind what you call me in terms of theological identity. I’m just wondering what the term means for other people who identify with the Reformation – c17th puritan confessional tradition.
LikeLike
Thanks Erik, I was writing that without realising that you had posted.
What you are saying is that one community (URC) can differ from another (OPC) without losing the identity of being “Reformed,” but they have that freedom only on certain issues. Yet each community believes their distinctives are so important that they elevate them to confessional level (that’s a big step).
So would the originators of the Belgic recognise anyone who tampered with their confession as confessing the same things as they did?
LikeLike
I think it’s hard to argue that at the time the Belgic & Westminster were written the writers did not have a Constantinian Paradigm. It’s all they knew. Civil Magistrates were waging wars between Protestants and Catholics all around them. I don’t think as Reformed people we are “stuck” with those sections, however, because we affirm the confessions only to the extent that they are a faithful summary of Scripture. Getting away from the historical context of warring civil magistrates allows time for reflection on what the Bible really says. We can also blame Roman Catholicism for a great extent for all of this as they were very content to be mixed up with the Civil Magistrate in order to keep their monopoly in place for centuries (The CTC guys kind of forget this when they recall the glory days of unity under Rome).
LikeLike
Erik, is the problem here that you are defining “Reformed community” to exclude some people who want to be in it (ie Reformed Baptists) while including within that community others that the writers of your confession did not want to be identified with (ie defenders of a secular state)? My fear is that what we are doing when we make this move is just inventing our own confessional paradigm and pretending it is historical – either as individuals, congregations or denominations.
My suspicion is that there is no such thing as a “Reformed community” defined by a clear set of confessional texts, any more than there is an evangelical community defined by Christianity Today. All we have are specific denominations with clear and sometimes contradicting confessional commitments, some of which are prepared to work together and are prepared to label themselves accordingly as “Reformed.”
LikeLike
“So would the originators of the Belgic recognise anyone who tampered with their confession as confessing the same things as they did?”
That’s a good question. They may have been content with a civil magistrate that just left them (and those of differing theological beliefs) alone if that was an option. At the time It was kind of a case where either the civil magistrate was going to be killing you or your opponent, however, so they wrote that the civil magistrate should side with them.
All this goes to show why the U.S. Constitution is kind of a beautiful thing.
LikeLike
Erik, sorry, missed you again!
The irony is of course that the Constantinian paradigm was not all that the delegates at Westminster, for example, knew. For Baptists and others had been writing in defence of a secular state, and Baptists had even given it confessional status in their First London Confession (1644).
I absolutely support your statement that confessions should be subject to revision as our understanding of Scripture develops. But again the irony is that this is the same freedom that my Reformed Baptist brothers are requesting – modification within a defined confessional tradition.
You want to modify the Reformation understanding of the theonomic role of the state – they want to modify the Reformation understanding of the subjects of baptism. And both parties have to admit that they are wanting to modify things that were utterly unchallengeable in the 16th and 17th centuries – to modify things that Reformers and Puritans could never have imagined their “Reformed” brothers would ever want to challenge.
Are you getting much work done?
LikeLike
C – Nobody is going to trace their church back perfectly in history. The folly of CTC’s project is they think they can do it all the way back to Jesus himself (never mind all of those detours that are kind of hard to explain — we’ll just smooth those over). Some can be traced back better than others, though. That’s my point. If someone joins a Reformed Baptist church I just want truth in advertising about what that potential member is buying into.
LikeLike
You read my mind – I am NOT getting enough work done. I’ll see if some of the other guys want to chime in. You just need to embrace infant baptism and join us. We need minds like yours as elders.
LikeLike
Erik, the Irish constitution is best. Read the preamble.
That point about authority: who gets to decide which parts of a confession are ultimately negotiable, when the authors of confessions thought each element was so important that it should be elevated to confessional status?
LikeLike
Erik, no problem, and I’m off to bed now anyway.
But it occurs to me that any modification of an original confessional document works against the authority of that confession, and admits the precedent of change.
Surely the most honest thing for any church to do is to give its modified confession an entirely new name. That way even subscribers of modified paedo-baptist confessions could avoid the charge of false advertising, and unsuspecting subscribers of the original Erastian and theonomic version of the WCF might never need to end up in the OPC …
Slán.
LikeLike
RS: Murray’s Christian Baptism may or may not rate in everybody’s mind, but his chapter on the church (Ch. 3 IIRC) was a significant turning point for me.
LikeLike
CG, you may have a point when it comes to the wrangling over the theocratic (-nomic) state within Reformed communions, though I think a good case can be made that any conception of it isn’t Reformed. But where the WCF/TFU are taken as the defining standards of what it means to be Reformed, I’m not aware of any such wrangling over baptism, which also rises to the staggering level of the second mark of the true church.
I will say that no one could be more sympathetic to the local RBs who seek membership in our URC because of 2k convictions. But I can’t see the integrity of affirming those who practice what we confess is a detestable error.
LikeLike
Zrim – Do you admit them to membership? That’s a no-no, isn’t it?
LikeLike
We have baptists who worship with us regularly (they married in) but no baptist members to my knowledge. We’re working on them.
LikeLike
C.G. – I get it. You must be in Ireland. I hope you keep posting here. You have a lot to contribute.
LikeLike
The preamble to the Irish Constitution:
In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred, We, the people of Éire, Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial, Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation, And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations, Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.
LikeLike
C Gribben: My point is just that different Presbyterian communions operating at present use different and competing versions of the WCF. The American one is different from the Scottish one; and the Scottish denominations’ adoption of the confession was always of a qualified version of the original, which I think only a tiny minority of hardcore puritan-Presbyterians use today.
RS: The EPC branch of Presbyterians has also added a couple of chapters to the confession. One of the chapters is on the Holy Spirit, which interestingly enough was not in the WCF.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: C – You’ve correctly identified a debate within the Reformed community, which gets me back around to my original point about Reformed Baptists not being Reformed. The mode of Baptism is not a debate within the Reformed community. It was an issue that was resolved 400 years ago.
RS: It may have been resolved in the minds of some, but I will still contend that it has not been resolved in the minds of some of us who think that the Reformers did not reform the sacraments from Rome enough. Some of that could have been political, but whatever the reason it did not happen. The Regulative Principle of Worship (RPS) was followed by virtually all the Reformed and thought to mean that no instruments and Psalms only was the correct interpretation of the Scriptures. They even thought that the Psalms should not be practiced when the Psalm spoke of a musical instrument. The RPCNA still hands on to that interpretation (rightly or wrongly). However, the Scriptures do not command that one is to worship God by baptizing infants. Our only command is to baptize disciples.
LikeLike
Zrim, I’m really interested in your statement admitting “wrangling over the theocratic (-nomic) state within Reformed communions, though I think a good case can be made that any conception of it isn’t Reformed.”
My point is that there wasn’t any wranging over the notion among the confessions written during the Reformation or post-Reformation periods. In other words, according to the confessions (in their historic editions, rather than in the American modifications of them, which occurred many years after 1689!), the Reformed must believe that the state has theocratic / theonomic responsibilities. Any denial of that claim – which is widely shared in these documents – is a denial of an element of Reformed thinking which those who wrote these texts deemed so vital, and so important to insist upon in the face of Baptist / Anabaptist confessional arguments in favour of a secular state, that they elevated it to confessional level.
To allow space for wrangling, you effectively switch the locus of authority from the authors and original ecclesiastical sponsors of these confessions to those who receive them and modify them as they will. And who has the authority to shut down that process once it has begun?
I’m totally with you on the importance of baptism as a mark of the church. This for me is where the rubber doesn’t hit the road for “Reformed” pietists of either baptismal persuasion. In earlier days I was one of those RBs who found gracious hospitality in an EP congregation, and as you say these believers could not have been kinder. But now I think believers of either baptismal persuasion need to have the humble clarity to admit that we cannot regard each other’s congregations as churches which meet the criteria of the marks.
LikeLike
Zrim, again on your comment that “wrangling over the theocratic (-nomic) state within Reformed communions, though I think a good case can be made that any conception of it isn’t Reformed.”
If the doctrinal content of “Reformed” is defined by the confessional texts, and if these texts support the theonomic / theocratic state, as you admit, then any rejection of that model of state isn’t Reformed. To make the statement above you need to appeal for a definition of “Reformed” not to your confessional documents but to Scripture which modifies them (and consequently to later generations of church which modify the confessions in the light of Scripture). This is exactly what those Baptists who wish to known as “Reformed” also wish to do.
Surely the reality is that any early subscriber of the Belgic would not have recognised anyone as being within his community who rejected any part of his confession – neither you nor I.
These early subscribers would have spotted the irony that both you and I are defending positions they would have condemned as “Anabaptist” (me on baptism, you on the state).
LikeLike
Maybe rather than “Reformed” I can go with “More Reformed Than You Are Likely to Find Elsewhere”. It’s not as catchy as CTC’s “The Church That Jesus Christ Himself Founded (TM)” but I can still embrace it. Now I need to go home and go to bed!
LikeLike
Thanks Erik.
That’s a big concession you’re making, in agreeing that “Reformed” should be defined by reference to original versions of confessions to which (I think) contributors to this blog subscribe only in modern, modified forms.
The result is that we must now all judge our doctrine in relative terms. You are more “Reformed” than I am (which I admit!), but Guido de Bres is more “Reformed” still (which I think you have just admitted).
The funny thing, as I was saying to Zrim, is that Guido de Bres would not regard any of us in this discussion as being subscribers to his confession, would he?
From the viewpoint of 1566, we’re all Anabaptists.
LikeLike
Erik, I’ve seen associate memberships extended. Boo, hiss.
LikeLike
CG, I think you gloss over the American revisions in such a way as to make it impossible to consider them also historical. If by historical you mean “whatever was originally written and cannot be revised,” then you have a point. But I don’t take that to be the meaning of historical, nor in keeping with what it means to be Reformed and always reforming. We’re Protestants, not Catholics, which means we may revise instead of develop (read: we don’t have to harmonize contradictions to maintain infallibility—and bonus, we can point to revisions against the evangelicals who say we overestimate the confessions). The nature of baptism has survived through history, which seems to suggest that the Reformed have always gotten it right. But since questions surrounding the so-called theonomic/theocratic responsibilities of the state haven’t (the revisions as evidence), it seems to suggest we haven’t.
LikeLike
Crawford, somewhere in here you suggested that the early Reformed creeds’ teaching on the magistrate was “the” Reformed view and those who don’t hold it are not as much Reformed. “We’re all Anabaptists now.” But what if the Reformed creeds agreed with Rome on the magistrate, and with Lutherans. How Reformed is it then, especially if all the later churches revised the teaching?
It could be that the Reformed churches were wrong.
LikeLike
I would turn this around and point out how amazing it is to see the degree to which the URC is conducting their affairs in accordance with the three forms — 400 years after they were written. We actually study them, teach them to our kids and preach sermons on them.
Say we did go back to the original version of Belgic 36. What good would it do in a pluralistic society? We would just look like a bunch of nuts (like the theonomists). There is no coincidence that most theonomists are also postmilennialists — which it can be argued goes against Belgic 37’s implicit amilennialism. It’s going to take an awful long time to “Christianize” society to the point that the civil magistrate can do the things envisioned by them. Even then I would argue that their approach is not biblical because the guy who bears the sword shouldn’t be trying to enforce the Christian faith. It leads to nominalism and corruption of the church. By the second generation the Puritans had to put the half-way covenant into place because they needed to keep unenthused second-generation people in the church so they could vote.
LikeLike
D.G. – What started all this is me saying Reformed Baptists aren’t truly Reformed because they’re Baptists. Crawford response was “well neither are you, then, because you reject theonomy”. This is the basic argument we are having. He’s not a theonomist personally.
LikeLike
Who in the 21st century can truly claim the term “Reformed” and who can’t? Why? We still have the REFORMED Church in America, the Christian REFORMED Church, and the PRESBYTERIAN Church – USA and I wouldn’t send me dog to any of them on Sunday morning. O.K., maybe some CRC’s if no officers are wearing heels.
LikeLike
Zrim, I’m happy with confessional revision, rather than development, so long as we realise that when we subscribe to the modern revision of eg the Belgic, we’re identifying with something other than the package of doctrine outlined by its earliest subscribers, and, in this particular case, with a serious error which they identified with the Anabaptists.
You comment that “the nature of baptism has survived through history, which seems to suggest that the Reformed have always gotten it right. But since questions surrounding the so-called theonomic/theocratic responsibilities of the state haven’t (the revisions as evidence), it seems to suggest we haven’t [got it right].”
I think you’re arguing in circles here. You can only argue for the continuity of a particular theology of baptism if you beg the question we’re discussing – which is, as Erik points out, which churches can be counted as “Reformed”?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Crawford, somewhere in here you suggested that the early Reformed creeds’ teaching on the magistrate was “the” Reformed view and those who don’t hold it are not as much Reformed. “We’re all Anabaptists now.” But what if the Reformed creeds agreed with Rome on the magistrate, and with Lutherans. How Reformed is it then, especially if all the later churches revised the teaching?
It could be that the Reformed churches were wrong.
RS: That is precisely (more or less) what I (now we) have been saying regarding the sacraments in general and baptism in particular. That particular teaching was Roman Catholic and the Reformed churches were wrong in accepting it rather than going back to the Bible.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Who in the 21st century can truly claim the term “Reformed” and who can’t? Why? We still have the REFORMED Church in America, the Christian REFORMED Church, and the PRESBYTERIAN Church – USA and I wouldn’t send me dog to any of them on Sunday morning. O.K., maybe some CRC’s if no officers are wearing heels.
RS: We agree on one thing, we wouldn’t send our dog to any of those places. However, I wouldn’t go myself either. I tend to think of those groups (you listed) as being more DEFORMED in reality rather than REFORMED. But then again, that is what I say to Arminians and Pelagians in another way. If you are not REFORMED, you are DEFORMED. However, there are those who are REFORMED in name only.
LikeLike
On the best book for paedobaptism, I tend to go with the Greg Strawbridge collection, not only because he’s a federal visionist from right here in Lancaster, Pa, but because of the internal disagreements between various essays in that book. Lot of fun for us credobaptists.
dgh: “We’re all Anabaptists now.” But what if the Reformed creeds agreed with Rome on the magistrate, and with Lutherans. How Reformed is it then, especially if all the later churches revised the teaching? It could be that the Reformed churches were wrong.
mark: I think Hart has many good points packed in here. I like his quotation marks around the “we are all anabaptists now”. I take it to mean at least two things. One, there is some place between becoming an anabaptist and having the Christendom view that all the infants in one nation-state need to be christened into one church. You can deny Constantinianism (at least the formally religious kind of Constantinianism–there is a secular Constantinianism, Yoder has a
typology of about ten types of Constantinianism) without becoming Anabaptist.
But the second point, and the main thing Hart is getting at (I think) is this—if being Reformed is all of one piece, then you can’t remove the Constantinianism and still be “Reformed”, which means
almost of you are not “Reformed”.
Now, let me repeat that I don’t want in the club. I don’t want to be “Reformed”. But neither am I ready to say that all Reformed folks are inherently Constantinian. Sure, saying “the covenant” in defense of paedobaptism can lead a person to leap into an equation of the levitical economy with “the law” of God, but Reformed people like Meredith Kline, Mike Horton, and David Gordon don’t do that.
Instead of complaining about Pratt’s saying “the new covenant is not yet fulfilled”, I choose to be glad that 2 k folks aren’t “mono-covenantal” when it comes to ethics. Of course I would be even
more glad if they moved to the new covenant standard instead of “the common natural law”, but in this they are not that different from neo-Kuyperians who aren’t theonomists either.
Doug Wilson assumes that two kinds of election in the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants means two kinds of election in the new covenant. Of course Wilson is not the only paedobaptist to say “the covenant” as if that were saying the same thing as “the gospel”. Nor is he the only Reformed guy making a distinction between the new covenant and election. But since mono-covenantalism is his central doctrine, Wilson is more consistent than most paedobaptists in how this works out in his doctrine of assurance. Wilson’s gospel is about grace helping people keep the conditions of “staying in the covenant”. But John Piper, a mono-covenantalist who despite that still thinks he’s some kind of credobaptist, would agree with Wilson about “covenant conditionality”.
Doug Wilson: “To see election through a covenant lens does not mean to define decretal election as though it were identical with covenant election.” Wilson fails to make a distinction between knowing that there is such an election, and knowing who is elect. While the Bible does not tell who is elect, God does reveal that all the elect and only the elect will believe the gospel.
But Wilson “understands” the gospel as that which does not talk about decretal election. So his gospel (like that of Norman Shepherd) does not tell the good news about Christ having only died for the decretally elect, nor does his gospel tell the good news about the decretally elect hearing and believing the true gospel.
Doug Wilson: “Because of the promises of the covenant, we may deal with election on our end, which is covenant election.” Presumably, Wilson can know if “members in the covenant” (on this end) have met (up to this point) the conditions of “the covenant” well enough to have their infants (or their grand-infants, or their great grand-infants) baptized in the covenant. Doug Wilson thinks that having assurance is nothing but subjective pietism, and that covenantal warnings are way
more effective to get things transformed.
LikeLike
Richard, I get it — you think the Reformed are flawed on sacraments. But, how to put this, you are wrong.
LikeLike
McMark and Crawford, exactly on the point that Anabaptism is not the fall back for rejecting theonomy or Constantinianism. I’m wondering if McMark will reproduce — since he’s good at cutting and pasting — Yoder’s ten degrees of separation between Constantinianism and Anabaptism. The point not to be missed is that the new teaching on the magistrate in the revised Reformed creeds is still offensive to Anabaptists. It affirms the use of the sword. Anabaptists don’t.
LikeLike
CG, it seems to me that the serious error of the Anabaptists was actually concerning submission to civil authority, not that the civil authority should be more of a secular orientation than sacred. In fact, to the extent that it is possible, modern descendants of the Anabaptists exempt themselves from secular authority precisely because it’s not governed by Scriptural principles, specifically NT ethics. (This is where the mirror errors of theonomy and ABism show: the former wants the civil government to rule per OT codes, the latter by NT ethics, and so long as it doesn’t they both suggest its illegitimacy.)
The only churches that can be counted as Reformed are those that adhere to the Reformed confessions, creeds, and catechisms (WCF/TFU).
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, I get it — you think the Reformed are flawed on sacraments. But, how to put this, you are wrong.
RS: Ah, and now to prove that from Scripture.
LikeLike
Zrim: The only churches that can be counted as Reformed are those that adhere to the Reformed confessions, creeds, and catechisms (WCF/TFU).
RS: But which version of the confessions was the question that was put to you. I would also say that to be Reformed according to the Reformation (sola scriptura) and to the confessions is to have Scripture be the final authority. One of the real foundations built in the Reformation was Scripture as the authority rather than the writings of men. This does not do away with the importance of confessions, but they do point to Scripture themselves.
LikeLike
D.G.: Richard, I get it — you think the Reformed are flawed on sacraments. But, how to put this, you are wrong.
That’s an elegant way to put it.
Richard: Perhaps you should pull up Heidelberg 74 & Belgic 34 (with the Scripture references) online and make an argument here as to why the Scriptural references are misinterpreted. You act like Ursinus & de Bres just pulled infant baptism out of their butts or took Bryan Cross’ word for it. If the Scriptural references don’t work and you can convince us of that we can try to get the Confessions changed, just like Belgic 36 was changed by the CRC & the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands. To act like your view is Biblical and ours is not is just lazy & simplistic.
LikeLike
Zrim: it seems to me that the serious error of the Anabaptists was actually concerning submission to civil authority, not that the civil authority should be more of a secular orientation than sacred.
mark: To make that distinction is anachronism in the extreme. The only authorities that existed to submit to were “sacred”. This does not mean that there was no distinction between church and state. As Bahnsen explains so well in his Theonomy book, the old covenant economy was pretty strict about the distinction between priest and king.
But the point of Constantinian arrangements is that the same group of infants being circumcised as members of “the covenant” are also participants in the cult. There was no such thing as being “cut off” (Genesis 17) from the church without also being cut off from the geo-political grouping. And this continued on through Luther and Calvin to the old school side of New England theology. Ie, we are not killing you for your private religious ideology, but when you fail to bring your infants to be done, then that becomes an act of political sedition.
Leonard Verduin, of course, wrote several books describing this kind of “sacralism”. Despite his nature/grace confusions, one of Verduin’s arguments is that you can be still be paedobaptist without being Constantinian about it. Of course, we anabaptists would object to the conflation of family and church as much as we would to the identity of those in the church with those not exiled from the territory.
And we would also want to ask (as Hart has asked) why is that the Magisterial Reformers were saying the same thing about church/state as the Roman Catholics, and thus having the 30 year war etc? Was it that they suddenly saw that Abraham was not circumcizing the pagans around him? (not even saying-be circumcised or die, as those in the crusades did)? Was it because certain Reformed thinkers began to see that Roger Williams was being more faithfully “Reformed” than Zwingli or Winthrop?
It would be pretty to think so, but my guess is that it was more about democracy and the enlightenment than it was about some confessional revisions. The revision were the result of various developments not a discovery of a more pristine way of being “Reformed”.
Zrim: In fact, to the extent that it is possible, modern descendants of the Anabaptists exempt themselves from secular authority precisely because it’s not governed by Scriptural principles,
specifically NT ethics. (This is where the mirror errors of theonomy and ABism …
mark: One, I want to know which modern anabaptists exempt them from submission “to them”? (This is what Romans 13 commands, Romans 13 doesn’t command us to be them or join them if we can in the right “situation”. Romans 13 doesn’t command us to vote for them if we have the opportunity.) Of course this makes me wonder again if Zirm knows any real pacifists. Does he use the “modern anabaptist” category as a “bad word” for all the evangelicals who are not Romanist or confessionally Reformed?
Two, I want to know if Zirm defines all the early anabaptists in terms of the Munster revolutionaries. Since those rebel peasants practiced credobaptism, should we conclude that those Zwingli put to death were also rebelling peasants? I know that’s the way some theonomists talk about anabaptist history, but I would expect better from Reformed folks who are not into theonomy.
I know it makes a simple typology to say that anabaptism is “theonomy in reverse”, as in govern everybody by the old covenant, or govern everybody by the new. But Anabaptists (the Munster revolutionaries being the exception) never wanted to govern anybody outside their congregation. (Jerry Falwell and Jim Wallis are not anabaptists!)
The anabaptists never said to folks who didn’t confess Christ, well, let’s tell you what your law should be. They never said to folks who didn’t confess Christ, well, let’s baptize you. The anabaptists submitted to those who acted as unwitting agents of God’s vengeance. Instead of saying to pagans who wanted to forget Jesus, well here’s a common law which ignores Jesus and let us join you in having authority over everybody, the Anabaptists said—we are not you, we submit to you. We believe in the resurrection, and you kill us but you can’t destroy us.
LikeLike
Erik Charter Richard: Perhaps you should pull up Heidelberg 74 & Belgic 34 (with the Scripture references) online and make an argument here as to why the Scriptural references are misinterpreted. You act like Ursinus & de Bres just pulled infant baptism out of their butts or took Bryan Cross’ word for it. If the Scriptural references don’t work and you can convince us of that we can try to get the Confessions changed, just like Belgic 36 was changed by the CRC & the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands. To act like your view is Biblical and ours is not is just lazy & simplistic.
RS: Or, to put the shoe on the other foot, you could do the same with the 1689 Baptist Confession or you are lazy or simplistic. I don’t argue that Ursinus pulled infant baptism out of any orfice at all, but simply that it is not in the Bible and that they did not get far enough from Roman Catholicism to see it.
LikeLike
Huebner: Perhaps the most recurring theme in Yoder’s theology is his depiction and critique of “Constantinianism.” In short, Yoder argues that the history of Christianity must be read in light of a deep and lasting, though often subtle, shift that took place with respect to the relationship between church and world, and which he claims is best associated with the reign of Constantine.
Whereas pre-Constantinian Christianity was that of a minority church existing in a world that was largely hostile toward it, Yoder claims that the Constantinian shift resulted in an alignment of the church with the ruling political regime of the day. In other words, Constantinianism assumes the general continuity of Christianity with the wider world. As Yoder himself describes it, the structure of Constantinianism is rooted in the “basic axiom” that “the true meaning of history, the true locus of salvation, is in the cosmos and not in the church. What God is really doing is being done primarily through the framework of society as a whole and not in the Christian community.”
It is important to recognize the sense in which Yoder identifies the Constantinian temptation as existing even in a supposedly post-Constantinian context. Short of the actual institutional alignment of church and state, Yoder claims that Constantinianism continues where there is merely a formal identification of churches with the prevailing political establishment, as in American public discourse. It is even also present when churches are enlisted in support of a program of desecularization, as in the “people’s democracies” of Eastern Europe and one also hears echoes of Constantinianism where eschatological hope is construed in terms of the triumph of some future Marxist regime.
What is characteristic of all these strategies is that they compromise the lordship of Christ by identifying God’s cause in some way with the powers of some political establishment. Accordingly, Yoder calls for churches to resist such a temptation by embodying the counter-establishment character and corresponding critical stance called for by the “politics of Jesus.”
Huebner, A Precarious Peace (57-8)
LikeLike
Richard, take your pick, but keep in mind they all affirm paedobaptism. And, yes, we all know what the formal principle of the Reformation was. But what you have to keep in mind is that all the forms do as well. And like I’ve said before, when you say it as an individual you are doing the exact same thing the formalized confessions do. If you want to remind us all that the confessions are fallible when they speak then I would remind you neither are you.
LikeLike
Though “Christianity” was granted official tolerance in the Roman Empire by the Emperor Constantine, it was the Emperor Theodosius’s declaration in 392 which outlawed many other religions and made “Christianity” the official religion of the Empire. A Latin saying that has often been used to describe the principle of sacralism is cuius regio, eius religio, or “who has region, decides religion.” The idea was that the ruler of each individual area would decide the religion of those under his control based upon his own faith.
In The Priestly Kingdom: Social Ethics as Gospel, John Howard Yoder has a chapter titled “Constantinian Sources of Western Social Ethics.” In explaining what he sees as the various stages of Constantinianism, he comes to what he calls neo-neo-neo-Constantinianism:
“In our own century yet another step is taken. The nation may actually oppose the values of Christianity … Yet even under this reversal, Christians remain patriotic. Their reaction to the lack of control they now suffer takes the form of claiming that their faith does not make them disloyal to the nation. In international and ecumenical contacts their national loyalty is professed, and the view of world affairs held in their homeland is shared…”
LikeLike
Richard: Perhaps you should pull up Heidelberg 74 & Belgic 34 (with the Scripture references) online and make an argument here as to why the Scriptural references are misinterpreted. You act like Ursinus & de Bres just pulled infant baptism out of their butts or took Bryan Cross’ word for it. If the Scriptural references don’t work and you can convince us of that we can try to get the Confessions changed, just like Belgic 36 was changed by the CRC & the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands. To act like your view is Biblical and ours is not is just lazy & simplistic.
Belgic 34 Matt. 28:19 Col. 2:11
RS: Matthew 28:19 commands us to baptize disciples.
Colossians 2:11 speaks of a baptism without hands. I am unaware of any baptism by human beings that is made without hands, so I conclude that this is something that God is doing.
LikeLike
Erik Charter Richard: Perhaps you should pull up Heidelberg 74 & Belgic 34 (with the Scripture references) online and make an argument here as to why the Scriptural references are misinterpreted. You act like Ursinus & de Bres just pulled infant baptism out of their butts or took Bryan Cross’ word for it. If the Scriptural references don’t work and you can convince us of that we can try to get the Confessions changed, just like Belgic 36 was changed by the CRC & the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands. To act like your view is Biblical and ours is not is just lazy & simplistic.
Heidelberg: Question 74. Are infants also to be baptized?
Answer: Yes: for since they, as well as the adult, are included in the covenant and church of God; (a) and since redemption from sin (b) by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult; (c) they must therefore by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, be also admitted into the christian church; and be distinguished from the children of unbelievers (d) as was done in the old covenant or testament by circumcision, (e) instead of which baptism is instituted (f) in the new covenant.
H: (a) Gen.17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
RS: Galatians 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.
The interpretation of the OT passage is given to us by the NT. The promises to Abraham were spoken to Christ and all who belong to Christ are the children of Abraham.
H (b) Matt.19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
RS: The text does not say that He baptized them, but simply let them come to Him. They were brought to Him so that He would lay hands on them and pray for them.
H (c) Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb. Ps.22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother’s belly. Isa.44:1 Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen: Isa.44:2 Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen. Isa.44:3 For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring:
RS: Again, nothing relating to baptism as such.
H: Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
RS: The promise is to those who repent and are baptized. The promise is that they will be forgiven and receive the Holy Spirit. If this is the promise of God to infants, then they have repented, are forgiven, and have received the Holy Spirit. As such the baptized infants are saved.
H: (d) Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
RS: Not sure why this verse is proof of infant baptism. The context is that the Spirit came upon those listening to the message and they received the Spirit. Only those who had received the Spirit were baptized.
H: (e) Gen.17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
RS: That was the Old Covenant and we are under a New Covenant. The New Covenant should be allowed to say who is in it and who Christ is the Savior and Mediator of. To say that infants are in the New Covenant is to say that they are forgiven and Christ is their Savior and Mediator. I think we are forced to say this until we can see verses that can show that there are those who are in the New Covenant that Christ is not the Savior and Mediator for.
H: (f) Col.2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Col.2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. Col.2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
RS: Again, this baptism is a circumcision made without hands. It shows the nature of regeneration and the act of the Spirit rather than show that water baptism is the sign of the covenant that replaces circumcision on a one to one basis.
LikeLike
RS: I don’t argue that Ursinus pulled infant baptism out of any orfice at all, but simply that it is not in the Bible and that they did not get far enough from Roman Catholicism to see it.
The problem with this argument from a history-of-theology point of view is that Ursinus and Calvin most certainly took a “build from the ground floor using the best arguments” approach to doctrine.
This was true of their soteriology, ecclesiology, and sacramentology.
So to argue that Ursinus did not “get far enough away from his Roman Catholicism”, you would have to show that the underlying theology of sacraments was structurally similar.
And it most certainly was not. The most you can say is that both RCs and Ursinus baptize babies.
So what? That proves … ?
Take a look at the underlying theology. For the RC, baptism conveys grace ex opere operato. The baptism of infants is necessary to cleanse them from original sin, and it brings them into the Church.
For Calvin and Ursinus, baptism is efficacious only by faith, and the benefits of baptism are received only upon the moment of faith. The baptism of infants does not bring them into the church (though it is a formal sign of reception), but is rather done because those infants are already members of the church per Gal 3.
The whole “couldn’t get away from Catholicism” argument is groundless. Near as I can tell, it was invented by Anabaptists as a kind of projection argument:
(1) We oppose Catholicism
(2) We oppose infant baptism
(3) Catholics baptize infants
(4) therefore, Protestants who baptize infants must be holding on to Catholic ideas.
You can see the fallacy, but it’s just guilt by association. The underlying theology is night-and-day.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, take your pick, but keep in mind they all affirm paedobaptism. And, yes, we all know what the formal principle of the Reformation was. But what you have to keep in mind is that all the forms do as well. And like I’ve said before, when you say it as an individual you are doing the exact same thing the formalized confessions do. If you want to remind us all that the confessions are fallible when they speak then I would remind you neither are you.
RS: So the confessions are not fallible, you are not fallible, and I am not fallible.
The Bible is infallible.
Yet we are fallible human beings interpreting it, which includes the writers of confessions.
But the Holy Spirit illuminates His people and Scripture interprets Scritpure.
So the Bible is our real authority and we must go by it and confessions are helpful guides and
commentaries on the Bible.
LikeLike
Mark, I understand the historical context was Constantinian. CG has been suggesting that the error of the ABs was that they wanted the state to be secular. I’m saying their error was rebellion (because it wasn’t Christian enough).
LikeLike
Richard, we’ve been through this umpteen times. Nobody disagrees with you about the nature of the Bible (infallible) and of human beings and their writings (fallible). But some of us wonder why you get to speak with an authoritative tone but the confessions mayn’t.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: So to argue that Ursinus did not “get far enough away from his Roman Catholicism”, you would have to show that the underlying theology of sacraments was structurally similar.
RS: No, that would not be true. It was the practice of Roman Catholicism and it became a practice of the Reformers. Just because they changed SOME of the theology of it does not mean that they were far enough from Rome. It just means that they changed some of the theology around the practice rather than the practice itself. As you know, there are many Protestants who have gone back to something closer to Rome in their underlying theology.
Jeff Cagle: And it most certainly was not. The most you can say is that both RCs and Ursinus baptize babies.
RS: No, I can say that both “baptize” babies and neither are solidly based on Scripture. I would also argue that the verses that the confessions give will lead one back to the Roman Catholic view if one takes them seriously. Acts 2:39 is a primary verse that is used to suppport infant baptism, yet the promises and the “conditions” of that baptism are said not to apply to infants until they have faith at some later point. I would argue that you have to run from the verse to get at what modern paedobaptists insist that it means.
So what? That proves … ?
LikeLike
Zrim: If you want to remind us all that the confessions are fallible when they speak then I would remind you neither are you.
RS: So the confessions are not fallible, you are not fallible, and I am not fallible.
The Bible is infallible.
Wait … what? I think there are some missing and extra “in-“s on y’alls fallibles?!
But to the larger point, the confessions are not fallible in exactly the same way that an individual is fallible.
The reasons are that the confessions contain the “wisdom of many counselors”, and they are the products of church courts.
For those reasons, they deserve a greater amount of consideration than Joe Schmoe’s theological blog.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, we’ve been through this umpteen times. Nobody disagrees with you about the nature of the Bible (infallible) and of human beings and their writings (fallible). But some of us wonder why you get to speak with an authoritative tone but the confessions mayn’t.
RS: And I speak with more of an authoritative tone than others? Is that just because I disagree and speak rather freely? I realize that I have no authority, but the Word of God is the authority. So if I type out the Word of God, maybe that is the authority you are sensing and simply think I think I have it.
LikeLike
Richard – Somebody else probably already said this, but the standard response that infant baptism “is not in the Bible” is to say that the Trinity isn’t in the Bible then either, I guess. It’s o.k. to infer things.
LikeLike
RS: Just because they changed SOME of the theology of it does not mean that they were far enough from Rome. It just means that they changed some of the theology around the practice rather than the practice itself.
That’s sloppy thinking. Consider what you’re saying:
(1) Calvin and Ursinus wanted to baptize infants because they held unconscious Catholic assumptions.
(2) So they held on to infant baptism, BUT reorganized the entire theology around it. While still holding these unconscious assumptions.
The first problem is identifying what specific Catholic assumptions we are talking about. I’ve never seen an Anabaptist one be able to produce a demonstrable assumption that C&U held in common with Catholics that would provide common ground for infant baptism.
The second problem is with simultaneously believing that C & U held on to unconscious assumptions WHILE consciously reorganizing their theologies. The whole point of reorganization is to drill down to base assumptions. So during this process, they simply didn’t drill far enough? OK, then show what assumption remained hidden.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: Take a look at the underlying theology. For the RC, baptism conveys grace ex opere operato. The baptism of infants is necessary to cleanse them from original sin, and it brings them into the Church.
RS: But again, that is certainly what some of the verses use sure seem to indicate which is one reason some don’t think infants should be baptized at all.
Jeff Cagle: For Calvin and Ursinus, baptism is efficacious only by faith, and the benefits of baptism are received only upon the moment of faith. The baptism of infants does not bring them into the church (though it is a formal sign of reception), but is rather done because those infants are already members of the church per Gal 3.
RS: In other words, they have changed the meaning of what circumcision meant, and even though they say that baptism replaces circumcision they really change the meaning. The church is the body of Christ so how can one be a member of the body of Christ without salvation? But, you will say, there is the visible and invisible church. Do we ever have a person in the church in the New Testament that was not forgiven of his or her sins or at least thought to be?
Jeff Cagle: The whole “couldn’t get away from Catholicism” argument is groundless. Near as I can tell, it was invented by Anabaptists as a kind of projection argument:
RS: No, it is not groundless. Where Roman Catholic baptism was practiced in Europe it also recognized the infant as both a member of the church and a citizen of that nation. How could the Reformers get away from that? How can my child become a citizen?
Jeff: (1) We oppose Catholicism
(2) We oppose infant baptism
(3) Catholics baptize infants
(4) therefore, Protestants who baptize infants must be holding on to Catholic ideas.
You can see the fallacy, but it’s just guilt by association. The underlying theology is night-and-day
RS: But that is not the whole story. To have a sound argument the premisses must be correct as well. You might add in to the mix that if the Reformers would have done away with infant baptism (as Luther thought about and Zwingli was close to) then they would have had to do something regarding citizenship as well. But again, while they used verses in an effort to keep infant baptism, others today and in history see those same verses as teaching that infants are saved because they are children of believing parents or because they are baptized.
LikeLike
Richard – I don’t know why you insist on the need for all to repent before being baptized. If you hear the gospel as an adult, then by all means repent and be baptized. If you are the child of believing parents, then be baptized and grow up in the church, learn the faith, and come to profess it on your own.
I know you want to remain an international man of mystery, but may I ask how old you are? If you are past a certain age it may be a lost cause to argue with you as seasoned citizens are not well known for changing their minds on things, in spite of the evidence. My grandpa saw voting for Bill Clinton as being the same as voting for FDR.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard – Somebody else probably already said this, but the standard response that infant baptism “is not in the Bible” is to say that the Trinity isn’t in the Bible then either, I guess. It’s o.k. to infer things.
RS: The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible but the teaching of the Trinity is quite plain. That is a different thing than what is being said about infant baptism, which is that there are no commands and no examples in the Bible about it and it is also not taught.
LikeLike
JRC: The most you can say is that both RCs and Ursinus baptize babies.
RS: No, I can say that both “baptize” babies and neither are solidly based on Scripture.
Back up. Your aim was to show that Ursinus held on to infant baptism because he didn’t get far enough from RCism.
And this is your evidence: that both baptize babies, AND … wait for it … neither [one’s reasons?] are solidly based on Scripture?
How does that demonstrate an RC connection? It demonstrates only that (in your opinion) both were not grounded in Scripture. But that’s hardly the sole provenance of Catholics …
Sorry to be aggressive here, but I would like to push you to think more clearly about some things — as I also need from time to time.
There are two pernicious myths about infant baptism, neither one grounded in fact, that circulate amongst anabaptists and baptists. Both myths prevent reasonable discussion on the theological merits or demerits of the practice.
The first is that infant baptism is a holdover from Catholicism. This prevents discussion because the Anabaptist will impute RC theology to the Protestant paedobaptist, AND he will also ignore the actual arguments made by paedobaptists and instead refer to “Catholic presuppositions” (content unspecified).
The second is that infant baptism is the cause of unbelieving pew-sitters (I’ve even heard that from MacArthur, who really ought to know better). A moment’s reflection on the state of churches across America ought to put this one to rest, but no.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: The reasons are that the confessions contain the “wisdom of many counselors”, and they are the products of church courts. For those reasons, they deserve a greater amount of consideration than Joe Schmoe’s theological blog.
RS: That is very true, but remember that arguments of Rome for their councils and catechisms. I am just saying that we have to be very careful.
Allow me (once again) to quote from Stephen Charnock from his comments on I Cor 2:2:
“Observe, the best churches are like the moon, not without their spots. The purest times had their imperfections; a pure state is not allowed to this, but is reserved for another world. Church antiquity is a very unsafe rule. Other chruches at some distance from this apostles’ time were as subject to error as this. Pride and ambition were less likely to keep out of them than of Christ’s family. Had the history of this church’s practices and tenents, without the corrective epistle of the apostle, been transmitted to other ages, they would have used it as a patter. Not the church, but Scripture authority, is to be followed; fathers must not be preferred before apostles; church practices are no pattern, but as they are parallel to the grand and unerring rule.”
LikeLike
RS: RS: No, it is not groundless. Where Roman Catholic baptism was practiced in Europe it also recognized the infant as both a member of the church and a citizen of that nation. How could the Reformers get away from that? How can my child become a citizen?
If that was truly Calvin’s argument, then it ought to be easy to find it in either his Institutes or Commentaries when he discusses infant baptism. We ought to see him struggling with “Scripture doesn’t teach infant baptism, but if we let it go, then our children won’t be citizens …”
I haven’t noticed any such passages. Have you?
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard – I don’t know why you insist on the need for all to repent before being baptized. If you hear the gospel as an adult, then by all means repent and be baptized. If you are the child of believing parents, then be baptized and grow up in the church, learn the faith, and come to profess it on your own.
RS: But the Scriptures give the order and not us. The Scriptures teach that a person is to repent and then to be baptized. In other words, a child that was born to parents of Jewish descent were in fact part of the nation of Israel and so they received the sign of the covenant. Now, however, only those who repent are of the spiritual seed of Abraham and are of the elect. Only those who repent have Christ as their Savior and Mediator in the New Covenant. The New Covenant has promises that are attached and they are only fitting for believers.
LikeLike
Abraham and his offspring were circumcised because they were a part of “the nation of Israel”? What nation of Israel? Was God’s covenant with Abraham really only about establishing a physical nation of Israel? This is some really important stuff.
LikeLike
Darryl, how did you work out that was me? That’s incredible. I think you did that once before, but it’s still uncanny.
And can I just state for clarity and copyright reasons that “We’re all Anabaptists now” is actually my line (contra Mark). I don’t want it cropping up in the conclusion of any forthcoming global histories of Calvinism. And none of us should try to parse it as reflecting Darryl’s opinions, unless it does, which would be truly magisterial.
Anyway, in your comment above, you make this observation: “But what if the Reformed creeds agreed with Rome on the magistrate, and with Lutherans. How Reformed is it then, especially if all the later churches revised the teaching?”
Good point. You’re arguing that the theological content of “Reformed” is that set of ideas which is unique to whichever set of confessions you’re identifying as being worthy of the title. That seems to make a lot of sense.
But I think it might also be problematic, because the baptism of infants is also a practice shared by the Reformed with Lutherans and Roman Catholics.
So now you have to argue that neither the doctrine of the confessional state nor that of infant baptism is part of the distinctive content of the idea, “Reformed.”
Maybe I’m getting you mixed up.
By the way, I’m not getting involved in the debate about exegetical supports of baptismal theologies that’s going on elsewhere in this thread. Sorry if that disappoints anyone.
LikeLike
Zrim, many miles above you state that “it seems to me that the serious error of the Anabaptists was actually concerning submission to civil authority, not that the civil authority should be more of a secular orientation than sacred.”
I will confess to knowing very little indeed about the Anabaptists, but I’m on safer ground with the Particular Baptists (see – I didn’t say “Reformed). Their First London Confession of Faith (1644) and the huge number of publications which contextualise it, from baptist, Independent and Presbyterian authors, make clear that the baptists did want a secular state.
You also state that “The only churches that can be counted as Reformed are those that adhere to the Reformed confessions, creeds, and catechisms (WCF/TFU).” I’ve no argument there – that’s how I use the term too – but I wonder how to defend the claim, which is why I’m asking these questions, and why I appreciate your responses.
LikeLike
RS: RS: But the Scriptures give the order and not us. The Scriptures teach that a person is to repent and then to be baptized.
I’ve looked pretty hard in the Scriptures, and I’ve never seen that teaching.
LikeLike
Sorry, Jeff, I know I said I wouldn’t do this, but your last comment is a sitting duck:
“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”
LikeLike
Jeff, you’re right. What I meant to say was: “If you want to remind us all that the confessions are fallible when they speak then I would remind you that so are you.” See, with my own writing error I made my own point. Thanks, me and Jeff.
But when Richard objects to describing the confessions as not only helpful guides but also binding and authoritative, he is saying that we cannot ascribe authority to fallible agents. But this is pretty easily undone by the fact that I am both a fallible but still a binding authority over my children. Plenty of other examples could be made. God has appointed the church as a fallible authority over his people every bit as much as he has appointed parents as fallible authorities over their kids. So when my wife writes out a chore chart for the girls it’s not unlike the church writing confessions. The writings and their authors are fallible, but that doesn’t diminish their binding authority over their charges.
LikeLike
Zrim – Reminds me of the CTC guys appealing to their history as if it’s warts free. Richard’s interpretation of Scripture is pure because, after all, it’s Scripture. I think there are a few pieces missing from these frameworks.
LikeLike
The beautiful thing about Reformed theology is that we leave a lot of room for human limitation and frailty, yet we can still remain orthodox. It seems like competing theologies have to do a lot more gritting of teeth and charging ahead (a la Called to Communion & Richard) or just abandoning the notion of objective theological truth (a la Machen’s opponents). There are subtleties in life and in texts that must be accounted for.
LikeLike
Richard – Was God’s covenant with Abraham only about the land and nation of Israel, or was it also about gracious, unilateral promises that extended to Christians as well as Jews? Might the sign of circumcison mean more than national identity? If so, might it be replaced by baptism? I’m leading the horse to water here, let’s see if it drinks.
If “repent & believe” is your model, would you advocate re-baptizing someone who repents, believes, falls back into sin, and then repents again? Robert Duvall rebaptized himself an apostle after he murdered a man and fled. He wanted a fresh start. What better way to mark his renewed repentance than with another (self-administered) baptism. Where do you see baptism commanded only once? Show me the proof-text? You need to see that movie — it’s great.
LikeLike
Peter via CG: Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Beware the sitting ducks.
Notice what he doesn’t say: “Repentance is the normal precondition for baptism.”
If you were to take his statement as an absolute listing of logical and/or temporal order, you would be forced to conclude that being baptized is prior to receiving forgiveness and the Holy Spirit.
Really?
The hermeneutical problem here is taking isolated statements and turning them into fodder for systematic claims without considering context.
Let’s do that. Who were these people? They were adult unbelievers. What did they need to do? Repent and be baptized.
Their situation is entirely unparallel to the situation of their children — who are then mentioned further on.
LikeLike
Jeff, well put (on the pernicious myths business).
LikeLike
Zrim: it seems to me that the serious error of the Anabaptists was actually concerning submission to civil authority, not that the civil authority should be more of a secular orientation than sacred.
mark: To make that distinction is anachronism in the extreme. Zrim agrees that the only authorities that existed to submit to were Constantinian. This does not mean that there was no distinction between church and state. The old covenant economy was pretty strict about the distinction between priest and king.
The point of Constantinian arrangements is that the same group of infants being circumcised as members of “the covenant” are also participants in the cult. There was no such thing as being “cut off” (Genesis 17) from the church without also being cut off from the geo-political grouping.
Zrim: In fact, to the extent that it is possible, modern descendants of the Anabaptists exempt themselves from secular authority precisely because it’s not governed by specifically NT ethics
.
mark: One, I want to know which modern anabaptists exempt them from submission “to them”? (This is what Romans 13 commands. Romans 13 doesn’t command us to join in with them if we can in the right “situation”.) Does Zirm use the “modern anabaptist” category as a “bad word” for all the evangelicals who are not Romanist or confessionally Reformed?
Zirm: Mark, I understand the historical context was Constantinian. CG has been suggesting that the error of the ABs was that they wanted the state to be secular. I’m saying their error was rebellion (because it wasn’t Christian enough).
mark: I think we need a distinction here between Particular Baptists and Anabaptists. The Particular Baptists (even of the first London Confession) went out of their way to deny that they were anabaptists. And they were not merely “sucking up to” the magistrates, because the Particular Baptists did believe in something like a “secular state”. These Baptists were not seditionists, unless you count being in Cromwell’s army as sedition. These Baptists were not pacifists. And they were not in rebellion against magisterial authority. These Baptists even denied they had ever learned anything from anabaptists in the Netherlands, even though it seems pretty clear (to me) from some of their language on “church” that they did.
But this is where Zrim (and others) need to make a distinction between anabaptists and other credobaptists (like the Particular Baptists). First, Anabaptists (all of them) in their soteriology are way closer to Roman Catholics than any of the magisterial Reformers. (rs, that should give you pause. The slippery slope goes both ways! )
But the Particular Baptists knew and believed the biblical truths about human nature and about the gospel. Second, the Anabaptists (except for the Munster exception) were not in rebellion against the magistrate. There is a difference between a refusal to join with the magistrate, and a lack of submission to the ordained exousia.. Zirm needs to learn the distinction between being a pacifist and being somebody who tries to replace one government with another.
I want to know if Zirm defines all anabaptists (and even all credobaptists!) in terms of the Munster revolutionaries. Since the magisterial Reformers were paedobaptists, and Roman Catholics were paedobaptists, does that mean both share the same soteriology? No. Since those rebel peasants in Munster practiced credobaptism, should we conclude that the credobaptists Zwingli put to death were also rebelling peasants? No.
I know it makes a simple typology to say that anabaptism is “theonomy in reverse”, as in EITHER OR govern everybody by the old covenant, or govern everybody by the new. But Anabaptists (the Munster revolutionaries being the exception) never wanted to govern anybody outside their congregation. (Jerry Falwell was not an anabaptist) The anabaptists never said to folks who didn’t confess Christ, well, let’s tell you what your law should be. They never said to folks who didn’t confess Christ, well, let’s baptize you.
And just because some/most Reformed people now don’t baptize spouses or teenage children without a creditable profession of faith, that doesn’t mean you are “anabaptists now”
LikeLike
Jeff: If that was truly Calvin’s argument, then it ought to be easy to find it in either his Institutes or Commentaries when he discusses infant baptism. We ought to see him struggling with “Scripture doesn’t teach infant baptism, but if we let it go, then our children won’t be citizens …”
mark: My reading of Calvin on baptism is that Calvin would never agree that he had not yet been water baptized, so there is no “admission” (none of us “admit” anything, we sometimes agree on some stuff!) that infant baptism is not commanded by Scripture, even though Calvin does struggle some to keep his arguments from turning on each other. But there is way more ambivalence in Zwingli and in Luther. I think there’s good evidence that Zwingli actually changed course, even though it was not only about citizenship, but about being more gradual in allowing the magistrates to decide how far to take the reformation.
And in the case of Luther, he is of two minds, especially in his talk about a visible church within the visible church, but even with Luther, the problem is not that “eventually we will have no state citizens” but rather the fear that without “infant baptism” we will end up without Christianity. But of course Luther has a diffferent theology for baptism than those who argue from covenants (the covenant) and circumcision. When Luther spoke of the “efficacy of baptism”, he was not dialectical in the way that Calvinists tend to be.
c g: And can I just state for clarity and copyright reasons that “We’re all Anabaptists now” is actually my line (contra Mark)
mark:.it’s a very old line, and I don’t know if dgh was referring to your use of it or its common use. But the point of the line tends to be 1. that we all have agreed that there can be one more church in a geo-political “parish”, and 2. therefore we don’t need anabaptists anymore to tell us that. Thank you for your once necessary witness, but we all agree now, so please go away again.
And Hart’s point (and mine also about this) is that to be anti-Constantinian is not to be “anabaptist”. There’s a difference. By way of analogy, some paedobaptists like to say that “we also are credobaptists”. As in, we believe and practice all that you do, plus some more. (As Piper says to Arminians: I believe all that you do, but more, without antithesis). But granted that paedobaptists will baptize some adult spouse or teenager on account of their own profession and not because of their family relation to a person with a profession, this does not mean that what paedobaptism call ‘baptism” is the same thing as credobaptists think it is.
One, there is only one kind of water baptism, not two. If infant baptism is normative, then the definition of what paedobaptists do for adults must be the same. And second of course there is always the “sacramental” claim—we are not doing anything, God is doing it….
But back to Hart’s point. Some theonomists will say that you are not really Reformed unless you are also Constantinian. These theonomists will say the only other choice is being “anabaptist”. But these theonomists are simply wrong.
cg:I will confess to knowing very little indeed about the Anabaptists, but I’m on safer ground with the Particular Baptists . Their First London Confession of Faith (1644) and the huge number of publications which contextualise it, from baptist, Independent and Presbyterian authors, make clear that the baptists did want a secular state.
mark: I very much agree with that. For example, Roger Williams was no “anabaptist”. He founded the state of Rhode Island. Of course he was much more peaceful with the Native Americans than the Constantinians had been, but that doesn’t mean Roger Williams was a pacifist. Of course I don’t mean to equate Roger William with the London Particular Baptists, but I do think that both he and those Particular Baptists had a soteriology much more in common with the Magisterial Reformers than they did with anabaptists. And rs, that’s a good thing.
LikeLike
What does it mean to be in Christ, and how is it different from Christ indwelling us? Does this indwelling by Christ have something to do with “sacramental eucharistic feeding”? Calvin thought so. In this he agreed (too much, I think) with his Roman Catholic teachers.
Of course ee need to read Calvin on this, to see what he did and did not believe. Calvin, for example, believed in an union with the humanity of Christ, and did not teach an union with God defined as creatures indwelling the divine Creator, even though that is left an open possibility in many ecumenical discussions today.
But Calvin’s anti-rational streak, which refuses rational explanation on this tipic, becomes very mystical when it comes to “sacrament”. (See Bruce McCormack’s essay in Tributes to Calvin). Does the Bible teach that God effects (or continues) “union with Christ” by means of bread and wine? I don’t think so.
But Calvin does, and this is why people like Nevin disagree with people like Hodge. I doubt that we will ever get away from this specific sacramental idea until we get away from the idea that “union with Christ” means regeneration by the Holy Spirit. As long as our categories for judging the visible church are “regenerate” and “unregenerate”, we ( whether paedobaptist or credobaptist) will be assuming (even if we don’t define it) that “union” means either Christ indwelling us or our “regeneration” by the Holy Spirit. (And who wants to deny that infants can be regenerate or even that they can be “called”?)
1. I agree with Mike Horton (and McCormack) that we need to think about this new birth in terms of “effectual calling” by the power of the Holy Spirit with the word of the gospel. We need to get away from the idea that “regeneration” is a “change in substance or nature” with then a possibly long time gap between “union” and the hearing of the gospel.
2. We need to define “in Christ” in terms of justification . II Cor 5:21–“IN HIM we BECOME the righteousness of God.” Although the Bible teaches that the sheep are always in Christ by election, Romans 16 teaches that some of the sheep are in Christ before other of the sheep. This takes place by divine legal imputation, and not by sacramental experiences.
LikeLike
Zrim: But when Richard objects to describing the confessions as not only helpful guides but also binding and authoritative, he is saying that we cannot ascribe authority to fallible agents. But this is pretty easily undone by the fact that I am both a fallible but still a binding authority over my children.
RS: Yes, but you only have that authority because God gives it to you in the Scriptures.
Zrim: Plenty of other examples could be made. God has appointed the church as a fallible authority over his people every bit as much as he has appointed parents as fallible authorities over their kids.
RS: But God only gives the church authority through the Sriptures.
Zrim: So when my wife writes out a chore chart for the girls it’s not unlike the church writing confessions. The writings and their authors are fallible, but that doesn’t diminish their binding authority over their charges.
RS: But in all your examples God gives that authority to people through the Scriptures. He has never given that authority to the confessions. I might add that the WCF and the Belgic recognize where the real authority is as well.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Abraham and his offspring were circumcised because they were a part of “the nation of Israel”? What nation of Israel? Was God’s covenant with Abraham really only about establishing a physical nation of Israel? This is some really important stuff.
RS: But again, the NT tells us that the promise was to his seed (singular) and that seed was Christ. So the promise was not just about a physical nation, but the physical nation was to bring forth the coming Messiah and show forth what that Messiah was to do. But one has to deal with the clear teaching of the NT on this.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: Peter via CG: Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Beware the sitting ducks.
Notice what he doesn’t say: “Repentance is the normal precondition for baptism.”
RS: Do we ever have a command or an example where it is not? I have never heard of a person that believed without repenting. In fact, unless a person repents of unbelief s/he cannot believe. So as long as belief precedes baptism, repentance will too.
Jeff Cagle: If you were to take his statement as an absolute listing of logical and/or temporal order, you would be forced to conclude that being baptized is prior to receiving forgiveness and the Holy Spirit. Really?
RS: I don’t think that one is forced to that at all.
Jeff Cagle: The hermeneutical problem here is taking isolated statements and turning them into fodder for systematic claims without considering context. Let’s do that. Who were these people? They were adult unbelievers. What did they need to do? Repent and be baptized. Their situation is entirely unparallel to the situation of their children — who are then mentioned further on.
RS: But the only promises and conditions were to all those that he mentioned. The children must repent in order to have the promise of the Holy Spirit. This is not to say that they would earn it, but that this is the way grace worked.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: There are two pernicious myths about infant baptism, neither one grounded in fact, that circulate amongst anabaptists and baptists. Both myths prevent reasonable discussion on the theological merits or demerits of the practice.
The first is that infant baptism is a holdover from Catholicism. This prevents discussion because the Anabaptist will impute RC theology to the Protestant paedobaptist, AND he will also ignore the actual arguments made by paedobaptists and instead refer to “Catholic presuppositions” (content unspecified).
RS: I would disagree that this is a pernicious myth. Martin Luther and John Calvin were both Roman Catholics before they were Reformers. Where did they get their views of baptism from? It is hard to ignore the statements by Luther and Calvin on baptism that are not what you would want to claim today. My argument is simply that they were raised in Roman Catholicism and simply never got away from it as far as needed. It is not a myth and certainly not a pernicious myth.
Jeff CAgle: The second is that infant baptism is the cause of unbelieving pew-sitters (I’ve even heard that from MacArthur, who really ought to know better). A moment’s reflection on the state of churches across America ought to put this one to rest, but no.
RS: But again, how is that a myth? You might argue that when it is taught properly it is not the cause of unbelieving pew-sitters, but surely you would agree that it is not taught as you teach it in most places. So perhaps it is not stated as well as it could be, but it is not a real myth.
D. G. Hart: Jeff, well put (on the pernicious myths business).
RS: Dr. Hart, do you have a cheerleader outfit you wear at times? : -)
LikeLike
Erik C: If “repent & believe” is your model, would you advocate re-baptizing someone who repents, believes, falls back into sin, and then repents again?
RS: But the person that truly believes never stops truly believing and so never repents from true unbelief again. It is known as the preservation of the saints, sometimes known as the perseverance fo the saints.
Erik C: Robert Duvall rebaptized himself an apostle after he murdered a man and fled. He wanted a fresh start. What better way to mark his renewed repentance than with another (self-administered) baptism. Where do you see baptism commanded only once? Show me the proof-text? You need to see that movie — it’s great.
RS: I don’t watch many movies. I mean, after all, time is so short. I never heard of Duvall and this baptism. But anyway, back to important things like Scripture. Baptism is commanded and we have no command or example of a person being baptized again after they believe.
LikeLike
Jeff, I’m itching to respond, but I did make a promise not to engage in the biblical exegetical debate. I want to respect the fact that this is a site that advances particular theological positions, and I’m sure that debates about baptism on blogs are unlikely ever to change anyone’s mind. More pragmatically, I just broke that promise and the sitting duck fired back. That would unnerve anybody. But thankfully I haven’t run out of shells.
Jeff, out of interest, I’d be keen to know which defense of credo-baptism you found most persuasive, or at least less unpersuasive than its peers. That might help those baptists who are trying to engage you to have a sense of which arguments they don’t need to recycle here.
Anyway, as I said before, my concern (a real concern) is historical and linguistic rather than biblical exegetical. I’m trying to work out whether we are right to use “Reformed” to refer to a particular selection of c16th and c17th confessional texts when those texts have been so radically revised as to now exist in multiple and contradictory versions, the most advanced of which move their modern subscribers into theological territories that their original subscribers would have regarded as “Anabaptist.”
Erik, I’m certainly not appealing for the churches to return to the original formulations. But these confessions have been revised without being re-branded – is that an example of the false advertising you are worried about above? I’m sure you’re as glad as I am that when the baptists revised the WCF and Savoy in terms of ecclesiology and church-state relations they had the honesty to give their revision a new title and their followers a new identity (which wasn’t “Reformed Baptist” – but that’s another story!).
Darryl, in contrast to your minimalist position above, in which “Reformed” only refers to those ideas which are unique to this body of confessions already identified as “Reformed” (which position identifies neither belief in theocratic government nor infant baptism as “Reformed”), I think I’d prefer a maximal position in which the entire content of these confessions is identified as “Reformed.” So it is “Reformed” to be Trinitarian / paedobaptist / theonomic, though not distinctively so; but it is distinctively “Reformed” to be so soteriologically, etc.
If that doesn’t work for you – if you’d prefer to retain this minimalist position – I can’t see why we shouldn’t allow baptists to use the term too, as what they are denying isn’t part of the distinctively “Reformed” heritage, any more than is believing in a theocratic state. (Don’t push me on whether the same hospitality should be extended to Unitarians, though thankfully we don’t yet have any of those in your big American evangelical get-togethers.)
I think it makes sense that the content of the idea “Reformed” should be informed by the “historic” (Zrim, I mean “original” and, at least among most Presbyterians on this side of the Atlantic, enduring) editions of these texts. But we generally use the term in a much broader and less exact way, to point to a changing, revising, renewing and contradicting tradition rather than to a defined movement with strict boundaries and fixed parameters centered on a solid confessional foundation.
But that is surely problematic. It raises the issue of authority, which Zrim has been talking about, when ecclesiastical party A moves from the original text of the confessions to adopt one aspect of c16th Anabaptist / c17th Particular Baptist belief, and allows itself to retain and even monopolise the label “Reformed,” when ecclesiastical party B moves from the original text to adopt a different aspect of c16th Anabaptist / c17th Particular Baptist belief, and the members of party A say that’s not allowed.
My fear (a real fear) is that what we call “Reformed” can be deconstructed just as “Evangelicalism” can be deconstructed – for neither label refers to anything particularly concrete or fixed, and what ultimately matters in terms of adhering to these labels is how you self-identify, rather than whether your self-identification is approved by others already in the club.
So we have a number of different denominations, each based on a different (ie competing) confessional text. From time to time they decide to cooperate to achieve certain ends. Their association is voluntary, and they call themselves “Reformed.” But their choice of descriptor is political rather than theological. It doesn’t actually mean anything. Nevertheless they deny its use to other groups who also want to use it to self-identify.
My fear is not helped by the fact that I’m not hearing any disagreement that Guido de Bres would regard every contributor to this discussion as operating outside the confessional parameters of the Belgic on an issue on which the c16th protestant churches of Europe were in entire agreement (theocratic government). I’m assuming now that we are all in agreement that he wouldn’t regard any of us as “Reformed.”
I’ve said enough now, and sorry for interrupting the conversation yesterday, but I will listen and learn, hoping to gain some much-needed clarity in my thinking.
LikeLike
The Duvall movie is “The Apostle”. I think you would like it. What is the last movie you’ve seen?
“But the person that truly believes never stops truly believing and so never repents from true unbelief again. It is known as the preservation of the saints, sometimes known as the perseverance (of) the saints.”
Why do I want to sing Journey’s “Don’t Stop Believing”?…
Whoa…So once someone repents and believes no backsliding, repenting again, and returning to the faith is allowed? What is the point of doing church discipline, then, if it is not to see wayward Christians restored? Is it one shot only in Richard’s church?
If not – if you take them back upon repentance, then why not baptize them again using your logic?
LikeLike
C.G. – Welcome to Protestantism. It’s questions like this that make Reformed guys who can’t handle any ambiguity join Called to Communion. Someone will tell them nice, neat Christian bedtime stories and tuck them in over there.
LikeLike
If the Mormons knock on your door, don’t answer.
LikeLike
Erik, thanks, I appreciate the advice, and will be sure to screen callers appropriately.
PS Guido de Bres thinks you’re an Anabaptist!
LikeLike
C.G. – I will admit that not too long after joining a URC church I noticed the little footnote at the bottom of Belgic 36 about the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands revising the article in 1905 & the CRC revising it in 1958. My initial thought was, “Wait a minute. Who told them they could do that!”.
I should also disclose that I was a Baptist until my mid-30s. I am thankful I will be able to hang out with lots of paedobaptists & credobaptists in heaven.
LikeLike
Erik, thanks for that. I’d love to know more about your story sometime. In the meantime, which defence of credo-baptism made it most difficult for you to leave your baptist background?
I’ve no problem at all with the kind of denominational confessional revision you describe above. The churches themselves have been given the power to make a good confession of their faith, and it’s a good thing that over time this confession should improve – as long as it happens honestly.
The question of who has the authority to confess gets more complicated when non-denominational labels, like “Reformed,” come into play. While individual denominations do use the term in their titles, we tend to use it more broadly to describe a movement. But that movement is not based on a single confession of faith, even an evolving one, as a single denomination would be. Instead it draws its support from the members of multiple denominations, with confessions which compete with each other, and, because of their continual evolution, even contradict earlier versions of themselves. They all claim to be part of the movement, but none of the them have the authority to police its boundaries, and so those boundaries are ever changing, with only the opinions of the most vocal or the best resourced to indicate who can continue to be permitted to be part of the club. The irony is that some of the people who are trying to police the boundaries of the “Reformed” movement in the early c21st would have been well outside of the boundaries of the movement five centuries previously.
And that’s why I find the term “Reformed” so difficult to pin down. It doesn’t have any fixed meaning – unless we stick to the theological content outlined by the first confessors, measuring our difference from them, and giving ourselves a different, and less confusing, name.
I know I’m just making the same point over and over again. And I will stop. But I still can’t see how we can escape the possibility that “Reformed,” as a descriptor of a multi-denominational movement, may be as fractured, volatile and perhaps even as meaningless as “Evangelical.”
If we just stuck to identifying ourselves by specific denomination-type labels, we’d be on much safer ground. At we would have something specific against which to measure ourselves.
And in that case I’d be a Reformed Baptist. (a joke)
LikeLike
Jeff, and others, this isn’t a question about exegesis, but about how other people have done it – and with this I really do close.
Do any paedobaptist writers argue that John’s baptism of repentance included the children of repenting adults?
I have dug around on this but can’t come up with anything. Thanks for your help.
LikeLike
CG: Jeff, out of interest, I’d be keen to know which defense of credo-baptism you found most persuasive, or at least less unpersuasive than its peers.
That’s a good question. I think the strongest Baptist argument is probably straight up the middle: There isn’t a definite command to specifically baptize infants in the NT; applying the regulative principle, we ought not.
Granted, there are Reformed responses. But in terms of sound forms of argument, that one’s the strongest.
Much less strong is the claim that “no infants were baptized in the NT” (which makes an unwarranted assumption about Acts 16), or that “circumcision was a physical sign for a physical people; baptism is a spiritual sign for a spiritual people” (bleargh).
LikeLike
CG: Do any paedobaptist writers argue that John’s baptism of repentance included the children of repenting adults?
Murray argues that John’s baptism wasn’t Christian baptism at all.
(1) Those who received John’s baptism also had to receive Christian baptism
(2) John explicitly contrasted his baptism with Jesus’ baptism of the Spirit, of which Christian baptism is a sign.
LikeLike
Jeff, on the first question, I appreciate your candor. Out of interest, which book defending credo-baptism did you find most helpful?
On the second question, let’s leave aside the issue of the relationship between John’s baptism and baptism into Christ, for many baptist authors would make the same argument as Murray at this point.
I’m asking whether any defenders of covenant-based infant baptism argue that John’s baptism included the children of repenting adults.
The reason for the question is that I’m trying to work out when paedobaptists assume the first children would have been baptised. Was it during the ministry of John? Or during the ministry of our Lord? Our during the ministry of his apostles?
It’s an interesting question to consider, because it’s difficult to identify a period in which baptism based upon repentance excluded children alongside another period in which it included children, especially if there’s no “signpost” to say that the subjects of baptism have suddenly changed, and because the baptisms of John (Mark 1:4), our Lord (see the comparison of the baptisms of John and Christ in John 4:1, and I think the identification that both were baptising the same category of people – disciples), and the apostles (Acts 2:38) are all described as baptisms of repentance.
After all, the baptisms in the books of Acts aren’t sudden interventions in a ritual landscape in which the only comparable sign is circumcision. John had his disciples all over the Roman world, as you have just pointed out. So it would have been natural for people hearing about the baptisms carried out by the apostles to compare those baptisms with the baptisms of John, with which the apostolic baptisms were very similar, rather than to the practice of circumcision, which after all continued alongside Christian baptism for some time, and under apostolic supervision, rather than suddenly replacing it.
I’m not making an argument, just asking a question, explaining why and trying to stay polite! I recognise that if I did make an argument on this grounds, it would be an argument from silence, just like so much else of the exegetical discussion. But it’s a silence that requires explanation, just as much as some of the others.
Glad to hear your thoughts.
LikeLike
CG: Yes, interesting point, that baptism coexisted with circumcision.
Just to add to the fun, circumcision itself was not uniquely Jewish in the larger world.
Nor was crucifixion uniquely laid on Christ alone.
So somehow, with all of these acts with symbolic significance, we have to locate OR dislocate them from their cultural context.
—
If we grant that “household baptisms” were more likely than not to include children, then there was seemingly never a time that baptism excluded children.
If we don’t grant this, then the question becomes more pressing.
LikeLike
c g:The reason for the question is that I’m trying to work out when paedobaptists assume the first children would have been baptised
mark: Let me first say that I know it’s a bit naughty for me to always refer to the work of Leithart or Doug Wilson to speak for the “Reformed”. That being said, Doug Wilson’s To a Thousand Generations argues that the infants born to gentile believers were “baptized” from the beginning while infants born to jewish believers were BOTH circumcised and ALSO “baptized” (to show their solidarity in the one covenant). This again is not to say that Doug Wilson speaks for my Reformed friends.
But it is one more reason that I am glad not to be “Reformed”. There is way less reason to think I am “Reformed” than there is to think Doug Wilson is. I talk way too much about Christ having died only for the decretally elect and not nearly enough about “the covenant”. (For many, it turns out that being Reformed is “not only about the tulip”, but “not about the tulip”.)
CG–Have you made your way through Gentry and Wellum’s KIngdom Through Covenant yet? There’s some good stuff in there, though they may depend too much on the analogy with dispensationalism’s view of the land. Of course, for all I know, you may be dispy. Notice that I don’t say “still dispy” with the assumption that any intelligent person will “grow out of it”. We can be so condescending with each other sometimes. Hey, there’s even one pro-credobaptist book by a (Macarthur) dispy that I even recommend to folks—Matt Waymeyer’s a Biblical Critique of Infant Baptism.
But of course Watson’s book that does nothing but quote paedobaptists disagreeing with each other about the inferences is still one of my favorites. The essays in Schreiner and Wright’s Believers Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant are also useful, but I am enough of a contrarian to think that the two volumes by Strawbridge (Case for Covenantal Baptism, Case for Covenant Communion) are good places to begin with any paedobaptist (if only to hear them tell us which essays speak for them and which are “hyper-Reformed” or even “non-Reformed”.)
Please tell us more about yourself, c g, and what you used to be. That is, if you would like to. Welcome to the discussion.
LikeLike
Erik C: Whoa…So once someone repents and believes no backsliding, repenting again, and returning to the faith is allowed? What is the point of doing church discipline, then, if it is not to see wayward Christians restored? Is it one shot only in Richard’s church?
If not – if you take them back upon repentance, then why not baptize them again using your logic?
RS: If one is not of the faith/in Christ at any point, then that one has never been in the faith/in Christ at any point. That is what perseverance (last letter of TULIP) teaches. As to church discipline, the last step of discipline is to put the person out of the church and to treat him or her as an unbeliever. Before that, church discipline is to call people to repentance. A person that repents has not left the faith, but those who refuse to repent show themselves to be unbelievers and so are set out of the church.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: Much less strong is the claim that “no infants were baptized in the NT” (which makes an unwarranted assumption about Acts 16), or that “circumcision was a physical sign for a physical people; baptism is a spiritual sign for a spiritual people” (bleargh).
RS: The text below is the NAS. The jailer was told (v. 31) to believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household. So the words were to the jailer and his household to believe and you will be saved. V. 32 has Paul and Silas speaking the word of the Lord to the jailer and to all who were in his house. V. 33 has the jailer and his household baptized. V. 34 teaches us that the jailer believed in God with his whole household. So the text tells us that the jailer and his household were told to believe and they would be saved. The word of the Lord was spoken to all in the household and the whole household was baptized. We then have the text telling us that the whole household believed. I don’t think that this adds up to an unwarranted assumption that no infants were in the household since the text has the whole household hearing, being baptized, and believing.
Acts 16: 27 When the jailer awoke and saw the prison doors opened, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped.
28 But Paul cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here!”
29 And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas,
30 and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.
33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.
34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: Much less strong is the claim that “no infants were baptized in the NT” (which makes an unwarranted assumption about Acts 16), or that “circumcision was a physical sign for a physical people; baptism is a spiritual sign for a spiritual people” (bleargh).
RS: But of course believers constitute a spiritual nation now.
Rom 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 9:8 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.
1 Peter 2:9 But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
Revelation 1:6 and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father– to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: If we grant that “household baptisms” were more likely than not to include children, then there was seemingly never a time that baptism excluded children.
If we don’t grant this, then the question becomes more pressing.
RS: There are four cases of household baptism in the NT (if I remember correctly). Three of them are clear from the context that all in the household believed. The one that does not mention this is Lydia. We don’t know that she was married and we don’t know that she had children. What we do know is that she was a businesswoman and could just as easily had adult slaves or servants as her household. So I don’t think we should assume that there were infants in the household when households were said to be baptized in the NT. Paedobaptists have assumed that there are, but the texts do not assume that.
LikeLike
RS, Believers always constituted a spiritual nation. That’s taught in the very passage you cite. “He is not a Jew who is one outwardly, but …”
Abraham was justified by faith, not by circumcision. So where was his baptism to indicate his cleansing from sin?
Scripture doesn’t uphold or teach a physical / spiritual dichotomy. From the beginning, God’s true Israel, the remnant, has always been those who are of faith.
LikeLike
Mark, I understand there are variations in non-Reformed traditions such that not all who practice the particular baptismal error of the ABs also embrace views that tend toward civil disobedience. IOW, there are credo-baptists who understand the Bible affirms civil obedience and opposes disobedience. Does that help?
LikeLike
Richard, no, it is general revelation which reveals that parents have authority over their kids; we don’t need special revelation to know this, though both general and special revelation are in harmony (because both are authored by God). True, the Bible alone gives church fallible authority, but if you admit this then what’s the problem with saying her writings are binding and authoritative even if fallible?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: RS, Believers always constituted a spiritual nation. That’s taught in the very passage you cite. “He is not a Jew who is one outwardly, but …”
RS: But the passage is not speaking of Jews in the Old Covenant, but of those from the New Covenant perspective while pointing to some things of the Old. God dealt with Israel as a nation and as His chosen people, but now He does not deal with Israel as His chosen people.
Jeff C: Abraham was justified by faith, not by circumcision. So where was his baptism to indicate his cleansing from sin?
RS: While I am not sure of your point, the New Covenant had not been established yet.
Jeff C: Scripture doesn’t uphold or teach a physical / spiritual dichotomy. From the beginning, God’s true Israel, the remnant, has always been those who are of faith.
RS: But Scripture does uphold a physical/spiritual dichotomy. He dealt with Israel as a physical nation and yet with spiritual people within it. Israel as a nation was His chosen people, though indeed there were the elect even at that point. However, the Spirit had not been poured out at that point. But now, only those who are born of the Spirit and have the Spirit are considered spiritual and the chosen of God.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, no, it is general revelation which reveals that parents have authority over their kids; we don’t need special revelation to know this, though both general and special revelation are in harmony (because both are authored by God).
RS: Try telling that to the courts of our land who don’t think that parents have authority over their kids. I would argue that we do need special revelation to know this and we need special revelation to know how it is supposed to work.
Zrim: True, the Bible alone gives church fallible authority, but if you admit this then what’s the problem with saying her writings are binding and authoritative even if fallible?
RS: Because the Bible does not give the Church the authority to bind men to anything other than what God has set out. The creeds themselves say that as well. I would also argue that it is a move toward the Roman conception of things to have them as binding and authoritative and away from the confessions themselves. They were written in a day when men were trying to get away from the writings of men as binding (Rome) and to recognize Scripture as the sole authority.
LikeLike
Zrim: Mark, I understand there are variations in non-Reformed traditions such that not all who practice the particular baptismal error of the ABs also embrace views that tend toward civil disobedience. IOW, there are credo-baptists who understand the Bible affirms civil obedience and opposes disobedience. Does that help?
mark: it would help more if you named one anabaptist group (besides those in the Munster rebellion) who were “civilly disobedient”. Talking about a specific group and time would not only help move you from your slanderous generalization about anabaptists (and all credobaptists even) but would also get us back to your original “difference”—that is, that they did not simply disagree with the norm (ot law, natural law, new covenant law) but were in sedition. The reason I want a real example because if their “civil disobedience” consisted in their not bringing their infants to christening (or not showing up to worship the “bread-god”), then we will know what you are really complaining about. If, on the other hand, you are saying that an unwillingness to bring your babies in shows that you must be one of the peasants attempting to replace the current regime with a “democratic” regime of your own, then you haven’t shown that and you can’t show that.
Anabaptists never wanted to manage history and they never thought that the thing which mattered most in history was who was in charge of the civilized killing. As for non-anabaptist credobaptists, first you need to have that as a category and not just lump them together in one “bad word”. But more importantly, you still have named one group who were into defiance of the magistrate. Are you thinking about the baptists in cromwell’s army?
Zirm: there are credo-baptists who understand the Bible affirms civil obedience and opposes disobedience. Does that help?
mark: There are people on this list who are not murderers. Does that help?
Not so much, unless of course the point is that at least one on this list is a murderer.
LikeLike
Richard, have you ever been bothered by the fact that the Bible doesn’t use the words “physical nation” to describe Israel?
JRC: Abraham was justified by faith, not by circumcision. So where was his baptism to indicate his cleansing from sin?
RS: While I am not sure of your point, the New Covenant had not been established yet.
Nor had the Old. So what was Abraham’s circumcision all about? What was it a sign of?
LikeLike
Jeff, thanks for this.
So just to be clear, you’re saying that John, our Lord and his apostles baptised on the basis of their existing covenant status the children of repenting adults – who themselves had been prepared for baptism by a message which emphasised repentance *instead of* covenant status (Luke 3:8) – and that they did so consistently from the beginning of the ministry of John?
Also, Jeff, which of the books defending credo-baptism did you find most difficult to refute as you thought your way through the issue?
Mark, thanks for the tip re Gentry and Wellum’s KIngdom Through Covenant, which I haven’t come across. Please send me an email if you would like more background.
But seriously, is NOBODY going to take issue with my claim that Guido de Bres would regard every single one of us as operating outside his confessional parameters by having admitted an error he associated with the Anabaptists? Are we really willing to admit that Guido de Bres would not consider any of us as being truly “Reformed”? And what about my suggestion that the term “Reformed” might be as contingent as “Evangelical”?
I’d love to hear some helpful responses to what I wrote earlier this morning:
“The question of who has the authority to confess gets more complicated when non-denominational labels, like “Reformed,” come into play. While individual denominations do use the term in their titles, we tend to use it more broadly to describe a movement. But that movement is not based on a single confession of faith, even an evolving one, as a single denomination would be. Instead it draws its support from the members of multiple denominations, with confessions which compete with each other, and, because of their continual evolution, even contradict earlier versions of themselves. They all claim to be part of the movement, but none of the them have the authority to police its boundaries, and so those boundaries are ever changing, with only the opinions of the most vocal or the best resourced to indicate who can continue to be permitted to be part of the club. The irony is that some of the people who are trying to police the boundaries of the “Reformed” movement in the early c21st would have been well outside of the boundaries of the movement five centuries previously.
“And that’s why I find the term “Reformed” so difficult to pin down. It doesn’t have any fixed meaning – unless we stick to the theological content outlined by the first confessors, measuring our difference from them, and giving ourselves a different, and less confusing, name.
“I know I’m just making the same point over and over again. And I will stop. But I still can’t see how we can escape the possibility that “Reformed,” as a descriptor of a multi-denominational movement, may be as fractured, volatile and perhaps even as meaningless as “Evangelical.” ”
Thanks!
LikeLike
CG, I’ll take the bait on de Bres. If you look at the Gallican Confession, which I believe served as something of a model for the Belgic, you see a different formulation of the magistrate that is less Erastian than either the Belgic or WCF because it acknowledges the possibility of an unbelieving ruler and the duty of Christians still to be subject.
As for deconstructing Reformed, why can’t we do the same with Baptist, Lutheran, or Methodist? In other words, why is Reformed so broad but these other communions remain distinct? Part of my explanation — aside from the muddleheadedness the words users — is that in the British context Reformed, Puritan, Dissenter, Congregationalist, Presbyterian, and even Baptist, all flowed from a stream of English Reformers who could not be as precise as they wanted — either in the establishment context of the Elizabethan settlement or when pushed outside the establishment as dissenters.
So I blame the Brits. Tomorrow it will be the Dutch. If only everyone could be like the Yanks.
LikeLike
CG, by the way, and to add to my recent point, Reformed is a denominational label in some settings. Why do you think it isn’t? It was in the Netherlands.
LikeLike
Jeff C: Nor had the Old. So what was Abraham’s circumcision all about? What was it a sign of?
RS: It was a sign of the promise of God concerning the coming Messiah and it was a sign that people needed new hearts. But it was also a sign of the covenant of God with the nation of Israel to be His people and He would be their God.
LikeLike
Darryl, let’s get together, and we can blame the Brits simultaneously, but the geography has to be just right.
On de Bres – ok, but you now need to show that if you came along and said you could agree with 98% of the confession he was asking you to sign, except for one passage which was utterly normative for all Christendom, Reformed or otherwise, that he would still regard you as part of his Reformed communion. Maybe he would. But I think he’d still hold you as being guilty of an Anabaptist error, no matter how orthodox you were elsewhere.
As for deconstructing Reformed – I wonder if we’re using the terms in the same way. You refer to “Reformed” as a communion. I don’t see it as a communion at all, but a jamboree of denominations, publishers, conferences, and seminaries who self-identify using the label, though not always formally in their titles, despite huge differences among them, and sometimes, but not always, get annoyed with baptists come along and want to join the fun. For me, “Reformed” is a non- and often anti-ecclesial label of a *movement* which includes churches. But there’s no “Reformed HQ” to which, as someone once said of another movement, one can write to resign. So it’s not a communion. The “Reformed” have no moderator. They do have personalities, and well-resourced media. But no-one is in charge of the label. No-one can sue me if I call my church “Reformed Baptist.” (“Vineyard” is a trademark, though, I think.) So it’s not a communion. It’s looser and vaguer than that. But it is a movement.
As for deconstructing the other lot, why not? If you can. Of course, as you know as well as I do, there’s very little point in deconstructing “Baptist,” because it’s basically a confession-less movement, with some notable exceptions (I may be showing my ignorance of the US at this point). So there isn’t anything there to deconstruct.
It’s possible to deconstruct the Particular Baptist movement, though, because they, like the “Reformed” denominations, have specific creeds with supposed operational authority against which they can be measured.
However, I’m not suggesting we do deconstruct them, or the OPC, or any other of the particular denominations that might find themselves under the larger movement-umbrella of “Reformed.” I am suggesting that we look again at the title of a non-ecclesial *movement* which cannot decide upon or police its own boundaries, however much of a centre it may have in c16th and c17th confessions.
And as a footnote, with regard to your historical explanation – I think you’re mixing Britishness with Englishness, and conflating the experiences of very different groups in very different social and political territories within the British Isles. In Scotland, Presbyterians eventually found themselves with every opportunity to organise as the establishment, and as they wished, even outside it. In England, Baptists never wanted state affiliation, nor any national organisation, so it made very little difference to their church practice whether they were being tolerated or not.
Sorry if I haven’t been clear – I have been trying throughout to emphasise that I’m talking about “Reformed” as a movement descriptor rather than a title of a particular denomination.
But I’m sticking to my guns: it’s not clear to me that any of us are “Reformed” as de Bres would understand it, and I don’t think he’d be happy with us pretending otherwise.
“Reformed” has had its day. It’s time to choose a new label. “Transformed,” anyone?
LikeLike
D.G. Hart: As for deconstructing Reformed, why can’t we do the same with Baptist, Lutheran, or Methodist?
RS: We can and it has been done to some degree. On the other hand, all who profess that believer’s alone should be baptized are Baptists. However, from there things get different. I am not sure, other than the one thing previously mentioned, what it means to be a Baptist any longer. The same is true with the others as well. What does it mean to be a Lutheran or a Methodists? There are many versions of the Lutherans and many versions of the Methodists. Even early on there were the Calvinistic Methodists that wanted to be distinguished from Wesley.
As for the denominations that use “Reformed” in their name, would you consider all of them to be Reformed in their doctrine? Can a liberal be Reformed (espectially in light of the fact that Machen thought liberalism was not even Christianity)? Are the FV folks really Reformed since they deny justification by grace alone? Was Luther Reformed? Surely you would have to agree that it is very hard to find a good definition of Reformed in our day. While it is not as bad as “evangelical” has become, in the beginning one was evangelical if one was Reformed. When the word “evangelical” is used so loosely in our day, surely it could inform us that the word “Reformed” needs a little watching as well. I have bemoaned this fact with a friend for years that the word is so loose any longer I am not sure what it really points to.
LikeLike
CG: “Reformed” has had its day. It’s time to choose a new label. “Transformed,” anyone?
gas: How about “TransReformed”? We wouldn’t want to be associated with those who don’t believe in means of grace.
LikeLike
C Gribben: But I’m sticking to my guns: it’s not clear to me that any of us are “Reformed” as de Bres would understand it, and I don’t think he’d be happy with us pretending otherwise.
“Reformed” has had its day. It’s time to choose a new label. “Transformed,” anyone?
RS: I don’t think “Transformed” will work for Dr. Hart. He breaks out in a rash and starts twitching at the mere thought of some form of transformationalism. That 2K thing has some side issues that goes along with it. One real distinctive could be that of monergistic regeneration. Monergism, however, sounds a lot like modernism. Mark keeps beating the drum about how so many have dropped the ball in terms of election and of a real and specific atonement. He is right on that. It is hard to imagine people thinking of themselves as Reformed and not speak on those things, but they do. But as for real distinctives, it must include the sovereign grace of God.
LikeLike
How about something more honest, like, say, “ill-informed”?
Or “ill’n’Reformed”? Which is how I feel today.
LikeLike
CG, sorry to hear you’re ill’n. Here’s hoping you get some unmediated relief.
LikeLike
Richard, if God is its author then why so low a view of general revelation to explain itself without needing special revelation to come to its rescue? (And I don’t know what you mean about the courts of the land not recognizing parental authority. My guess is that it’s some sort of power punch-sour grapes over some legislation you don’t like. But even if that were true, it’s an instance of not reading GR well and needing to be corrected, not that the Bible needs to be broken out.)
If “the Bible does not give the Church the authority to bind men to anything other than what God has set out” then what about all that “what you loose it loosed and what you bind is bound, keys of the kingdom” stuff? If the church doesn’t have authority the way you’re suggesting then good-bye any notion of discipline, which means you are now even further removed from the Reformed understanding of how to discern the true church—as in, the second and now the third marks.
LikeLike
Mark, if I understand you, my point isn’t that refusing to baptize infants is synonymous with civil sedition. That may have been true in a different context, but not anymore. All I am saying is that there are two kinds of errors (both of which the ABs trafficked in): refusing baptism for covenant children and refusing obedience to pagan magistrates. Those don’t always go together, but they must always be rectified before “Reformed” can be a description, which is to say Reformed always affirm and practice paedobaptism and they always affirm and pursue civil obedience.
LikeLike
CG: So just to be clear, you’re saying that John…
Well, no, I’m saying that John’s baptism was different from the Lord’s baptism. It appears to have been preparatory, and focused on the singular message of “Repent.”
We notice, for example, that John’s charge to his baptizees was “produce fruits in keeping with repentance” rather than “believe in the Gospel.”
We also notice that Jesus received John’s baptism as a way of fulfilling all righteousness. This suggests (but does not prove) that John’s baptism was associated with the Law as preparation for the covenant of grace.
So for that reason, I plead “insufficient information” on whom exactly John was baptizing, and “inexact parallel” on the question of how John’s baptism informs our understanding of Jesus’.
CG: … our Lord and his apostles baptised on the basis of their existing covenant status the children of repenting adults – who themselves had been prepared for baptism by a message which emphasised repentance *instead of* covenant status (Luke 3:8)
And let’s add additional fuel to your fire. Jesus also preaches the necessity of repentance and the futility of relying on covenant status (John 8). As does Paul (Rom 2).
And so did the prophets: “The just shall live by faith”, says Habakkuk. “Only a remnant shall be saved” (2 Kings 19.30; Is. 10.20).
Esau, God hated. Cain was rejected.
So if we go back to the beginning of the covenant of grace, covenant status was *never* efficacious for being justified, *never* efficacious for finding favor with God in eternal terms. The benefits of covenant status — whether in OT or NT — are temporal. They last only so long as branches remain attached to the tree.
But this doesn’t mean that Jesus negated covenant status (John 8.37a and Matt 23.37, nor did Paul (Rom 11). He simply clarified what that status did and did not do. The covenant IS God’s primary channel for working out His election by ordinary means of grace. The covenant IS NOT a badge of, cause of, or guarantee of election.
Does Jesus affirm the covenant status of the children of believers? Yes: Matt 19.14.
—-
I don’t remember any particularly persuasive credobaptist books (it’s been a long time). I do recall reading Grudem’s Systematic Theology on the topic and finding a superficial attraction that faded after I noticed the circularity of the argument.
What’s your favorite?
LikeLike
Grudem is terrible. On everything. He insists on the non-importance of particular atonement, and the “slippery slope” significance of being for male leadership.
Zrim: All I am saying is that there are two kinds of errors (both of which the ABs trafficked in): refusing baptism for covenant children and refusing obedience to pagan magistrates.
mark: and all I am asking is that you give one or two examples of refusing submission to magistrates. But I notice that you have switched to the word “obedience”. I don’t want to re-visit the old debates on old-life about submission without obedience. But I guess I could ask, if a puritan paedobaptist happens to disobey a Constantinian command about a prayer book, does that mean that puritan paedobaptist has somehow become a credobaptist (or even an anabaptist)? Does it mean that the puritan paedobaptist is no longer “Reformed”?
Zirm: Reformed always affirm and practice paedobaptism and they always affirm and pursue civil obedience.
mark: aboltionists inherently cannot be “Reformed”? This seems to be the reverse of the position of those who insist that one has to be Constantinian (Erastian, or in a covenanted nation) in order to be truly Reformed. You seem to be saying that a person has to agree with your political view to be “Reformed”? Are you saying that? Those who expressed opposition to racial segregation in South Africa (not as a church, but as Christians), none of them were or could be “Reformed”?
Btw, credobaptists believe in new covenant baptism. They don’t believe in “the covenant” baptism. But why attend to such details when you can paint with a broad brush?
LikeLike
Some evangelicals will only baptize people that have made what they consider to be a valid profession of faith. We reformed folks will only baptize children if their parents have made what we consider a valid profession of faith. Of course you might experiment and go to a liberal Constantinian (Anglican) church where they will pretty much baptize any child no matter if their parents go to church at all. Some of these liberals will tell you that the righteousness sealed in the sacrament is not about any one individual, and therefore it the sign can be given to anyone. But really reformed people know that the sacrament signifies that one of the parents has a valid profession of faith in the righteousness, not that we infallibly know that of course. But we really reformed take comfort that the water baptism is not only an objective sign about the gospel but that it also reminds us that our own children will have God as their God, are engrafted and regenerated, not that we know that for
sure in every case, but it’s way more likely to be the case with those in “the covenant”.
One more thing. We reformed people are covenant theologians. When we don’t know what we are talking about, we just throw in the word “covenant”, and it all feels better. Evangelicals don’t even know that the word “covenant” is in the Bible, they never use it, but Paul used the word ten times in
his letters (though Paul did get mixed up some and wrote about covenants plural, perhaps not all the vestiges of dispensationalism had been removed from his thinking). But be warned, evangelicals are a dumb and un-read people, so don’t worry that they might have different ideas about “covenant”, since they have not even read Mr. John Murray’s little booklets on baptism and “the covenant of grace”.
But anyway, remember that we see parallels between the Old Testament practice of circumcision and Christian water baptism. In both cases, you begin in the covenant as an infant. In the OT practice, your parents didn’t have to have a valid profession of faith (though they were supposed to) but now we are all anabaptists also (i mean, now we are no longer Constantinian), so you have to have one parent with a valid profession of faith. And of course we don’t deny that circumcision is
fulfilled by the blood of the cross and by the Spirit’s work in regeneration, but let’s not focus on that, because we also think that one sign pointed to another, and that water baptism fulfills
circcumcision. Again, we don’t deny that the birth of Christ fulfilled circumcision, but people still needed to be circumcised even after Christ was circumcised on the 8th day, Sure the promise to Abraham was kept in Christ, but we don’t want to let go of the other promises, we sure don’t want to say that our children are not born in the same covenant anymore, because being Christian is not only about faith alone in the gospel, because also we Christians are starting a new
race (like Abraham was) and our children are in a special elite place and it’s not justified individuals but Christian families which will reform the culture. This is why we make a distinction between the covenant of redemption (only with the elect) and the covenant of grace (also with some for whom there will be no final grace).
For us it is more about what God does for the children of believing parents than it is what a new believer does for God. And when we say what God does for our children, we are not right now thinking about God casting out the son of Abraham by the “bondslave” (Grudem!)-woman. Of course we can’t deny that covenant curse is one example of what God does for the children of believing parents. I mean, if you want to be technical, when the ordained clergyman says “you” it doesn’t mean “you all” does it? Because some who are in might exclude themselves. And yes,
technically, we say our children but we don’t say ALL our children. Truth is, for some of our children there will be more sanctions than for children not born to believing parents, but let’s not get into
that, let’s just call it “covenant baptism” and say some more bad words about individualism.
And I would rather not talk about why we fence the table against infants we baptized until they make a valid profession of faith for themselves. Credos keep infants from the water, and we keep infants from the table, and those are two TOTALLY different mindsets.
Let me repeat one last thing: it’s not that other people don’t agree with us. No, they don’t even know. A lot of what we know is a foreign concept to them, and I know that because I used to be
ignorant just like they were. Of course there might be some ignorant people in your reformed congregations who think that water washes away original sin, i mean people who agree with Augustine and the Lutherans….
LikeLike
Mark, WCF 20.4 says in part: “And because the powers which God has ordained, and the liberty which Christ has purchased are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God.”
And WCF 23.4 says in part: “It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates, to honor their persons, to pay them tribute or other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience’ sake. Infidelity, or difference in religion, does not make void the magistrates’ just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them.”
And Belgic 36 says in part: “Moreover everyone, regardless of status, condition, or rank, must be subject to the government, and pay taxes, and hold its representatives in honor and respect, and obey them in all things that are not in conflict with God’s Word, praying for them that the Lord may be willing to lead them in all their ways and that we may live a peaceful and quiet life in all piety and decency.
And on this matter we denounce the Anabaptists, other anarchists, and in general all those who want to reject the authorities and civil officers and to subvert justice by introducing common ownership of goods and corrupting the moral order that God has established among human beings.”
I’m not saying everyone has to agree with my political viewpoint in order to be truly Reformed (I haven’t even hinted what mine is). I am saying that the Reformed forms clearly affirm civil obedience and condemn civil disobedience. And so to be Reformed is to affirm and practice civil obedience. I won’t take your bait about abolitionism, except to say that if it involves civil disobedience it isn’t Reformed.
LikeLike
Jeff, thanks for this helpful response.
I agree when you argue that “if we go back to the beginning of the covenant of grace, covenant status was *never* efficacious for being justified, *never* efficacious for finding favor with God in eternal terms.”
I suppose I was trying to make the point (getting dragged into the exegetical stuff I wanted to avoid) that the baptism was being carried out *on the basis of* repentance rather than covenant status. But you’d say that should be true of all adults, though not their children. I suppose I was thinking that John really only has the one criteria for baptism – and that he was dismissing the second one which you would also want to affirm. But you’ve responded to that already.
Like Mark, I’m not a big fan of Grudem on this topic. I find his material on baptism quite reductionist (you’ll see why in a second). Though I must admit, no doubt to the disgust of everyone on this site, that we used his DVD theology lectures in church and had a jolly old time.
The defences of credo-baptism I’ve enjoyed most have been Jewett, “Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace” (1978), Beasley-Murray, “Baptism in the NT” (1962), and David F Wright, “What has infant baptism done to baptism?” (2005), a text made all the more powerful by the fact that its author was an elder in the Church of Scotland. All of Anthony Cross’s work on baptist sacramentalism has been very helpful, as has Stanley Fowler’s “More than a Symbol” (got the Boston reference there, Erik?). You can probably see from that list that I’m a bit of a fan of Calvin’s sacramental theology, and do read the baptismal references in the NT as being realistic language, by and large.
Baptism saves us, after all, but it must be the baptism that is linked to the appeal to God for a good conscience.
LikeLike
CG, here’s the problem. There are Reformed communions. There aren’t evangelical communions. So I can turn in my membership card to the OPC, or CRC, or PCA, or EPC, or Free Church. I can’t do that with evangelicalism. The same can be said of Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Anglicans. Even Baptists.
If you’re going to insist on de Bres for church state relations, why not also for the marks of the church? You won’t go with him on Article 36 or on Article 29. I’ll gladly take 29. What had not occurred to him was the possibility of having 29 without 36.
And I don’t think anabaptist is at all helpful for describing those who dissent from 36. Anabaptists don’t take 29 either. The idea of a churchless Christianity is really the novelty.
I’d also argue that the jamboree of Reformed as you describe it is all parasitic on the Reformed churches and their confessions. The seminaries, publishers, and conferences all use Westminster and the Three Forms as a benchmark, and they all draw upon the fire power of the denominations.
That is, except for the young, ruffled, and restless, for whom pre-Edwardsian Reformed Protestantism matters little.
LikeLike
Zrim, wow. You say: “I won’t take your bait about abolitionism, except to say that if it involves civil disobedience it isn’t Reformed.”
So you’re saying that those extraordinary men and women of the *Reformed* Presbyterian Church who helped in the underground railroad were not “Reformed”? What about the Covenanters in Scotland? Or the Huguenots? These guys wrote some of the confessions you use to define the movement!
So now I’m more perplexed than ever. You identify “Reformed” as being defined by the three forms of unity and WCF. And now you’re saying that some of the authors of the WCF weren’t Reformed.
In fact, truth be told, because Charles I forbade the gathering of the Assembly, when he was still the legitimate monarch of England, the *entire Assembly* was involved in an act of civil disobedience when it met to construct its confession.
So by your comment above you’ve just excommunicated the 151 members of the Westminster Assembly from the movement you have come to call “Reformed.”
I’m more perplexed than ever, but I’m also beginning to relax too. Because now there are quite a lot of us out here in confessional limbo-land.
I think your comment exactly illustrates my point. We’re all just making this up. “Reformed” once had credible theological content when its meaning was defined by fixed confessional texts. But nowadays it means is whatever anyone of us want it to mean, nothing more, and nothing less.
So let the baptists in, man. Their peace-nicks. They mean no harm.
LikeLike
That was pretty funny Mark. The Refomed just don’t understand the trauma we Anabaptists deal with putting up with little pagans in our house. If we’re lucky they will make a decision for Christ at about age 10, which is the biblical age of discretion, otherwise we have to put up with these pagans until they’re 18 when, if these pagans haven’t made a decision, we can kick their pagan butts out of the house.
Let’s talk about what a believer does for God!
LikeLike
C.G.: “Erik, thanks for that. I’d love to know more about your story sometime. In the meantime, which defence of credo-baptism made it most difficult for you to leave your baptist background?”
Leaving my baptist background was really easy because being a baptist was tied up with being an evangelical and I was completely fed up with evangelicalism.
Once I fully embraced the five points, embracing infant baptism followed quite easily. If it is God who provides the sacrifice, creates faith, and sustains faith it’s not hard to infer that infant baptism logically follows. I also found the link between circumcision and baptism and the notion that the apostles would have made the fact that infants shouldn’t be baptized explicit (coming out of Judaism) to be persuasive. It also made sense to me that just as not everyone who was circumcised was saved, the same is true for baptism. I think baptists kind of think that they only baptize saved people, but they struggle when you ask them how they view those who have been baptized and fall away (I think Richard does). Baptists (and Federal Visionists) try too hard to link the visible and the invisible church.
It also helped that I discovered a URC church in Des Moines. I had thought that if I was going to join a Reformed church I was going to have to either settle for a CRC/RCA or drive over an hour to Pella to a CREC church.
Doug Wilson’s teaching was really influential for me. I am now aware of some of his shortcomings (Federal Vision & postmilennialism).
LikeLike
Richard: “If one is not of the faith/in Christ at any point, then that one has never been in the faith/in Christ at any point. That is what perseverance (last letter of TULIP) teaches.”
Erik: If they weren’t of the faith/in Christ, then why did you baptize them? I thought you were only baptizing Christians and I thought your interview process could discern who was and was not a Christian?
LikeLike
Zrim/C.G.: “and obey them in all things that are not in conflict with God’s Word,”
The debate on civil obedience or disobedience hinges on exactly what the Magistrate is commanding us to do or not do. Ultimately God will judge us, not the Magistrate.
LikeLike
CG, sorry, but I’m still not feeling very peckish. I didn’t say any of that–you did. But show me how civil disobedience comports with anything I cited from the REFORMED confessions.
But why don’t the Baptists just go knock on the Methodists’ doors? Well, the ones who can read anyway (thanks, Tom Skerritt).
LikeLike
CG: I suppose I was trying to make the point that the baptism was being carried out *on the basis of* repentance rather than covenant status. But you’d say that should be true of all adults, though not their children.
So let’s explore that just a bit. First, to sharpen: in the case of adults, would we agree that the baptism was carried out on the basis of a *profession* of repentance or the exhibition of the *fruits* of repentance?
So for example, could we further agree that the warnings in Rom 11 and Heb 9 – 10, 1 Cor 10 and 2 Cor 13 are for those who have made a profession of faith, but might not actually possess saving faith?
If we agree so far, then I would say that we baptize adults on the basis of their apparent membership in the covenant of grace. And we baptize children on the same basis.
That membership is genuine iff. faith is in fact possessed. But the membership is outwardly presumed for all who profess faith and their children.
So covenant status is actually the sole criterion for baptism. Which, in the end, is as it should be. Try as we might, we cannot actually restrict baptism to genuine believers only. Whether Presby or Baptist, we are limited to something like “covenant status.”
Why “and their children”? Only because the structure of the community of faith before the inauguration of the Old Covenant was to those who professed the faith of Abraham, together with their children.
CG: The defences of credo-baptism I’ve enjoyed most have been…
Thanks for the titles. I look forward to reading some of them in the (far? near?) future. I have read some articles by Jewett before on baptism.
CG: You can probably see from that list that I’m a bit of a fan of Calvin’s sacramental theology, and do read the baptismal references in the NT as being realistic language, by and large.
Baptism saves us, after all, but it must be the baptism that is linked to the appeal to God for a good conscience.
Ooh, interesting. Kindred spirit here. I sometimes get dinged for overstating baptismal efficacy.
But here’s an interesting feature of Calvin’s sacramentology that sets him apart from the Anabaptists. For the Anabaptists of his day, baptism was primarily a sign from the believer to God of possessing saving faith.
This explains the slogan “outward sign of an inward change” and also the Baptist’s histamine reaction against infant baptism: How can the child possibly be indicating possession of saving faith?
But for Calvin, and Reformed folk in general, baptism is primarily a sign from God to us of the promise of justification by faith and the washing of regeneration.
This is how he understands 1 Pet 3:
What then ought we to do? Not to separate what has been joined together by the Lord. We ought to acknowledge in baptism a spiritual washing, we ought to embrace therein the testimony of the remission of sin and the pledge of our renovation, and yet so as to leave to Christ his own honor, and also to the Holy Spirit; so that no part of our salvation should be transferred to the sign. Doubtless when Peter, having mentioned baptism, immediately made this exception, that it is not the putting off of the filth of the flesh, he sufficiently shewed that baptism to some is only the outward act, and that the outward sign of itself avails nothing. — Calv Comm 1 Pet 3.21
And one of the reasons that this distinction is valuable is that when baptism’s primary meaning is subjective, our attention is drawn to the state of our own hearts. But when baptism’s primary meaning is to point to the promises, our attention is drawn to those promises and their author. Thus Calvin again:
We then cannot otherwise derive benefit from baptism, than by having all our thoughts fixed on the death and the resurrection of Christ.
So the outward sign is given to covenant members, young and old, to say to them: Here is the promise of God, the pledge from God to us of a good conscience before Him.
The inward reality is then apprehended when the recipient (whether before or after baptism) looks at the promise and says, “Yes, I believe. God’s promise is faithful and true.”
LikeLike
Cagle is great. He has these awesome theological insights and then you click through to his blog and its all about butterflies. He’s the Nabokov of Oldlife.
LikeLike
Hopefully without the Lolita angle? All teachers should be forced to listen to “Don’t Stand So Close to Me” until the message sinks in.
But thank you.
I have the whole summer’s worth of updating to do.
LikeLike
Hey, i don’t want in. Let’s all be sectarians. I only want Reformed people to agree that they are not all in agreement about very much. But f the only thing that matters is if you get to paedobaptism in the end, then you can’t be worry about which specific confession spoke for which specific national church.
I don’t want “churchless Christianity”. But I do want to talk about how the NT defines churches and if “discipline” is or is not a needed mark of a visible church. “Sacrament” needs to be defined because I reject the “sacramental realism” of the credobaptist Beasley-Murry (or Alexander Campbell or Anthony Cross or Timothy George or Michael Haykin) as much as I do that of Calvin and Nevin.
gas: That was pretty funny Mark. The Refomed just don’t understand the trauma we Anabaptists deal with putting up with little pagans in our house.
mark: I am glad you were amused by my venting. I agree that the salvation of my two children is in the hands of our sovereign God. And so no, I didn’t teach them to sing with Karl Barth that “Jesus loves me this I know.” But then neither did I comfort myself with a promise that God never made to parents. Nor did I overlook the harsh realities of “covenant conditionality”.
gas: If we’re lucky they will make a decision for Christ at about age 10, which is the biblical age of discretion,
mark: I get it. By imputing to all paedobaptists what only some paedobaptists would say, then I as a credobaptist need to bear the burden of what every credobaptist has ever said, which means that I must agree not only to the “sacramental realism” of Doug Moo but also at the same time to the Arminian “I have decided once again” rituals of the Southern Baptists. When I throw stones at the Reformed invention of “confirmation” (joining church, having a creditable profession before the Supper), then it’s only fair that I take on “age of discretion”. Since the Cathars were credobaptists, then I must also agree with the sexual praxis of the Cathars.
gas: otherwise we have to put up with these pagans until they’re 18 when, if these pagans haven’t made a decision, we can kick their pagan butts out of the house.
mark: Well, in this economy, the trickledown from the Bush tax cuts has not yet created all the jobs we want to see, but at last my 26 year old son now has a job and has his own place. But I don’t see where me calling my child a pagan OR a “covenant of works” (you’re in until you’re out) child really has much to do with changing the fact that unless the Lord saves our children, they won’t be saved.
I know that last bit is pretty close to THE antithesis of being “old school”, and so I won’t talk about it too much, but it’s simply not true that all credobaptists are a. looking to see their children have some emotional revival experience or b. being hypocritical, saying one thing in theory about children but then in practice dealing them with the same as the way that paedobaptist Christians deal with their children.
I am not only denying that all paedobaptists raise children the same way. I am not only talking about revivalist paedobaptists. I am saying that not even all “old school” paedobaptists think of their children that much differently from the way some credobaptists do. And where we differ in praxis, we should not simply assume that the other is not practising what we think they should given their theory. Not all credobaptists sound like Paul Washer or a “scolding jewish mother”. And paedobaptists disagree about how the “covenantal diapers” fit the “possibly already regenerate”.
I don’t believe in luck. I don’t even we can read God’s providence like a newspaper. That’s why I want to “problematize” our thinking. So yes, my soundbites also are fair game.
gas: Let’s talk about what a believer does for God!
mark: I have already talked some about what a believer does. A person who doesn’t believe the gospel. yet is not yet a believer, and we have no idea yet if that person is in the number of “as many as the Lord shall call”. God by the power of the gospel creates hearing in the elect as God calls those elect. I hope we agree to that. The gospel grabs the elect sinner. The elect sinner does not grab the gospel. This does not mean that God “believes for” the sinner, but it does mean that God creates faith in the gospel in the sinner. And whatever gratitude or worship or obedience which follows from that faith is the work of God.
I hope we agree on these things. I think we do. Of course we still disagree about “sacramentel objectivity”, and about which things if any are “means of grace”. But disagreement with sacramentalism does not make a person an Arminian.
And the federal vision of Norman Shepherd, despite its sacramentalism, is not that different from Arminianism. Of course we live in day when we are assured that Arminians came out of the Reformation and are therefore in their own way “Reformed”. That’s just another reason why some of us baptists don’t want in the Reformed club.
LikeLike
Mark, if we’re going to talk about what a believer does, let’s start with John the Baptist and his kicking in the belly.
LikeLike
“His car is warm and dry.”
LikeLike
Man there are a lot of baptists here. There used to be a lot of Catholics, but they took off. Who’s next, Mormons?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: Does Jesus affirm the covenant status of the children of believers? Yes: Matt 19.14.
RS: I simply don’t know how the verses below support your statement (question and then positive answer) that Jesus affirmed the covenant status of the children of believers. All we know is that some children were brought to Him. We don’t know that they were children of believers and we don’t know that this had anything to do with the covenant status of the children. The “such as these” is a phrase that is virtually identical to the passage in Matthew 18 where the disciples were told that they must become as children to enter and the greatest was the one that humbled himself as “this child.”
Mat 19:13 Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15 After laying His hands on them, He departed from there.
Mat 18: 2 And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, 3 and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
4 “Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, if God is its author then why so low a view of general revelation to explain itself without needing special revelation to come to its rescue?
RS: General revelation is, shall we say, rather general. It is enough to condemn people, but not enough to show them what real holiness is.
Zrim: (And I don’t know what you mean about the courts of the land not recognizing parental authority. My guess is that it’s some sort of power punch-sour grapes over some legislation you don’t like. But even if that were true, it’s an instance of not reading GR well and needing to be corrected, not that the Bible needs to be broken out.)
RS: It is just that the courts appear to be running roughshod over parental authority in many ways. Spanking has become child abuse, abortions can be obtained without notifying parents, and so on. Apart from God’s giving us what He means in special revelation general revelation will be twisted and contorted as God hardens the hearts of men (see Romans 1:18-32). Indeed they will twist the language and meaning of the Bible as well, but that is easier to point out than pointing to the mountains and saying it proves the authority of parents.
Zrim: If “the Bible does not give the Church the authority to bind men to anything other than what God has set out” then what about all that “what you loose it loosed and what you bind is bound, keys of the kingdom” stuff?
RS: If you will check the tenses of the Greek on those verses, you will note that the meaning is perhaps different than what one imagines. The NAS does a fairly good job of setting this out,
Matthew 16:19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”
Notice that what one binds (now) on earth has already been bound in heaven. In other words, the church is only carrying out what has already happened in heaven. So the church is to seek the will of God in these matters for what has already happened.
Zrim: If the church doesn’t have authority the way you’re suggesting then good-bye any notion of discipline, which means you are now even further removed from the Reformed understanding of how to discern the true church—as in, the second and now the third marks.
RS: No, it just limits the authority of the church to the Scriptures. The churches have no authority beyond what is given to it by the Head of the Church.
LikeLike
Erik Charter quoting Richard: “If one is not of the faith/in Christ at any point, then that one has never been in the faith/in Christ at any point. That is what perseverance (last letter of TULIP) teaches.”
Erik: If they weren’t of the faith/in Christ, then why did you baptize them? I thought you were only baptizing Christians and I thought your interview process could discern who was and was not a Christian?
RS: I thought we were discussing the issue of why repentance came before baptism. You then mentioned those who left the faith and so on. But on to a different point, or so I guess. But of course there are people who will be baptized who are not believers from the covenantal Baptist view. However, if you were serious about your beliefs you would have to examine the parents to be sure they believed before you baptized the little unbelievers. I simply say that we should examine people to help discern if they are believers or not, but I have also insisted that this is not infallible.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: If we agree so far, then I would say that we baptize adults on the basis of their apparent membership in the covenant of grace. And we baptize children on the same basis.
RS: But what covenant are the children actually in and are members of? Are they actually in the New Covenant? If so, then their sins are forgiven. If so, then Christ is their Priest and Mediator. How do we know that Christ is their Mediator and represents them to the Father? It sounds like your position will demand that you think of them as saved.
Jeff Cagle: That membership is genuine iff. faith is in fact possessed. But the membership is outwardly presumed for all who profess faith and their children.
RS: But why is membership presumed in the New Covenant when all in that covenant have Christ as their Mediator?
Jeff Cagle: So covenant status is actually the sole criterion for baptism.
RS: Which is the credo-Baptist position.
Jeff Cagle: Which, in the end, is as it should be. Try as we might, we cannot actually restrict baptism to genuine believers only. Whether Presby or Baptist, we are limited to something like “covenant status.”
RS: The difference at this point is perhaps more major than appears. The Baptist will say that Christ has died for all those planned in the eternal covenant and so brought into the New Covenant because of the electing grace of God and in the work of regeneration which Christ purchased for His people. The Baptist will say that those born into this kingdom are in the New Covenant which is the New Covenant in His blood, so to be in this covenant one has to be covered by the blood of Christ. Those in the New Covenant actually have Christ and He is their Mediator and Representative. Paedobaptist have to have a different view of the covenant at that point to say that infants are in and then that they can be out at a different time.
LikeLike
Mark Mcculley: And the federal vision of Norman Shepherd, despite its sacramentalism, is not that different from Arminianism.
RS: I know that I am in a Presbyterian house and all, but amen!!!!!!!
Mark Mcculley: Of course we live in day when we are assured that Arminians came out of the Reformation and are therefore in their own way “Reformed”. That’s just another reason why some of us baptists don’t want in the Reformed club.
RS: Preach it!!!!!!!
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Man there are a lot of baptists here. There used to be a lot of Catholics, but they took off. Who’s next, Mormons?
RS: Three Baptists and you say there are a lot? Maybe I missed one or two. Mormons are, after all, just another branch of Pelagianism and there are a lot of Pelagians disguised as Arminians in many of the Presby and Baptist churches.
LikeLike
Richard, if general revelation is enough to eternally condemn it’s surely sufficient to provisionally govern. And I don’t see how the tense changes the substantive meaning, and I don’t see how someone with as low a view of the church as you have could possibly talk about her officers having the kind of authority Jesus suggests.
And there is no disagreement here that “the authority of the church is limited to the Scriptures.” There is only wonder about how one can say in one breath that the church has no binding authority and then in another limit the church’s authority—how can the church’s binding authority be limited if there is no binding authority in the first place? Don’t you have to admit her binding authority before you can begin to limit it? And so I wonder if yours is the inability to conceive how authority can be at once binding and limited—you know, like how my binding yet limited authority over my kids means I am to be obeyed by them but limited against exasperating them at the same time. I wonder if your mistake is to think binding somehow implies absolute.
LikeLike
Richard: “if you were serious about your beliefs you would have to examine the parents to be sure they believed before you baptized the little unbelievers.”
Erik: I agree with this.
You still haven’t answered why if the pattern is repent, believe, be baptized why you don’t baptize someone a second time if they fall away and come back. Why only once? Where does the Bible say to do it only once?
LikeLike
I think you misunderstand the nature of covenant membership, Richard. Was everyone who was circumcised a covenant member? Yes. Were they all saved? No. Is every infant who is baptized a covenant member? Yes. Is every baptized infant saved? No.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, if general revelation is enough to eternally condemn it’s surely sufficient to provisionally govern. And I don’t see how the tense changes the substantive meaning, and I don’t see how someone with as low a view of the church as you have could possibly talk about her officers having the kind of authority Jesus suggests.
RS: Because it says that the church can only pronounce what has already happened in heaven. I don’t have a low view of the church. What kind of authority did Jesus suggest that officers have? He was speaking to Peter (singular), by the way.
Zrim: And there is no disagreement here that “the authority of the church is limited to the Scriptures.” There is only wonder about how one can say in one breath that the church has no binding authority and then in another limit the church’s authority—how can the church’s binding authority be limited if there is no binding authority in the first place? Don’t you have to admit her binding authority before you can begin to limit it? And so I wonder if yours is the inability to conceive how authority can be at once binding and limited—you know, like how my binding yet limited authority over my kids means I am to be obeyed by them but limited against exasperating them at the same time. I wonder if your mistake is to think binding somehow implies absolute.
RS: I don’t think so, but simply recognizing that the Church and churches are not to go beyond what Scripture says. They can only pronounce something bound if God has already bound it. The tenses are very important here. The action of God precedes what the church does in this text.
LikeLike
Erik C: You still haven’t answered why if the pattern is repent, believe, be baptized why you don’t baptize someone a second time if they fall away and come back. Why only once? Where does the Bible say to do it only once?
RS: If a person truly repents and believes, they will not fall away. The Bible has only given us examples of doing it only once, but also those who are truly saved will not fall away so there is no need to baptize them again.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: I think you misunderstand the nature of covenant membership, Richard.
RS: Perhaps, but we should allow each covenant to define the nature of who is in it. So you base covenant membership on an idea of the Old Covenant and just assume that it is the same in the New Covenant. As Hebrews says (ch 8), Christ has obtained a more excellent ministry and He is the mediator of a better covenant and it has been enacted on better promises. The first covenant, however (see v. 13), is obsolete. So there is no need to bring the membership standards of that which is obsolete and make them the standard for the New Covenant.
6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.
8 For finding fault with them, He says, “BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH;
9 NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD.
10 “FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. 11 “AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN, AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, ‘KNOW THE LORD,’ FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM. 12 “FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES, AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE.”
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.
Erik C: Was everyone who was circumcised a covenant member? Yes. Were they all saved? No.
RS: But were they all a member of the nation of Israel by birth? Yes. Were they required to have believing parents or those who were Israelites by birth?
Erik C: Is every infant who is baptized a covenant member? Yes. Is every baptized infant saved? No.
RS: But here is one area that shows the difference between the Old and New Covenants and why your logic is missing some needed premisses. Read this passage again from Hebrews 8 or from Jeremiah 31. Note, all those (ALL THOSE) in this New Covenant have the following things:
1. God’s law is put into their minds and written on their hearts.
2. God is their God
3. They are His people
4. All in this covenant know Him
5. All in this covenant do not need to be told to know Him
6. God is merciful to ALL in this covenant regarding their iniquities
7. God will not remember their sins any longer.
Can those things be said of all infants? Are infants really in this covenant?
10 “FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. 11 “AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN, AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, ‘KNOW THE LORD,’ FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM. 12 “FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES, AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE.”
LikeLike
Erik Charter: I think you misunderstand the nature of covenant membership, Richard. Was everyone who was circumcised a covenant member? Yes. Were they all saved? No. Is every infant who is baptized a covenant member? Yes. Is every baptized infant saved? No.
RS: Does the New Covenant define for us the members of the Old Covenant? Then why do we think that the Old Covenant defines for us the members of the New Covenant? Why not just let each covenant inform us of who the members in that covenant are? For whom did the high priest act for and represent when he went into the holy of holies? Did he sprinkle the blood on the mercy seat for any who were not part of the tribes of Israel? Did he represent anyone that the stones on his garments did not represent? Why do we think Christ our High Priest is the mediator of some that He did not die for? If the Old Testament has the high priest only representing Israel and not the ites of all types in the land of Canaan, then why do we put some in the covenant now that Christ did not represent? How can that be?
LikeLike
Erik Charter: I think you misunderstand the nature of covenant membership, Richard. Was everyone who was circumcised a covenant member? Yes. Were they all saved? No. Is every infant who is baptized a covenant member? Yes. Is every baptized infant saved? No.
RS: Yes, more on this. Mark has said over and over (generally, not exactly) that so many today in effect deny the doctrine of election and of the definite atonement in different ways. Does God elect all who are in His covenant or not? If a man decides to have a child and by virtue of the man the child is born into the covenant, is that the doctrine of election or is it the will of man putting the child into the covenant? But again, all those that the Father gave the Son the Son died for. Are there really those in the New Covenant that the Father did not elect?
Can anyone be in the New Covenant that Jesus Christ did not die to bring in the New Covenant? What are the promises to infants in the New Covenant if the New covenant has to do with the election by grace and the sufferings of Christ to remove the wrath of the Father from all who are in the New Covenant? Is there a difference from being in the New Covenant and all of its promises and that of being in Christ? Are infants in Christ? Even non-elect infants?
LikeLike
Erik, it’s ok, I’m only here because I’m not feeling well enough to be working properly. I’ll return to my default lurking position after the weekend, and then you can wonder where one of the baptists went!
Darryl, I’m with you on the marks of the church. We share the same formula, though we understand one of the elements very differently, and I am comfortable knowing that Guido de Bres would not consider my church a true church. If there were a Reformed communion that foregrounded those marks as the operational limits of its communion it would be helpful. But sadly on this side of the Atlantic, at least, Reformed is an identity politics label which is available to anyone to subscribes to the Banner of Truth magazine. Mark asked what I used to be – the answer is many things, but I grew up in a family which had been in the Plymouth Brethren for over a century. When I moved from that, the Reformed movement with which I initially identified, under the shadow of Lloyd-Jones, undermined any sense I had that ecclesiology had any real significance at all.
Jeff, I think they were professing repentance for baptism and being expected to bear the fruits of it thereafter (“bear fruits in keeping with repentance”). I’m with Gary North on the “right to a speedy baptism,” and the longest gap between “conversion” and baptism in the NT is 3 days – the case of Paul. I’m not sure there was much time to see any fruit before any NT baptism. What mattered was the desire to be baptised, with (I hope!) an understanding of what that meant. Then, yes, as to those warnings, though I think some of them are primarily about Israel, eg Heb 6. But as for the inclusion of children before the inauguration of the old covenant – it was being Abraham’s seed that is emphasised, rather than being the seed of believing parents, I think. And I think Gal 3 confirms that emphasis, Christologically. The story through the covenants is all about identifying the true children of Abraham. I’m totally with you on the “outward sign of an inward change” issue. I’ve been to too many baptisms where God is the only person doing nothing in the service. And I’m absolutely with you on the principal objectivity of its meaning. Baptism isn’t a sign that points to the person being baptised. So we’re probably agreeing on the meaning of baptism, and probably also the allowable modes, though we haven’t talked about that, just not the proper subjects.
As for Zrim … well, I had a very enjoyable evening last night with Peter Hall’s translation of the “Harmony of the Protestant Confessions” (1842). The Harmony very helpfully parallels the relevant sections of major Reformed confessions. And you are quite right. They do insist on obedience to government, though it’s never unqualified. But they also consistently give government very high sacral duties. In fact, even the Gallican Confession that Darryl cited yesterday gives government the responsibility of enforcing both tables of the law.
But I’m afraid I’m stuck where I started (and the reason I interrupted your conversation was to get help with this): across the board, the c16th and c17th Reformed confessions maintain a position on government that most contemporary Reformed people deny. Those confessions don’t allow any of us the title of “Reformed.”
Yet (in a new twist!) it is possible that some of us are reading the confessional statements about obedience to lawful government in a way that pushes out of the Reformed movement the authors of one of its major symbols. The Westminster divines met despite the orders of the monarch, and in the service of a Parliament which still formally supported his rule, to formulate a confession that stated that lawful government ought to be obeyed.
So, Guido de Bres could not regard you as Reformed. I suspect your statements (and I’m not really trying to bait you!) imply that strictly speaking you could not regard the members of the Westminster Assembly as Reformed, much as you value their confession as a symbol of Reformed orthodoxy.
And (in a further twist) we are generally pushing back on the “Reformed” claims of Baptists, when their 1689 confession is the one that most clearly articulates the views of government, imputation, justification, covenant of redemption, etc which do not exist in the c16th and 17th Reformed confessions but which the heirs of these confessions have come to maintain today as central elements of their “revised and revising” identity.
So here’s a way forward. We recognise that “Reformed” refers to the confessions of the c16th and c17th in their original forms. We recognise that there are now several groups of heirs of these confessions. Party A has revised some of the original confessions, but have added nothing substantial to the confessional legacy (leaving aside the issue of the additional material on the Spirit and eschatology in some American editions of the WCF). Party B has revised slightly more of the confessions, but has added more to the content of the confessional legacy. Both parties hold to the marks of the church outlined as above, and therefore are not in a position to recognise each other as existing in true churches. Nevertheless they share an extraordinary amount of common ground, and can appreciate many of the contributions of the other side. Party A abominates what Party B has removed but likes a lot of Party B’s additions. But both parties recognise that they are not Reformed in any unqualified or essential way, but that both sides have received the legacy of the Reformed confessions in different ways. So it’s mutual respect derived from common roots, a recognition that there can’t be any real ecclesial cooperation, and permission from both sides to allow the other to use the title “Reformed” if they want to, subject to all the qualifications above, and always recognising that it’s not an essentialist label connoting the repristination of c16th and c17th content.
So none of us are “Reformed” – but we’re all heirs of the same confessions – those confessions are part of the same family tree of theological ideas which we share. And so we’re all allowed to use the label.
LikeLike
Richard, you talk about the New Covenant as if it’s a break with those that came before rather than a fulfillment. The Reformed acknowledge one Covenant of Grace which has the same nature before and after Christ. The difference is that before Christ the covenant was administered by shadows while after Christ has come the covenant is administered according to the fullness of His revelation and work (WCF Ch.7. 3, 5-6).
Paul argues in this manner in Galatians 3-4, that under the Abrahamic Covenant, faith was needed to keep the covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant was just as much a covenant of faith as the New is and Abraham is commanded to give his children the covenant sign, not because of the child’s faith, but as a sign of God’s promise to all those who have faith.
Also, I would argue that the Bible gives us only two methods of entry into any covenant God makes. The first, God inaugurates the covenant you (Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and Christ). The second, you are brought in under the covenant head by social relation or natural and/or spiritual birth. We are all born into the Covenant of Works naturally, through Adam as our covenant head. The same is true of Abraham’s descendants and the Abrahamic Covenant or with the people of Israel born after Sinai and the Mosaic Covenant. But natural birth is only enough for entrance into the covenant, it has never been enough to keep it. For that, one must be born again in the true covenant head, which is Christ. Just as those born in Adam are in the covenant of works, no less are those born of Christ. The difference between the 2 parties is not covenant membership but covenant status. One group are covenant breakers, the other, on account of Christ, covenant keepers.
So, every covenant has blessings for keeping it and cursings for breaking it, even the New. The blessings of the New Covenant that you are so zealous to protect (and rightfully so) belong to those who have been made covenant keepers in Christ. But one has to be in the covenant to break it and the curses of the covenant belong to those who transgress it. The curse for those who neglect so great a salvation is not because they are not in the covenant but because they are but are not united by faith with those who listen.
LikeLike
Thanks, cg, for the historical perspective. Interesting: not we are all anabaptist, but at least on the matter of church/state, we are all Particular Baptists (on magistrate 1644 and 1689 agree) except that some Reformed still do babies. I want to compliment you on the post above by diagreeing with one sentence of what you wrote.
cg: Baptism is not a sign that points to the person being baptized.
mark: There are two separate questions here. One is about the claim that the sign is from God to us, rather than from us to God. Of course for those of us believe in sovereign grace, that sounds good. Take it in the direction of saying we don’t do anything. But of course the same folks who talk about the objectivity (or the “realism”) of the “sacraments” are the people who are most concerned to stress synergism (or 100% God and 100% man) in “sanctification” and (in the case of the federal visionists who are all sacramentalists) the conditionality even of final justification. So why this concern, when it comes to “sacrament”, to say it’s all God?
But the second and more question concerns what the sign says. If the sign is from God to us, is the sign saying that those being baptized are promised something that that those not baptized are not promised? ( Given the idea that infants are baptized not to enter “the covenant” but because they are already “in the covenant”, doesn’t that mean that infants born to credobaptists who are not baptized are nevertheless in “the covenant”?)
If the sign is from us to God, again, is the sign saying that we have assurance of justification already (before baptism) or is it saying that we receive baptisim in order to find (more) assurance?
To simplify my question, if the sign (from God, or from man) is simply about an objective promise by God, why not give the sign to everybody? Why restrict the sign only to those with assurance? Why restrict the sign only to those born to a parent who is a church member? Why not baptize
everybody, as the Constantians did?
(And as a historical sidenote, this conclusion can be reached by folks who do not assume the unity of all covenants as one covenant. At least some Plymouth Brethren –following the lead of Darby– taught that all infants born to members of the “universal church” could be baptized, not as a sign of anything about them except the fact that we are all born dead in sins–ie, it doesn’t matter who’s a believer or not yet, because we can be sure that everybody is born guilty and corrupt, and if that what “baptism” means, then baptize anybody you want.)
To say it again as simply as I can, if “the promise” (as if it there were only one promise in all covenants !) is a conditional promise, which says, if you believe, then efficacy, and then life, why not make put that sign, that conditional promise, on everybody? (Why with-hold it from those who won’t be hearing the gospel as much as other folks, if the sign itself is objectively preaching the gospel?) But on the other hand, if “the promise” is not conditional, but it’s saying that the sign has efficacy in that the sign itself is telling us that the person being baptized WILL believe, then what has happened to the claim about objectivity and it not being about the person?
Of course, if the sign is saying that you are “covenantally elect”, without promising anything about assurance of faith or decretal election, then what does that mean objectively? Does it mean that
those being baptized are under a “covenant of works” that folks who didn’t get the sign are not under? One, even if that were the case, the sign would be subjective, saying something about the persons being baptized, that they are under threat of greater sanctions than people not baptized. Two, unless they confuse works and faith, works and grace, as much as the federal visionists do, other Reformed folks need to be a lot more clear about the nature of the grace found “in the covenant” for the non-elect. If they don’t want to say that Christians stop being Christians, if they don’t want to say that the regenerate stop being regenerate, the non-FV folks need to interact
more with Engelsma and the “non-conditional covenant” folks.
Calvin on1 Pet 3: :What then ought we to do? Not to separate what has been joined together by the Lord. We ought to acknowledge in baptism a spiritual washing, we ought to embrace therein the testimony of the remission of sin and the pledge of our renovation, and yet so as to leave to Christ his own honor, and also to the Holy Spirit; so that no part of our salvation should be transferred to the sign.
mark: Is Calvin saying that the testimony is only that as many as the Holy Spirit calls will be saved? Or does Calvin mean something different and more? Does Calvin mean that baptism testifies
that the person receiving will be given the Holy Spirit and will be saved? I would like to say the first, but I think Calvin and his followers want to both eat their cake and still have it at this point.
They want to say it’s not about the person but only an universal (condition?) from God, but at the same time, they want to say, it’s not a condition, it’s a promise, and when you get in doubt and nothing else works, then you can remember that those the pope ordained have baptized you, and that’s something you can stand on. But then again, we need to “leave Christ his honor….”
I want to be fair to Calvin here, and I begin by saying that by presenting only these two (dialectical?) readings, I may have left alternative readings out of view. And so Jeff, gas, anybody, I want to be instructed. Not so much because you want to persuade a stubborn guy like me, but because
I am claiming I want to at least represent fairly what Calvin is saying.
Calvin: “Doubtless when Peter, having mentioned baptism, immediately made this exception, that it is not the putting off of the filth of the flesh, he sufficiently shewed that baptism to some is only the
outward act, and that the outward sign of itself avails nothing. — Calvin Comm 1 Pet 3.21
mark: I want to start with an analogy to the argument for effective definite atonement. Those who say that Christ died for all, even for those who will perish, must end up logically consistently with the
conclusion that even those who don’t perish were not saved by Christ’s death either. Maybe they were saved by intercession, by the Holy Spirit, by faith, etc, but if Jesus died for those who perish, then it’s not the death which keeps anybody from perishing. Note–I say analogy here. I am
not saying that all who do the dialectic on baptism are logically inherently Arminian on the atonement ( of course some, maybe even many are).
If water baptism is only “the outward act” to some, then it’s only the “outward act” to all. If the “outward” act has no efficacy for some, then it has no efficacy for anybody, and then the ‘efficacy” has to be found somewhere else besides in the water baptism. Two quick notes on this. One, Leithart and his associates don’t like it when you talk about external and internal aspects of baptism, or visible and invisible aspects of “church”–but I don’t know if he would criticize or somehow accomodate Calvin’s use of the word “outward”.
Two, “the sign of itself” avails nothing. If Kobe Bryant and I together score 40 in a game, and Kobe scores 40 of them, I can say that “by myself” I didn’t score much, but does this mean that I then go on to talk about our “shared efficacy” when the coach never let me off the bench? Wouldn’t it be be more honest to say– it wasn’t the water sign which had the efficacy? But to say that, one would might need to agree that the word “baptism” doesn’t involve water in texts like I Peter 3 and Romans 6 and Colossians 2. And if you do that, the consensus (Moo, Beasley Murray, Silva, etc) seems to be that you’re a gnostic and you might as well go back to being a Plymouth Brethren or some other kind of Zwinglian.
Jeff: this distinction is valuable because when baptism’s primary meaning is subjective, our attention is drawn to the state of our own hearts. But when baptism’s primary meaning is to point to the promises, our attention is drawn to those promises and their author.
mark: Points for the plural “promises”! Notice the word “primary”. Primary meaning. Jeff wants to keep some of the subjective, because he doesn’t want to give the to just anybody and all, and also he doesn’t want it to be only a condition but also some form of comfort and assurance for those being baptized. So how does he know when to talk about the “primary” objective meaning, and when to talk about the subjective meaning?
I know the answer. It’s a situation ethic (a little like that old assurance trick– don’t just look to Christ, look to your life, and then, and now don’t just look to your life, look to Christ, and it’s not a
trick, it’s maturity and balance, or so I am told) When he’s bashing credobaptists, he talks about “it’s not about the person”. But when he’s talking to federal visionists, he talks about “non-primary
distinctions” between the outward and the inward etc. (And let me say here that I am not picking on Jeff, because Jeff has thought about this a lot more than most of you, and Jeff doesn’t have a simple “I am not them” reflect response to federal visionists)
Phil Derksen: it must be kept in mind that the situational context of my series was to refute the Federal Vision error with regard to baptism. Thus, contra their inflated claims, I concentrated on showing what baptism “is not.” If, on the other hand, I had been writing to refute the Baptist error that baptism is essentially an empty sign, then I would have developed much more fully what baptism “is”.
http://jrcagle.blogspot.com/2010/08/grace-of-baptism-part-5.html
LikeLike
The Donatists—who baptizes is important, your baptism might not be valid.
The Catholics–baptism by a Donatist is invalid.
Does this mean that the Catholics are talking a Donatist position?
I think it comes down to this question: is everybody to be considered baptized or only some people?
The Constantinian needs everybody to be baptized. Or else become a non-citizen or a non-person.
I mean how are we going to divide everybody into two groups, covenant breakers and non covenant breakers, it we don’t put everybody in “the covenant” to begin with ?
Some of us would ask “which covenant”? The “covenant of redemption” in which Christ keeps covenant for the elect alone? Or some covenant of “grace” which has breakers in it?
LikeLike
Richard: “If a person truly repents and believes, they will not fall away. The Bible has only given us examples of doing it only once, but also those who are truly saved will not fall away so there is no need to baptize them again.”
Erik: But repentance is a key part of your baptismal formula. People who have been baptized as believers sometimes commit serious sins (for example, adultery) & leave the church. What would you say to this person if they want to come back later? Would you conclude that their profession of faith had been false since they committed adultery after repenting and being baptized? Maybe they weren’t truly a Christian then and should be baptized again now that they have truly repented and are serious about living as a Christian? After all, their believer’s baptism was probably their second (if they had been baptized as a baby), why not a third to make sure it takes (and even a fourth if they slip up again). It seems like it can never be an “objective” baptism since it is based on the subjective act of repentance.
If your response to all of this is, “Well, if the person falls into serious sin after their baptism we don’t rebaptize them. We just point them back to their baptism to remind them that they are in Christ and tell them to repent of their sins.” As a Paedobaptist I just do the exact same thing.
LikeLike
Richard – I think you really struggle to differentiate the visible church (covenant members) from the invisible church (the elect, the saved). This is why you insist on your ability to put on your x-ray specs and peer into souls to determine who is an invisible church member and who is not (although you admit you don’t bat .1000). I would like to know what your ecclesiastical history is, because while you claim to be Reformed, I see a lot of evangelical, dispensational, revivalistic, and even Arminian undertones to your thought. Come on, mystery man, give us your personal church history. I don’t need towns, just denominations and years spent in them.
LikeLike
Mark – I think those who have been baptized in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit are covenant members. A trinitarian baptism.
LikeLike
C.G. – Don’t go! All the plants are gonna die.
Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn’t Calvin, deBres, and Ursinus have been under some Magistrate whose authority they were violating when they were taking on the whole Reformation project? Would that make them not Reformed either? It seems like you are going to some unnecessary extremes.
Luther found a prince to protect him, but certainly there were civil authorities who would have liked to see him dead, too.
I think the submission to civil authorities has been conditional going way back (to the Bible). It seems like making it a test for whether or not one is Reformed is short-sighted.
Maybe I’m misreading what you are saying, though.
LikeLike
Drew Pressoir: So, every covenant has blessings for keeping it and cursings for breaking it, even the New. The blessings of the New Covenant that you are so zealous to protect (and rightfully so) belong to those who have been made covenant keepers in Christ. But one has to be in the covenant to break it and the curses of the covenant belong to those who transgress it. The curse for those who neglect so great a salvation is not because they are not in the covenant but because they are but are not united by faith with those who listen.
RS: In the words of Mark Mcculley, though Paul said it first, there is the great truth of being in Christ but also of Christ being in you. In other words, a person in the New Covenant has Christ in him, the hope of glory (Col 1:27). So one real and driving question is how one can be in the New Covenant and not have Christ in him or her. But if Christ is in that person and so the person is in Christ (or in the New Covenant), then how can that person break the New Covenant since it depends on Christ to keep it? But again, is the difference between person A and person B as to keeping the covenant or breaking it their own will and their own actions? If not, then could the difference be Christ in one and that one in Christ and so all in the New Covenant will keep covenant because it is Christ in them keeping them?
LikeLike
Erik Charter quoting Richard: “If a person truly repents and believes, they will not fall away. The Bible has only given us examples of doing it only once, but also those who are truly saved will not fall away so there is no need to baptize them again.”
Erik: But repentance is a key part of your baptismal formula.
RS: But Scripture tells us that people must repent and believe. The command for baptism is to baptize disciples and true disciples are those who have repented and believed.
Erik: People who have been baptized as believers sometimes commit serious sins (for example, adultery) & leave the church.
RS: Indeed, but they have not left Christ because Christ has kept them. So they do not become unbelievers again and so don’t need to repent of that type of unbelief.
Erik: What would you say to this person if they want to come back later? Would you conclude that their profession of faith had been false since they committed adultery after repenting and being baptized? Maybe they weren’t truly a Christian then and should be baptized again now that they have truly repented and are serious about living as a Christian?
RS: No need to baptize again because a true believer did not become a non-believer. It is possible for a true believe to commit adultery, though one does not live in adultery for a long period. At least if you take I John seriously as that is what is taught there.
Erik: After all, their believer’s baptism was probably their second (if they had been baptized as a baby), why not a third to make sure it takes (and even a fourth if they slip up again). It seems like it can never be an “objective” baptism since it is based on the subjective act of repentance.
RS: But again, baptism is based on saving repentance and faith as opposed to just stopping some external sin. True repentance is not just some subjective act of the person, but instead it is the work of God in the soul.
Erik: If your response to all of this is, “Well, if the person falls into serious sin after their baptism we don’t rebaptize them. We just point them back to their baptism to remind them that they are in Christ and tell them to repent of their sins.” As a Paedobaptist I just do the exact same thing.
RS: That is one of my arguments with Paedobaptism. You do that exact same thing. Why point them to their baptism to remind them that they are in Christ? How do you know that they are in Christ and Christ is in them just because they were baptized in your particular formula? Paul told people to examine themselves as opposed to look back to their baptism. John wrote the book of I John so that people could know that they had eternal life, not just so they could look back to their baptism. Yes, you do that same exact thing. But that is part of the problem.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard – I think you really struggle to differentiate the visible church (covenant members) from the invisible church (the elect, the saved). This is why you insist on your ability to put on your x-ray specs and peer into souls to determine who is an invisible church member and who is not (although you admit you don’t bat .1000).
RS: But I don’t claim to put on x-ray specs and peer into souls.
Erik C: I would like to know what your ecclesiastical history is, because while you claim to be Reformed, I see a lot of evangelical, dispensational, revivalistic, and even Arminian undertones to your thought.
RS: So you have your own x-ray specs and see a strange mixture there. Well, I am not sure where this Arminian stuff is, but please tell me so I can repent. I also have no idea of where this modern evangelical stuff shows up nor the dispensational. While I am not revivalistic, I do seek the God who pours out His Spirit and sends revival as He pleases in accordance with grace alone. However, just to be clear, I also see the Arminian undertones in your view of baptism.
Erik C: Come on, mystery man, give us your personal church history.
RS: Erik, I believe in the objective Church and not a personal church.
Erik: I don’t need towns, just denominations and years spent in them.
RS: Ah, yes, you sound like a person that works at a shipping business. Always looking for a box to put someone in so you can put a label on it.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Mark – I think those who have been baptized in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit are covenant members. A trinitarian baptism.
RS: So all who have water applied with the right words said over them are covenant members? I guess you are talking about the New Covenant as well. The one where all in that covenant are forgiven of their sins. The one where all in that covenant are in Christ and Christ is in them. The one where one must be in union with Christ to be said to be in the covenant which is the New Covenant in His blood. It would seem, then, that the rest of the New Testament sure neglected to mention this very important thing you are talking about.
LikeLike
Richard: Ah, yes, you sound like a person that works at a shipping business. Always looking for a box to put someone in so you can put a label on it.
Erik: You act like you might be ashamed of some of the past labels you have stuck onto yourself. Come on, how many years were you an evangelical before you became (your version of) Reformed? I’m putting the over/under at 20.
My comments on your having Arminian overtones are based on the number of times that you refer to human action as opposed to the actions of God. For instance, God working sovereignly to create faith in a child of believing parents who has been baptized into the church. This is why I think Reformed Baptists are an oxymoron. They always want to hedge on the Reformed part.
LikeLike
Your also starting to get kind of Bryan Crossity in some of your responses.
LikeLike
Hi RS: Thanks for the many questions. Rather than field them all, I would make two comments that seem to me to be fundamental.
The first is that our discussion about “love sense” and new revelation and seeing the heart is related to our question here about covenant membership.
As I understand it, there is but one Person who can answer the question “Is so-and-so truly in the New Covenant?”
The rest of us experience a problem of knowledge: we cannot know who is in the New Covenant, but use evidence to attempt to ascertain.
Until we can come to agreement on this question of knowledge, our conversations about covenant membership will founder and be confused.
—
The second point comes from your question: Does the New Covenant define for us the members of the Old Covenant? Then why do we think that the Old Covenant defines for us the members of the New Covenant?
And here is a fundamental misunderstanding. The covenant we are talking about is not the Old Covenant, which was inaugurated under Moses. The covenant in view here is the Abrahamic Covenant. This difference is huge.
(1) Circumcision was given to Abraham, not Moses.
(2) True membership in the covenant with Abraham was by faith (Rom 2.28, 29). Those without faith are declared by the Lord to be “not Abraham’s children” but “children of the devil.” (John 8.38 – 39).
(3) The sign of circumcision given to Abraham was the sign of the righteousness obtained by faith (Rom 4.11).
And Paul is very clear (Gal 3.15 – 18) that this covenant made with Abraham was not the Old Covenant of Law in any way, shape, or form.
So the passages from Hebrews and Jeremiah about the Old Covenant and its contrast with the New are not on point. No-one here is talking about membership in the Old Covenant, but in the covenant God made with Abraham.
LikeLike
CG: Jeff, I think they were professing repentance for baptism and being expected to bear the fruits of it thereafter
Yes, I agree. I was hedging my bets unnecessarily. Thanks.
LikeLike
RS: In the words of Mark Mcculley, though Paul said it first, there is the great truth of being in Christ but also of Christ being in you. In other words, a person in the New Covenant has Christ in him, the hope of glory (Col 1:27). So one real and driving question is how one can be in the New Covenant and not have Christ in him or her. But if Christ is in that person and so the person is in Christ (or in the New Covenant), then how can that person break the New Covenant since it depends on Christ to keep it? But again, is the difference between person A and person B as to keeping the covenant or breaking it their own will and their own actions? If not, then could the difference be Christ in one and that one in Christ and so all in the New Covenant will keep covenant because it is Christ in them keeping them?
DP: I certainly agree that those who have been justified and have Christ’s righteousness imputed to them cannot break the covenant because Christ keeps it for them. I don’t see where the idea that this is necessarily the condition of all who are in the New Covenant comes from (unless we’re going to get into a, “does all mean all” argument over Jer 31) or how that is any different from how the OT saints were redeemed. For them to keep the covenant, they too needed the imputed righteousness of Christ and faith granted to them by the sovereign God. Yet, we still find those in the covenant community then and now who did not/do not have that faith. All of the post-fall covenants promised salvation only based on the merits of Christ. Throughout the Bible we continually find those who receive the signs, promises and revelation of the Covenant of Grace but who nonetheless disbelieve. Yet, God still deals with them on the basis of the covenant.
In Covenant Theology we see the Covenant of Grace beginning in Genesis 3:15 and the church beginning shortly thereafter. The body of the church always had those who were the seed of the serpent rather than the seed of the woman such as Cain, Ishmael and Esau who all received covenant privileges. But the righteousness of Christ and saving faith were always necessary at every stage of the covenant to receive its eschatological blessings. Covenant membership alone was never how redemption was applied and it still isn’t (obviously, we disagree on this point concerning the New Covenant). Redemption is applied by receiving the substance of the covenant which is Christ Himself but, according to God’s election, not all covenant members receive Him.
Now, if you want to contend that there are different “levels” of covenant membership, that’s fine. Those without faith have never been members in the same way as those with it and we certainly don’t contend that our children are forgiven of their sins merely because they are in the covenant. But they are set apart from those born to those outside the church.
LikeLike
Correction: I should have said “three Persons, one Being” above.
LikeLike
Good comments, Drew.
LikeLike
Thanks for the welcome Erik.
LikeLike
CG, what can I say, I like the term “Reformed” as much as the next old lifer. But there are limits when to be Reformed may mean to be unbiblical (are you listening, Richard?). And so for my own part, I’ll take a lesson from Kuyper, who when opposing the original Belgic 36 said in part:
We oppose this Confession out of complete conviction, prepared to bear the consequences of our convictions, even when we will be denounced and mocked on that account as unReformed. We would rather be considered not Reformed and insist that men ought not to kill heretics, than that we are left with the Reformed name as the prize for assisting in the shedding of the blood of heretics…We do not at all hide the fact that we disagree with Calvin, our Confessions, and our Reformed theologians.
LikeLike
Zrim: CG, what can I say, I like the term “Reformed” as much as the next old lifer. But there are limits when to be Reformed may mean to be unbiblical (are you listening, Richard?).
RS: At least I am reading.
Zrim: And so for my own part, I’ll take a lesson from Kuyper, who when opposing the original Belgic 36 said in part:
We oppose this Confession out of complete conviction, prepared to bear the consequences of our convictions, even when we will be denounced and mocked on that account as unReformed. We would rather be considered not Reformed and insist that men ought not to kill heretics, than that we are left with the Reformed name as the prize for assisting in the shedding of the blood of heretics…We do not at all hide the fact that we disagree with Calvin, our Confessions, and our Reformed theologians.
RS: Great stuff.
LikeLike
Erik Charter quoting Richard: Ah, yes, you sound like a person that works at a shipping business. Always looking for a box to put someone in so you can put a label on it.
Erik: You act like you might be ashamed of some of the past labels you have stuck onto yourself. Come on, how many years were you an evangelical before you became (your version of) Reformed? I’m putting the over/under at 20.
RS: I am not sure I have been an evangelical since conversion. But then again, I do wonder if what goes under the guise of “evangelical” today has much to do with Christianity at all.
Erik: My comments on your having Arminian overtones are based on the number of times that you refer to human action as opposed to the actions of God. For instance, God working sovereignly to create faith in a child of believing parents who has been baptized into the church. This is why I think Reformed Baptists are an oxymoron. They always want to hedge on the Reformed part.
RS: It is not surprising that an Iowa State guy would be so mixed up. I am not sure what human action I have talked about that is opposed to the actions of God. Part of my argument is that infant baptism seems to be against the sovereignty of God and it leaves it up to the infant at a later date to make a choice to be in the covenant or not. That sounds Arminian to me. Those who want infants in the covenant end up with infants being in Christ and yet being able to leave Christ if they want. A soul is sovereignly regenerated by grace alone by the mere pleasure and choice of God regardless of the parents. So I am not sure how my statements lend to being an Arminian. But then again, that Iowa State thing.
LikeLike
Richard, If you are a Hawkeye that would explain everything (ha, ha). If you are an Iowan your true identity might prove to be very interesting to me. Do I know you personally? That would be wild. I don’t know any unemployed pastors who do pulpit supply, though, so I doubt it.
You say “Those who want infants in the covenant to end up with infants being in Christ and yet being able to leave Christ if they want”.
I don’t think we are saying they are necessarily “in Christ”. We are saying they are members in the visible church. What exactly is the visible church to you?
LikeLike
Thanks, Zirm, for the quotation from Kuyper,
“We oppose (Belgic 36) out of complete conviction, prepared to bear the consequences of our convictions, even when we will be denounced and mocked on that account as unReformed. We would rather be considered not Reformed and insist that men ought not to kill heretics, than that we are left with the Reformed name as the prize for assisting in the shedding of the blood of heretics…We do not at all hide the fact that we disagree with Calvin, our Confessions, and our Reformed theologians.”
Kuyper may have been exiled (or worse) for saying that during the first wave of the Magisterial Reformation. But I am glad he said it, and only wish that more Reformed people would not only agree to say it, but would see the need for saying it.
btw, CG was not advocating the “you are not reformed if you don’t agree with x” position. He was merely searching for an usable definition of “Reformed”.
It’s like being “evangelical”. On the one hand, you should know that it’s a political construct designed to protect jobs in “evangelical institutions”. There is no such a thing as “evangelical”. On the other hand, all those who kinda like Billy Graham and his Arminianism are “evangelical”. That being the case, if you want to call yourself “evangelical”, welcome to it. I don’t want to capture the label for Christ, as Mike Horton and David Wells do.
By way of analogy, I think CG was saying. There is no such as “Reformed”, especially if one is wanting to find the central doctrine which has not and cannot be revised. On the other hand, if being Reformed means being paedobaptist, then you are welcome to the term.
But I should not speak for CG. And RS should not speak for me. Because what RS says when he “quotes” me does not sound like anything I ever said.
Is “the covenant promise” conditional? Why doesn’t everybody begin in “the covenant”?
LikeLike
Mark, I have a lot of sympathy for the point that “evangelical” has lost much of its meaning, etc. But I’m not fully convinced it is so debased that it should be discarded. It’s as biblical and historical as “catholic,” and my own worry with the discard-theory is that with the e-word Reformed end up behaving like eeeevangelicals when it comes to the c-word.
LikeLike
Mark McC: Jeff wants to keep some of the subjective, because he doesn’t want to give the to just anybody and all, and also he doesn’t want it to be only a condition but also some form of comfort and assurance for those being baptized. So how does he know when to talk about the “primary” objective meaning, and when to talk about the subjective meaning?
Yes, this is an interesting question. Here’s what I had in mind. The primary meaning is objective (sorry about the extended quoting — I couldn’t truncate without damaging his argument):
The first object, therefore, for which it is appointed by the Lord, is to be a sign and evidence of our purification, or (better to explain my meaning) it is a kind of sealed instrument by which he assures us that all our sins are so deleted, covered, and effaced, that they will never come into his sight, never be mentioned, never imputed. For it is his will that all who have believed be baptised for the remission of sins (Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38).
Hence those who have thought that baptism is nothing else than the badge and mark by which we profess our religion before men, in the same way as soldiers attest their profession by bearing the insignia of their commander, have not attended to what was the principal thing in baptism; and this is, that we are to receive it in connection with the promise, “He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved,” (Mark 16: 16.) — Calv Inst 4.15.1
Now if you were to read this in isolation, you might think C is saying, “the primary thing in baptism is to tell us that our sins are forgiven. Baptism is evidence of or the cause of cleansing.”
But he continues,
In this sense is to be understood the statement of Paul, that “Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,” (Eph. 5: 25, 26;) and again, “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost,” (Titus 3: 5.) Peter also says that “baptism also does now save us,” (1 Peter 3: 21.)
For he did not mean to intimate that our ablution and salvation are perfected by water, or that water possesses in itself the virtue of purifying, regenerating, and renewing; nor does he mean that it is the cause of salvation, but only that the knowledge and certainty of such gifts are perceived in this sacrament. This the words themselves evidently show. For Paul connects together the word of life and baptism of water, as if he had said, by the gospel the message of our ablution and sanctification is announced; by baptism this message is sealed. And Peter immediately subjoins, that that baptism is ” not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, which is of faith.” Nay, the only purification which baptism promises is by means of the sprinkling of the blood of Christ, who is figured by water from the resemblance to cleansing and washing. Who, then, can say that we are cleansed by that water which certainly attests that the blood of Christ is our true and only laver? So that we cannot have a better argument to refute the hallucination of those who ascribe the whole to the virtue of water than we derive from the very meaning of baptism, which leads us away as well from the visible element which is presented to our eye, as from all other means, that it may fix our minds on Christ alone. — Inst 4.15.2
(By the way, CG, Calvin believes John’s baptism was the same as Jesus’. What can I say? Sometimes I disagree with the C-man.)
And then further down,
Now that the end to which the Lord had regard in the institution of baptism has been explained, it is easy to judge in what way we ought to use and receive it. For inasmuch as it is appointed to elevate, nourish, and confirm our faith, we are to receive it as from the hand of its author, being firmly persuaded that it is himself who speaks to us by means of the sign; that it is himself who washes and purifies us, and effaces the remembrance of our faults; that it is himself who makes us the partakers of his death, destroys the kingdom of Satan, subdues the power of concupiscence, nay, makes us one with himself, that being clothed with him we may be accounted the children of God. These things I say, we ought to feel as truly and certainly in our mind as we see our body washed, immersed, and surrounded with water. For this analogy or similitude furnishes the surest rule in the sacraments, viz., that in corporeal things we are to see spiritual, just as if they were actually exhibited to our eye, since the Lord has been pleased to represent them by such figures; not that such graces are included and bound in the sacrament, so as to be conferred by its efficacy, but only that by this badge the Lord declares to us that he is pleased to bestow all these things upon us. Nor does he merely feed our eyes with bare show; he leads us to the actual object, and effectually performs what he figures.
We have a proof of this in Cornelius, the centurion, who, after he had been previously endued with the graces of the Holy Spirit, was baptised for the remission of sins, not seeking a fuller forgiveness from baptism, but a surer exercise of faith; nay, an argument for assurance from a pledge. It will, perhaps, be objected, Why did Ananias say to Paul that he washed away his sins by baptism, (Acts 22:16; cf. ch 9:17-18) if sins are not washed away by the power of baptism? I answer, we are said to receive, procure, and obtain, whatever according to the perception of our faith is exhibited to us by the Lord, whether he then attests it for the first time, or gives additional confirmation to what he had previously attested. All then that Ananias meant to say was, Be baptised, Paul, that you may be assured that your sins are forgiven you. In baptism, the Lord promises forgiveness of sins: receive it, and be secure.
I have no intention however, to detract from the power of baptism. I would only add to the sign the substance and reality, inasmuch as God works by external means. But from this sacrament, as from all others, we gain nothing, unless in so far as we receive in faith. If faith is wanting, it will be an evidence of our ingratitude by which we are proved guilty before God, for not believing the promise there given. — Inst 4.15.14 – 15.
So as to the primary meaning, it is an objective meaning: God uses baptism to preach to us a liquid sermon: that our sins are certainly and surely washed away by the blood of Christ and the washing of the Spirit.
This is what Calvin means by “look to your baptism” for assurance. It is NOT
NOT look to the fact of your baptism and be assured that since you are baptized, you are saved.
BUT look to the promise figured in baptism and be assured that it is true.
—
Now the secondary meaning is set forth here, and it is subjective: Baptism serves as our confession before men, in as much as it is a mark by which we openly declare that we wish to be ranked among the people of God, by which we testify that we concur with all Christians in the worship of one God, and in one religion — Calv Inst 4.15.13
But you can see that this meaning does not try to connect the outward to the invisible (“outward sign of inward change”), but outward to the outward: our baptism as an outward sign is a declaration of our connection to the visible church.
Seen in this way, we have no need to look first to one meaning, then the other. Rather, we can affirm both at the same time.
LikeLike
The exchange between CG and the rest of you has been fascinating to watch unfold.
Given CG’s high praise of the Irish Constitution’s preamble, I’d say that he thinks Reformed confessions aren’t biblical on the subjects of baptism, but are biblical on the civil magistrate (correct me if I’m wrong, CG). I don’t think “kalos” and “kakos” in Romans 13:1-7 mean that the sword of the state needs to be used to force unbelievers to lie about being trinitarians.
But that puts CG in an interesting place to be able to call the bluff of confessional Reformed folks. And even aside from his argument from the original confessions, theocracy is alive and well in the revisions, too. Which Presbyterians here believe that “as nursing fathers, it is the duty of the U.S. Congress to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of the U.S. Congress … to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.” Whoever the emperor was when Paul wrote Romans 13, that emperor certainly did not countenance what even our modern, American version of the WCF says.
I would love to hear what Zrim has to say to CG’s point about civil disobedience. To add to CG’s point, it is richly ironic that Zrim (and any other takers on the zero-tolerance policy regarding Christians and civil disobedience?) would use the document of regicidal puritans who mostly supported Parliament’s army to argue that civil disobedience is not Reformed. Zrim, haven’t you excommunicated virtually all of the c16th and c17th Reformed? If you haven’t excommunicated them, is that a concession of CG’s point that “Reformed” connotes a movement more than a church or a confession?
In fact, many c16th and c17th Reformed confessions were commissioned by magistrates – WCF, Dort, the Heidelberg Catechism, etc. Bob Letham keeps reminding the reader in his new book on the WCF, that the Assembly was created by Parliament, commissioned by Parliament, answerable to Parliament, censurable by Parliament and whose documents had ultimately to be approved by Parliament. Would any of you countenance a Reformed confession commissioned by Obama? Romney? the U.S. Congress? Your state governor? If not, according to what principle?
If you want to claim that confessional authority ultimately rests with the Church which receives the confession(s) and the *way* in which that Church receives the confession (e.g., rejecting theocracy – rejecting the doctrine that faith precedes and produces regeneration, in the case of Belgic 24), then hasn’t the locus of authority shifted from Scripture (which the confession summarizes) to the Church? If not, please help me out, here.
For the sake of truth in advertising, I am only advocating that we practice truth in advertising. If we confess something, we ought to mean it – not spin it or cross our fingers, or look the other way. If we don’t confess something, perhaps we ought to draft a ministerial and not a magisterial confession.
LikeLike
I think Richard primarily see the church as a place that individually saved people come together vs. the institution that Christ has instituted to preach the gospel, administer the sacraments, practice discipline, and nourish Christians. This is reflected in the different views of baptism and church polity and probably has roots in the degree of separation from Catholicism that Baptists and non-Baptists favored during the Reformation. We would say Baptists go to far, they would say we don’t go far enough. Their view is more in line with American individualism, which is probably why their churches are bigger than ours. I just finished Van Drunen’s “Living in God’s Two Kingdoms” this afternoon and highly recommend it. He doesn’t address this question of baptism per se, but he does get you thinking about the church and the unique tasks it has been given by God. Excellent book that so many need to read.
LikeLike
Chris – I don’t think C.G. agrees with the original Westminster and Belgic articles on the civil magistrate. I think he would just say that anyone who does not hold to the original versions can call themselves “Reformed” in a pure sense. I think what started this is when I objected to “Reformed Baptists” calling themselves Reformed. I guess I can agree with his point, but I would still make the case that baptists are going against those original confessions in more ways than conservative P&R churches do today (OPC, URC, etc.). I think the writers were very much creatures of their time and unique historical circumstances and the 400 years that have passed since have given us additional insight into the downside of their take on the role of the magistrate in favoring certain expressions of the church over others (the primary danger being promoting nominalism). The state churches of Europe are empty while the churches in the U.S. have fared much better with a religiously neutral magistrate.
LikeLike
Zrim is against civil disobedience in all cases? I don’t think that’s true. If the civil magistrate outlawed the practice of the Christian faith or enacted a one-child policy I don’t see him complying.
LikeLike
My pastor is preaching on Belgic Article 36 tonight (www.providencerc.org). He’s a pretty committed 2K guy so it should be a good sermon.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: The second point comes from your question: Does the New Covenant define for us the members of the Old Covenant? Then why do we think that the Old Covenant defines for us the members of the New Covenant? And here is a fundamental misunderstanding. The covenant we are talking about is not the Old Covenant, which was inaugurated under Moses. The covenant in view here is the Abrahamic Covenant. This difference is huge.
RS: Or not. If we take the fundamental and guiding covenant that all must answer to as the eternal covenant (between the members of the Trinity), then things change. What was the reason for the covenant of grace? Only as a means of carrying out the eternal covenant. What was the reason for the Abrahamic covenant? Only as a means of carrying out the eternal covenant. What was the reason for the Mosaic covenant? Only as a means of carrying out the eternal covenant. So if we think of the eternal covenant as the guiding covenant, things have a different picture. The Abrahamic covenant can have two parts or aspects. The first part would be the spiritual and the second part would be the physical. The spiritual part always looked to Christ as the promised seed while the physical part looked to the nation as a way of teaching what Christ was to do. The physical descendants of Abraham as covenant were done away while the spiritual Descendant of Abraham continues with all who are in Him being the spiritual descendants of Abraham.
So the Mosaic covenant was tied to the Abrahamic covenant. Remember, Abraham was told that those who came from him would be in slavery for four hundred years and then come back to the land. The Mosaic covenant is really the outworking of the covenant of Abraham with the physical children of Abraham if one views both covenants with the Eternal Covenant in view.
Jeff C: (1) Circumcision was given to Abraham, not Moses.
RS: True, but these were the physical descendants of Abraham. The Israelites always looked back to Abraham as their father.
Jeff C: (2) True membership in the covenant with Abraham was by faith (Rom 2.28, 29). Those without faith are declared by the Lord to be “not Abraham’s children” but “children of the devil.” (John 8.38 – 39).
RS: Not necessarily during the period of the Old Testament. You were in the covenant if you were born of a woman that was Jewish regardless of whether a person had faith or not.
Jeff C: (3) The sign of circumcision given to Abraham was the sign of the righteousness obtained by faith (Rom 4.11).
RS: Yes, that was true of Abraham. It “should” have been true of the Israelites, but it was not. Faith was not the issue in the physical or national covenant with Abraham because he circumcised all those that were connected to him regardless of faith.
Jeff C: And Paul is very clear (Gal 3.15 – 18) that this covenant made with Abraham was not the Old Covenant of Law in any way, shape, or form.
RS: It is simply saying that the Law was added four hundred years later and did not annul the promise made with Abraham. But at some point one has to deal with the fact that Abraham had a physical seed and a spiritual seed. The physical seed of Abraham was given the Law and Israel constantly looked back to Abraham in a way that shows that these two covenants are connected. When the Old Covenant (Mosaic) was done away with, it effectively ended the physical or national aspect of the Abrahamic covenant as well. The promises to Abraham of the Spirit were not given to his physical descendants, but to his spiritual descendants which included Gentiles. In other words, the physical or national aspect of the Abrahamic covenant went on in the Mosaic and the spiritual aspect is seen in the New Covenant.
Jeff C: So the passages from Hebrews and Jeremiah about the Old Covenant and its contrast with the New are not on point. No-one here is talking about membership in the Old Covenant, but in the covenant God made with Abraham.
RS: One can only say that if one has a radical separation between the Abrahamic and the Mosaic covenants and makes no real distinction between the physical seed of Abraham and the spiritual seed of Abraham. In other words, this gets at perhaps the real issue.
LikeLike
Chris, as I read both the NT and the confessions, there is only affirmation of civil obedience and an opposition to civil disobedience. If, however, the magistrate is compelling believers in any way to violate the law of God they have no choice but obey God instead of men. So it’s hardly a zero-tolerance posture. But it seems to me wrongheaded and confusing to portray obeying God as civil disobedience in light of said affirmation and opposition.
I also tend to think that the sort of push back you and CG present (i.e. that by saying this I am somehow excommunicating whole swaths of Reformed) owes much more to a deeply seated American-made ethos that esteems civil disobedience over obedience, as well as a posturing to carve out space to be able disagree with the magistrate over whatever political or social cause. But it may help to know that my point isn’t to say that there is no room to disagree with the magistrate—there is certainly a difference between disagreement and disobedience. That said, if the forms can warn against the spirit of murder concerning the sixth commandment, I wonder if in the course of disagreeing with the magistrate there isn’t as often as not a spirit of disobedience nurtured that resonates with a cultural default setting, instead of a biblical setting for obedience.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard, If you are a Hawkeye that would explain everything (ha, ha). If you are an Iowan your true identity might prove to be very interesting to me. Do I know you personally? That would be wild. I don’t know any unemployed pastors who do pulpit supply, though, so I doubt it.
RS: No, I am not from Iowa and don’t know you at all.
Erik C: You say “Those who want infants in the covenant to end up with infants being in Christ and yet being able to leave Christ if they want”.
I don’t think we are saying they are necessarily “in Christ”. We are saying they are members in the visible church. What exactly is the visible church to you?
RS: But how are they in the covenant if they are not in Christ? You have to be in Christ to be a child of Abraham, so how can you be in the covenant and not be in Christ? But again, the New Covenant is in His blood. So how can you be in the New Covenant and not be in Christ and Christ not be in you?
LikeLike
Erik Charter: I think Richard primarily see the church as a place that individually saved people come together vs. the institution that Christ has instituted to preach the gospel, administer the sacraments, practice discipline, and nourish Christians.
RS: I think Richard thinks that the Church is as the Bible defines it. The Church is the body of Christ and is the bride of Christ. The basic definition has to start with what the very “isness” or essence of it is. All the other aspects must fall under that basic concept.
Erik C: This is reflected in the different views of baptism and church polity and probably has roots in the degree of separation from Catholicism that Baptists and non-Baptists favored during the Reformation. We would say Baptists go to far, they would say we don’t go far enough. Their view is more in line with American individualism, which is probably why their churches are bigger than ours.
RS: I would argue that those who accept as the basic definition of the Church as being the body of Christ is simply in line with the Bible. It is also far from American individualism.
Erik C: I just finished Van Drunen’s “Living in God’s Two Kingdoms” this afternoon and highly recommend it. He doesn’t address this question of baptism per se, but he does get you thinking about the church and the unique tasks it has been given by God. Excellent book that so many need to read.
RS: But if you take what the Bible says about the basic essence of the Church being the body of Christ, then the tasks given it by God will be seen in a different way than if you view the Church though institutional eyes.
LikeLike
RS: It is not surprising that an Iowa State guy would be so mixed up.
Heeeey, I’m starting to like that Richard guy after all.
LikeLike
Zrim, I can’t (and won’t) speak for CG, but it is at least possible that “a deeply seated American-made ethos that esteems civil disobedience over obedience” might be motivating me. It could also be my poor job of countering the effects of Enlightenment thinking in my own point of view. And I need to take my lumps when they’re due. But why does the Westminster Assembly get a pass? Why do various puritans who were associated with the Fifth Monarchists get a pass? There is one puritan (who shall remain nameless until a forthcoming book is published) who is, to my knowledge, unanimously considered Reformed, and who was found with a cache of guns in his home most likely for the purpose of resisting the king.
These kinds of things don’t fit well with the claim that civil disobedience is not Reformed (I think it was that statement that sounded like zero tolerance). Truth be told, the Reformed seemed willing to obey Reformed magistrates – even if that was out of step with their confession. And I know Calvin’s claim that rebellion against the magistrate is legitimate when commanded by a lesser magistrate is considered Reformed. But I must admit, I have as difficult a time finding exegetical evidence for that as I do for theocracy outside of the Mosaic economy. So if civil disobedience is not Reformed, then my question is “whose ‘Reformed'”?
I am not saying that I think civil disobedience is biblical. I’m saying that, at least as far as the actual, historical record is concerned, civil disobedience was Reformed before it was American.
I’ll stick with Kline on this one and say that the State is bestial, yet legitimate. I think the imagery Daniel uses for the state as four different kinds of wild beasts is helpful. I respect them – and they might very well end my life, even in my respectful obedience. Suffering is of the essence of the Christian life, and that informs my relationship with the state. I’ll respect the State, but I won’t worship it, and sometimes I think I hear state worship being advocated.
On a final note, I wonder what you do with the reality that, in the American empire, there are so many laws that you are more than likely breaking at least one right now. Just because there aren’t enough law enforcement officers to punish you, doesn’t mean you’re not disobeying. Again, I’m not saying civil disobedience is biblical, I’m saying I don’t always know how to make sense of the reality of the situation in which we find ourselves.
LikeLike
RS: What was the reason for the Abrahamic covenant? Only as a means of carrying out the eternal covenant. What was the reason for the Mosaic covenant? Only as a means of carrying out the eternal covenant.
Yes, I agree. The Old Covenant was indeed an administration of the covenant of grace. But in what sense? And here we have to be careful, or we will end up importing the Law back into the New Covenant.
Not every feature of the Old Covenant was a part of the covenant of grace. Not every gracious feature of the Old Covenant was an enduring part of the covenant of grace. In particular, the curse of the Law was something that neither annulled the covenant made with Abraham, nor carries over into the New. Likewise, the sacrifices made under the Old Covenant have been fulfilled and do not endure under the New.
And this goes to your argument. You argue from Jeremiah and Hebrews that the covenant with Abraham is done away with. But both of those passages are arguing for the passing away of the Old Covenant in light of the New.
There’s nothing in either of those that abrogates the covenant God made with Abraham.
If you agree with me that the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant are but two different administrations of the one covenant of grace (and it sounds as if you are open to this), then it should follow that the features of the Abrahamic Covenant endure unless specifically abrogated or fulfilled.
So I repeat: Jeremiah and Hebrews are not on point. They refer to the passing of the features of the Old Covenant that were peculiar to “being under the Law”: the curse of the Law, and the sacrifices of the Law.
LikeLike
Jeff C: (1) Circumcision was given to Abraham, not Moses.
RS: True, but these were the physical descendants of Abraham. The Israelites always looked back to Abraham as their father.
Jeff C: (2) True membership in the covenant with Abraham was by faith (Rom 2.28, 29). Those without faith are declared by the Lord to be “not Abraham’s children” but “children of the devil.” (John 8.38 – 39).
RS: Not necessarily during the period of the Old Testament. You were in the covenant if you were born of a woman that was Jewish regardless of whether a person had faith or not.
The scripture clearly refutes this!
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring…As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” — Rom 9.6 – 8, 13.
You’re telling me that all who are descended from Abraham are children of Abraham. But Esau and his descendents weren’t. Why not? Because Esau was cut off from his people because of unbelief (Heb 12.16).
Likewise, the descendents of Abraham who did not believe were periodically “pruned” out of Israel (1 Cor 10).
So being a true child of Abraham meant — always — having the faith of Abraham.
Jeff C: (3) The sign of circumcision given to Abraham was the sign of the righteousness obtained by faith (Rom 4.11).
RS: Yes, that was true of Abraham. It “should” have been true of the Israelites, but it was not.
Good. We agree here. But note: the sign was given to any given descendant of Abraham (say, Esau) before it was known whether he would have faith or not.
The *sign* was the sign of the righteousness of faith. It was applied to the children without first ascertaining whether they had the righteousness of faith, on God’s command.
RS: Faith was not the issue in the physical or national covenant with Abraham…
You just argued against yourself. On the one hand, you said that Israelites should have had faith. On the other, you say that faith was not the issue.
But more so, your second statement rests on this ground: that the covenant with Abraham was a “physical or national covenant.”
What is your Scriptural basis for this? It’s not this …
RS: because he circumcised all those that were connected to him regardless of faith.
Yes, he did. And if circumcision was the sign of the righteousness by faith (as Scripture teaches), and if that sign was applied to Abraham’s descendents prior to exhibition of faith (as God commanded), then it follows that exhibition of faith is not a prior requirement for receiving the sign of the righteousness by faith.
The only obstacle to this plain inference from Scripture is an ungrounded belief that “exhibition of faith is a prior requirement for receiving the sign”, which is taught nowhere directly, but is inferred by credobaptists.
—
There is significant disconnect between your belief that the Abrahamic covenant is an administration of the eternal covenant, and your belief that the Abrahamic covenant was a physical or national covenant.
The goal of the eternal covenant is for God to elect and save a people for himself, people who bear His name and are thus called “God’s children.” The Scripture is very clear that these are always and only those who have faith.
If the Abrahamic covenant is an administration of that covenant, then only those who have the faith of Abraham properly belong to it. And in fact, the Scripture teaches this in multiple places.
But there’s a sticking point for you. Namely, that the Abrahamic covenant was outwardly extended to all physical descendants of Abraham, regardless of faith. What to do about this fact?
The Reformers uniformly understood this to mean that in all administrations of the eternal covenant, there is true, genuine membership by faith; and there is also outward membership, which is extended to professors of faith and their children. They refer the warnings against apostasy and the references to temporary faith to this outward membership, to individuals who cannot be discerned between wheat or tares.
The problem for the credobaptist (me, in former theological life) is that he cannot accept the notion of an outward membership in the New Covenant, because it would open the door to paedobaptism.
But in rejecting the notion of outward membership in the New, he is forced also to reject inward membership in the Abrahamic. And thus he lands on a teaching that “kicks against the goads” of Scripture in multiple points: that the Abrahamic covenant was not about faith, but about nationality.
T’aint so. In fact, this was the error of the Sadducees and Pharisees who showed up to be baptized by John.
In the end, credobaptism (at least along the lines that I believed it, and that you also seem to believe) recapitulates the error of the Pharisees: believing that being part of Abraham’s family was a matter of parentage instead of faith.
LikeLike
Mark, I will sidestep the exegetical discussion again!
Erik, the point about civil disobedience disqualifying anyone from being Reformed was Zrim’s point, not my own, but if you can substantiate your points you’re providing further evidence to qualify his position.
Zrim, on the point that the divines attending the Westminster Assembly were engaged in disobeying the king, see this extract from p. 6 of the introduction to the new edition of the Assembly’s Minutes (pdf at http://www.wtsbooks.com/pdf_files/9780199206834.pdf): “the major reason for the delay in calling a synod after the outbreak of war was a dogged insistence on the part of most members of the two houses that they gain Charles’s assent to an assembly—the very thing he would never grant. For many months the king simply withheld his concurrence. Only when the gathering was finally summoned without his permission did he openly condemn the entire effort and forbid attendance.” Every divine who attended in the Jerusalem Chamber was therefore engaged in an act of civil disobedience.
And then later in the thread: I’m absolutely with you when you say that “it seems to me wrongheaded and confusing to portray obeying God as civil disobedience in light of said affirmation and opposition,” ie that believers have “no choice but obey God instead of men” when “the magistrate is compelling believers in any way to violate the law of God.”
But God didn’t require the members of the Westminster Assembly to convene. It wasn’t their moral duty to a divine command which over-rode what you would describe as the divines’ duty of allegiance to Charles I. And in fact it wasn’t even a question of a decision between loyalty to church and crown – for it was parliament, rebelling against the king, as Chris noted, rather than church, that called the Assembly. I think your definition of “Reformed” still excludes the Assemblymen.
I like your quote from Kuyper, “We do not at all hide the fact that we disagree with Calvin, our Confessions, and our Reformed theologians.” But it’s odd, too: I suppose I’m struggling to understand how anyone who admits they disagree with Calvin, the confessions, and the Reformed theologians can still consider themselves to be “Reformed.”
It may well be that Chris is an archetypical America rebel, James Dean good looks, motorbike, jacket, cigarette, and all. But we in Ireland have our little tradition of rebellion. And his un-named potential terrorist was none less than John Owen, who had the good sense to know when to write multi-volume epics on the Holy Spirit and when to strap on his gun and prepare to shoot some baddies. I’m absolutely with Chris when he states that “civil disobedience was Reformed before it was American” – I learned all my resistance theory from men in Calvin’s Geneva.
(Incidentally, if you believe authorities ought always to be obeyed, why aren’t you and the rest of the American “Reformed” working to recover British monarchical rule? It may not be too late to put right the sins of 1776.)
Jeff, thanks for the note on Calvin and the baptism of John. That rings a bell, though the only general thing I’ve read on the various positions on the matter is a couple of paragraphs in Berkhof, I think. For what it’s worth, I’m also with Calvin on this idea of the continuous identity of baptism from the time of John, albeit with plenty of nuance to account for Pentecost, and the disqualification of John-type baptisms which occur after Acts 2.
Chris, what can I say about the Irish constitution, except that I am as proud of the constitution of the country of which I am a citizen as I suppose the Americans among us are of theirs? But I’d be very happy to hear more about your point: “If you want to claim that confessional authority ultimately rests with the Church which receives the confession(s) and the *way* in which that Church receives the confession (e.g., rejecting theocracy – rejecting the doctrine that faith precedes and produces regeneration, in the case of Belgic 24), then hasn’t the locus of authority shifted from Scripture (which the confession summarizes) to the Church?”
Erik, you summarise my position as “I think he would just say that anyone who does not hold to the original versions can call themselves “Reformed” in a pure sense … I guess I can agree with his point, but I would still make the case that baptists are going against those original confessions in more ways than conservative P&R churches do today (OPC, URC, etc.).” I appreciate that we agree in this respect, and am glad of that.
I think I’d dispute your claim that “baptists are going against those original confessions.” It’s always about which confessions, whose “Reformed.” In fact, I suspect that it’s far easier for a “Reformed” / Particular baptist to identify without qualification with the 1689 confession than it is any of the other brothers here to identify without qualification with the first editions of the confessions they own. The irony, then, is that “Reformed” baptists are related far more immediately to the post-reformation theological tradition than are the “old, restless and revising,” who can’t point to an early modern confession and say, “that’s what I believe,” but instead to a series of evolving texts, received and adapted in competing forms and in different ways by different denominations who don’t see the need to give new titles to these revised texts, thus creating a confusing mirage of continuous theological identity which will fool anyone unaware of the history of symbolics.
Erik, then you say, “I think the writers were very much creatures of their time and unique historical circumstances and the 400 years that have passed since have given us additional insight into the downside of their take on the role of the magistrate in favoring certain expressions of the church over others (the primary danger being promoting nominalism). The state churches of Europe are empty while the churches in the U.S. have fared much better with a religiously neutral magistrate.” That’s all fine, but that’s exactly the argument that a baptist would make re the confession’s take on baptism. Nomimalism in the European churches has much more obviously been promoted by theories of infant baptism predicating presumptive regeneration, and the devastating impact of liberalism.
I think you’re also overstating when you attribute the size of American baptist churches to the individualism of American culture. There’s nothing particularly American about individualism at the beginning of the c21st, and baptist churches are a minority of a “Christian” minority in Europe. But they do account for the vast majority of born-again Christians – and in fact they do so all over the world.
Here’s a suggestion of how to establish the meaning of “Reformed”: we should do a straw poll on this thread, and have everyone indicate which c16th or c17th confession they could sign without qualification. In other words, had they been living in that period, with which church would they have identified? Anyone who says “none!” isn’t “Reformed,” no matter how much they may admire and respect the symbols and the men who composed them.
In fact, anyone who says “none!”, if they had been living during the reformation or post-reformation, would have been just another churchless Christian.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: What was the reason for the Abrahamic covenant? Only as a means of carrying out the eternal covenant. What was the reason for the Mosaic covenant? Only as a means of carrying out the eternal covenant.
Jeff C: Yes, I agree. The Old Covenant was indeed an administration of the covenant of grace. But in what sense? And here we have to be careful, or we will end up importing the Law back into the New Covenant.
RS: Or simply recognize that there was a national and a spiritual aspect to the Abrhamic covenant.
Jeff C: Not every feature of the Old Covenant was a part of the covenant of grace. Not every gracious feature of the Old Covenant was an enduring part of the covenant of grace. In particular, the curse of the Law was something that neither annulled the covenant made with Abraham, nor carries over into the New. Likewise, the sacrifices made under the Old Covenant have been fulfilled and do not endure under the New.
RS: And so the national and physical aspect of the covenant with Abraham does not endure into the New Covenant.
Jeff C: And this goes to your argument. You argue from Jeremiah and Hebrews that the covenant with Abraham is done away with. But both of those passages are arguing for the passing away of the Old Covenant in light of the New. There’s nothing in either of those that abrogates the covenant God made with Abraham.
RS: But remember, I am not arguing that the spiritual aspect of the Abrahamic covenant has been done away with. Just the physical or national aspect.
Jeff C: If you agree with me that the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant are but two different administrations of the one covenant of grace (and it sounds as if you are open to this), then it should follow that the features of the Abrahamic Covenant endure unless specifically abrogated or fulfilled.
RS: I would argue that when the NT abrogates the Old Covenant, then along with what it says about the New Covenant that this shows that the physical and national aspect of the Abrahamic covenant is abrogated.
Jeff C: So I repeat: Jeremiah and Hebrews are not on point. They refer to the passing of the features of the Old Covenant that were peculiar to “being under the Law”: the curse of the Law, and the sacrifices of the Law.
RS: But all of those things were given to the physical and national descendants of Abraham. The Mosaic covenant itself was given to the physical and national descendants of Abraham. God loved the nation of Israel because of His promise to Abraham. The abrogation of the Old Covenant is the abrogation of the physical and national aspect of the Abrahamic covenant. The promises to the spiritual seed of Abraham continue on and are fulfilled in the New Covenant which is in the blood of Christ who is the seed of Abraham and when a person is in Christ then a person is known to be of the seed of Abraham (spiritual descendant).
Genesis 15:13 God said to Abram, “Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years. 18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your descendants I have given this land, From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates:
Exodus 33:1 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, “Depart, go up from here, you and the people whom you have brought up from the land of Egypt, to the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying, ‘To your descendants I will give it.’
Deuteronomy 4:37 “Because He loved your fathers, therefore He chose their descendants after them. And He personally brought you from Egypt by His great power,
LikeLike
Chris, CG (and Zrim), correct me if I am wrong, but saying that civil disobedience is part and parcel of Reformed Protestantism from 1550 to 1776 is different from saying civil disobedience is confessional, right? It’s one thing to see the politics behind the Assembly, another to observe what they wrote about Christian liberty and its abuses.
So moderate guy that I am, I see a third way here. You’re all right.
Have a great day!
Not.
LikeLike
Richard: “You have to be in Christ to be a child of Abraham”
Erik: So you’re asserting that every member of Abraham’s household (servants included) who was circumcised was also saved? (which is what I assume you mean by “in Christ”)
I think your whole line of reasoning falls apart when you have to admit that not everyone who receives “believer’s baptism” is ultimately saved either. Some fall away. We are talking about visible signs here. The only question is who is supposed to receive it.
You want to talk about everything on a “spiritual” level but that is not overly helpful when we have to make sense of the visible church.
LikeLike
Here’s some good stuff to get your blood flowing this morning. It’s from an atheist that I am interacting with:
Hello, Mr. Charter,
Thanks for your notes. One thing I do appreciate about you is that you value reading the works published by authors and theologians of your tradition, whereas many others who comment have often not even read their Bibles very well.
My complaint is that you seem to assume that what your particular tradition teaches about the Bible is what is accepted in academic biblical scholarship or in other self-described Christian traditions. You frequently represent claims of faith as if they were historical or scientific facts. If you indulge me, I will provide some brief comments on more specific instances.
RE: THE OUT-OF-CONTEXT ARGUMENT
This is one example of how you represent your own tradition’s faith claims as though they were generally accepted facts: “Second, I think both ********** and ****** know better when they fail to put any of the biblical passages they quote into their historic and theological context.”
Taking “things out of context” is, indeed, one of the most oft-used defenses by Christian apologists. However, the word “context” is usually used in two senses:
A. The words before and/or after a passage in question;
B. The larger set of social and theological assumptions used by the
author of the passage in question.
If you apply meaning A for “context,” then it is relatively less difficult to adjudicate disputes based on this type of context. You would have to identify what words before or after the passage I discuss change my conclusions about that passage.
If you apply meaning B to “context,” then Christians routinely rely on faith-claims, which is not a valid form of argumentation outside of one’s religious tradition.
Jews, for example, don’t see the New Testament as part of the “theological context” for interpreting what Christians call the Old Testament. Muslims believe that the proper “theological context” for the Old and New Testament must include Muhammad’s revelations.
Christians might use the NT to interpret the OT because they are making a faith claim about the divine origin of the NT.
Since all faith-claims are equally unverifiable, then no faith claim is better than any other, and so appeals to “context” are actually meaningless in that sense.
That is why you also cannot say that Christians ought not follow X or Y law in the Old Testament because that is also a theological judgment, and many Christians might disagree on the extent to which the OT should be followed.
For academic biblical scholars, such as myself, the socio-historical context for any passage in the Bible is based on empirical data, not claims of faith. The biblical author’s theology and socio-cultural context matter only to the extent that we can identify those features empirically.
RE: “In the end it all comes down to a man/God who rose from the dead. If that didn’t happen Christianity is a joke. If it did, then things get interesting.”
This is not a good argument for the following reasons:
A. You leave unexplained why this is the criterion for Christianity’s validity. All you seem to be saying is that you have decided to accept the belief of the author of 1 Corinthians 15:14 about the criterion for Christianity’s validity.
B. There were other early self-described Christian traditions that did not believe that Jesus had resurrected and/or that did not think that the resurrection was the definitive criterion for Christianity’s validity. The Gospel of Thomas would be one example. Thus, you are not explaining why you accept some self-described early Christian traditions, and not others.
C. Anyone from any non-Christian tradition could also decide on a similarly arbitrary criterion for validity of their religion. For example, some might argue that if Krishna did not do what he claims to have done in the Baghavad Gita, then worshipping Krishna is invalid. Of if Santa Claus does not really do what he does, then Santa Claus belief is invalid. In other words, these are simply truisms, and they have no evidentiary value for determining the historicity of the pertinent claims.
D. Of course, the far more crucial problem is that there is no verifiable historical evidence that Jesus resurrected.
E. If you use what is usually called “evidence” (usually testimonial, in any case) by Christian apologists for the resurrection of Jesus, then I can find evidence that is just as strong, or stronger, for other similar claims that you do not accept.
RE: “If the goal is to fight the Christian right Van Drunen does that from within by showing what the Bible really says about how Christians are supposed to live in the midst of their unbelieving neighbors.”
I see the wisdom of cooperating with Christians on many issues. I have done so many times, as in the case of Intelligent Design and gay marriage. In the case of VanDrunen, however, I don’t think that there is such a thing as “what the Bible really says” about Christian living.
“What the Bible really says” is usually another slogan for a particular Christian tradition’s views of the Bible. Christian history, likewise, shows a wide range of answers to the question of how Christians should live in the world. However, where VanDrunen might agree with my viewpoint, we certainly could cooperate.
LikeLike
When all other arguments for paedobaptism fail, Reformed folks can always say something like this—“surely there are not less people in the sphere of the grace now than there were in the old covenant, so let’s be glad that now female infants are in.”
To which I always used to say: “What is this “old covenant” of which you speak, isn’t it merely an “administration” of “the covenant of grace”? Since I don’t buy “the covenant” construct, I am always interested when some Reformed folks say that the Mosaic administration is “the old covenant”, all the while being careful to never agree to any ‘essential discontinuity” between the Abrahamic covenant and what Romans 9 teaches about covenants.
But now CG has given me a second (perhaps more interesting) response—if the new covenant does not have less infants in it, then surely the new covenant does not have any less Constantinianism in it, so now we need much less distinction between political government and cult (state and church) than they did during the time of David. Now that the end of the ages has come, surely we don’t need to act like exiles anymore, do we? Yes, I know that there’s some “not yet” left, but given the situation and opportunity, why not go ahead and be as Constantinian as we can get away with? Can’t we get past this “theology of the cross” and begin to act triumphantly as those who already reign with Christ?
Unless you are some of Kantian liberal who still assumes a fact/value (public/private) distinction, why not just take over everything in the name of the Trinity (not merely Jesus and his example)? Of course you should do this as gradually and carefully as Zwingli and Luther and Calvin and the Westminster Assembly did it, but why not if you are really always Reforming? Since there is only one church (and not individual churches) and that one church has always been the one church, then surely the “spirituality” of this one church included Constantinianism in the past, so what would make us think there should be less Constantinianism in our future?
Sure, formal nods in the direction of “discontinuity” always need to be made (even between the Abrahamic and the new covenants), but as long as you remember to use the word “essential”, that should not obscure the challenge before us—-if any revision is to be done, let it be more Constantinianism now and not less. Constantine didn’t even get baptized. Constantine seemed to have some residual 2 k Kant in his system. Why make a religion out of being “secular Americans” when we could have a “Reformed America”?
LikeLike
Darryl, that’s been my point all along. And the same could be said about baptism: sure, plenty of P&R are in practice and attitude latitudinarian on paedobaptism, but the confessions are in principle nothing but precisionist.
LikeLike
Chris, exactly. I know there are historical and political arguments and precedents for the so-called “Reformed resistance theory,” but I’ve yet to hear any good biblical arguments affirming civil disobedience. Sola scriptura, anyone?
On your point about Calvin and the lesser magistrates, Van Drunen offers up some interesting thoughts:
Calvin’s convictions on this subject [civil disobedience] were, on the whole, strikingly conservative. In an extended series of discussions toward the close of the Institutes, he hailed the honor and reverence due to magistrates as a consequence of their appointment by God [ICR 4.20.22-29]. Calvin exhorts Christians that they must “with ready minds prove our obedience to them, whether in complying with edicts, or in paying tribute, or in undertaking public offices and burdens, which relate to the common defense, or in executing any other orders.” [ICR 4.20.23]. He goes on to make clear that this applies to bad rulers as well as good: “But if we have respect to the Word of God, it will lead us farther, and make us subject not only to the authority of those princes who honestly and faithfully perform their duty toward us, but all princes, by whatever means they have so become, although there is nothing they less perform than the duty of princes.” [ICR 4.20.25]. “The only thing remaining for you,” Calvin adds shortly thereafter, “will be to receive their commands, and be obedient to their words.” [ICR 4.20.26].
Van Drunen goers on to point out that Calvin, when elucidating on the topic of civil disobedience and resistance qualifies his words by saying, “I speak only of private men.” Van Drunen then goes on to show how Calvin made some interesting stipulations about the less private and more extraordinary men known as lesser magistrates, typically the doctrine invoked to justify rebelling against a magistrate who says some people can’t sit at lunch counters or on certain sides of buses.
Not only may “lesser magistrates curb tyrants,” but “only magistrates who have already been appointed for such a task.”
So it would seem that, at least according to VanDrunen’s read on Calvin, the ordinary citizen who acts contrary to his magistrate’s laws (laws that don’t require any personal violation of God’s clear moral law) is acting contrary to true Christian piety. That might not go down very easily for those of us raised to think of certain rebellious actions as more heroic and inspiring than ignoble and shun-worthy. But it could be that there is in fact more dignity in living with certain political and legal imperfections than in fighting against them. Granted, it is very easy for someone who in theory would not likely have to live with said imperfections. But with no intentions of offending anyone who has been personally maligned or injured by them, it could be that the test of a better obedience is to obey a law one finds closer to odious than immoral.
LikeLike
CG, I know you mean it incidentally and a bit tongue-in-cheek, but to right the sins of 1776 and recover a British monarchy would seem like Mitt Romney having to disown his polygamous grandfather to prove how serious he is about opposing polygamy. I get that there are the sins of fathers, but that diminishes neither their fatherhood nor the duty of sons to love and respect them as God’s appointed authorities.
LikeLike
Jeff C: (1) Circumcision was given to Abraham, not Moses.
RS: True, but these were the physical descendants of Abraham. The Israelites always looked back to Abraham as their father.
Jeff C: (2) True membership in the covenant with Abraham was by faith (Rom 2.28, 29). Those without faith are declared by the Lord to be “not Abraham’s children” but “children of the devil.” (John 8.38 – 39).
RS: Not necessarily during the period of the Old Testament. You were in the covenant if you were born of a woman that was Jewish regardless of whether a person had faith or not.
Jeff Cagle: The scripture clearly refutes this!
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring…As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” — Rom 9.6 – 8, 13.
You’re telling me that all who are descended from Abraham are children of Abraham. But Esau and his descendents weren’t. Why not? Because Esau was cut off from his people because of unbelief (Heb 12.16).
RS: But the passage you are speaking of is dealing with the present (when Paul was speaking) New Covenant and not the Old Testament covenant at the present (when Paul was speaking). Again, see that “not all ARE” (emphasis added) speaks of the present time (when Paul was writing). Paul did not say that not all were children of Abraham, but that “not all are children of Abraham.” So the great teaching here actually demonstrates my point that there is a difference between the physical seed and the spiritual seed of Abraham. Esau was a child of Abraham in the physical or national sense, but he was not a child of Abraham in the spiritual sense. In the New Covenant there is only one type of the children of Abraham and that is those who were of faith.
Rom 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.
RS: Could Romans 2:28-29 have been written during the times of the Old Testament? No, people were Jews if they were born to a Jewish woman. If they were circumcised in line with the outer covenant, as indeed Moses had to practice because of the covenant with Abraham, then they were in the national covenant and they were Jews.
LikeLike
Zrim – Who was more righteous, Rev. King who led the fight for civil rights but was a serial adulterer, or the black man who endured unjust suffering quietly and was faithful to his wife for 50 years?
LikeLike
Jeff C: (3) The sign of circumcision given to Abraham was the sign of the righteousness obtained by faith (Rom 4.11).
Old post RS: Yes, that was true of Abraham. It “should” have been true of the Israelites, but it was not.
Jeff C: Good. We agree here. But note: the sign was given to any given descendant of Abraham (say, Esau) before it was known whether he would have faith or not. The *sign* was the sign of the righteousness of faith. It was applied to the children without first ascertaining whether they had the righteousness of faith, on God’s command.
RS: But the sign was not just a sign of the righteousness of faith to the servants of Abraham and then to all the physical descendants. Sure enough Paul said that was what it meant to Abraham, but is that what it meant to all the others? Is that what all the people in the Old Testament understood it to be? Is that why Joshua had the nation circumcised in Joshua 5? What about the passage in Exodus 12? Exodus 12:43 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the ordinance of the Passover: no foreigner is to eat of it; 44 but every man’s slave purchased with money, after you have circumcised him, then he may eat of it. 45 “A sojourner or a hired servant shall not eat of it. 46 “It is to be eaten in a single house; you are not to bring forth any of the flesh outside of the house, nor are you to break any bone of it. 47 “All the congregation of Israel are to celebrate this. 48 “But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it.”
Does this passage show faith in those circumcised or simply that one had to be part of the covenant of circumcision to be part of the Passover? It does not say that the foreigner had to have faith, but simply that the foreigner had to be circumcised. But let us look just a little more at Abraham, faith, and circumcison.
Rom 4:9 Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, “FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” 10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.
RS: It seems clear that Paul is saying that faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness and Paul’s point is that Abraham was circumcised after he had faith. For Abraham, then, circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of the faith he had before he was circumcised. Therefore, as the argument goes, Abraham was the father of those who were circumcised without believing and yet also those who have faith without circumcision which would have been the Gentiles of that day. Remember, the Jews were arguing that a person must be circumcised in order to be saved. But can circumcision be a seal of the righteousness of faith to the circumcised who have no faith? No, it cannot, but they were still part of the nation that had the covenant of circumcision. They still had the national promises of God to those who were Jews and were circumcised.
Rom 4:13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; 15 for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.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,
RS: The promise to Abraham and his descendants was that he would be heir of the world, but that promise was through the righteousness of faith by promise. This promise that Abraham would be heir of the world, however, is by faith for the purpose that it may be in accordance with grace. In other words, there is a line of the people of God that this promise is guaranteed. It is the elect of God and that promise is certain. This cannot be said to all those who had the outward sign of circumcision.
Old post RS: Faith was not the issue in the physical or national covenant with Abraham…
Jeff C: You just argued against yourself. On the one hand, you said that Israelites should have had faith. On the other, you say that faith was not the issue. But more so, your second statement rests on this ground: that the covenant with Abraham was a “physical or national covenant.” What is your Scriptural basis for this? It’s not this …
RS: The covenant with Abraham had two sides to it. One was what would become a national covenant and the other was spiritual. Even Romans 4, which is the passage you quoted from, is quite clear on that. In some way all who are in that covenant with Abraham have a promise that is guaranteed to them. Yet not all who are from Abraham and not all who were circumcised had that promise. Yet the nation of Israel had promises and they were in covenant with God. I am not sure how you can avoid the conclusion.
Old RS: because he circumcised all those that were connected to him regardless of faith.
Jeff C: Yes, he did. And if circumcision was the sign of the righteousness by faith (as Scripture teaches), and if that sign was applied to Abraham’s descendents prior to exhibition of faith (as God commanded), then it follows that exhibition of faith is not a prior requirement for receiving the sign of the righteousness by faith. The only obstacle to this plain inference from Scripture is an ungrounded belief that “exhibition of faith is a prior requirement for receiving the sign”, which is taught nowhere directly, but is inferred by credobaptists.
RS: But again, you are applying an Old Covenant principle to the New Covenant or a physical principle to a spiritual principle. Just because Abraham had faith and was then circumcised is no proof that circumcision in and of itself only points to saving faith. Abraham’s faith was in a coming Messiah and each time a child was circumcised it pointed to the coming Messiah that was to come from the physical nature of Abraham. But that did not mean that now that the Messiah has come we are to baptize children. No, we wait until there is evidence that they are spiritual children of Abraham, that is, have Christ and so they receive the sign of the covenant and actually enter into a covenant with God.
LikeLike
Richard: “No, we wait until there is evidence that they are spiritual children of Abraham, that is, have Christ and so they receive the sign of the covenant and actually enter into a covenant with God.”
Erik: And what do you say about them who then fall away thereafter? How could they “actually enter into a covenant with God” and then go on to deny him? It seems like you either have to give up some part of your view of what baptism is OR give up some of the five points of Calvinism (unconditional election, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints)? You can’t have it all.
There is a local baptist megachurch that has the following statement on election. I would summarize it as them saying. “We punt!”
A Brief Statement on Predestination
Cornerstone Church of Ames
The Bible affirms the doctrine of predestination, that God chooses some before the
beginning of time purely on the basis of grace to be His children.[1] The Bible also
affirms that human beings make choices for which we are responsible and that those
choices have eternal consequences.[2] Often the Bible presents His sovereign act of
predestination in the very same passage that speaks of man’s responsibility to repent
and believe.[3] There is a mystery here. Any attempt at demonstrating that the Bible
teaches only one side of this mystery must be rejected.[4] Others claim that the only
way to reconcile these positions is by assuming that God’s election is based on his
foreknowledge of our free choices. To this we would respond that there is not enough
scriptural evidence to be sure that this is the way the two positions should be
reconciled.[5] Again, we believe Scripture leaves room for mystery.
Some have argued that teaching that we are in any way responsible for our choices
takes away from God’s glory, giving men room to boast about our role in our own
salvation. No – a thousand times no. Scripture teaches that faith is a gift from God.[6]
This is part of the mystery. To all who have believed we say clearly: do not boast, for
even your faith is by the grace of God. We cannot save ourselves, only God saves.
And God alone receives glory for our salvation.[7]
LikeLike
I think this trying to reconcile the visible church with the invisible church has goofed a lot of Christians up throughout history – from the Puritans in the 1600’s to the Federal Visionists today. Just affirm both and don’t try to reconcile them. As Reformed people we trust God to sort this out. This doesn’t mean to ignore sanctification, just trust God for that as you also trust him for justification.
LikeLike
Richard- Your notion of individuals entering into a covenant with God also seems rather Arminian. The covenant that God made with Abraham was pretty one sided. God was the one doing everything, Abraham was only responding with faith. The only conditional part of the Old Testament covenants that God made with Abraham’s descendants that I see was possession of the land. That was conditional on obedience, not faith.
LikeLike
Erik, I try to avoid indulging questions that start with “Who is more righteous…” Those never end up well among the children of men. But I take your point.
LikeLike
Darryl, thanks. I think you’re all right too, and it turns out Zrim and I were both making the same point, just disagreeing with each other in order to do so. But I will sleep uneasily this evening. Maybe I’m more Reformed than I realised.
LikeLike
Jeff C: There is significant disconnect between your belief that the Abrahamic covenant is an administration of the eternal covenant, and your belief that the Abrahamic covenant was a physical or national covenant.
RS: No, it is just saying that there are two aspects of it. Abraham had faith in the coming Messiah and the coming Messiah had to be born of a virgin and had to have physical descendants. The nation of Israel was planned by God to be the people that the Messiah would come from and that all they did in terms of the various laws was to proclaim the coming Messiah and all that He would do. So there is no disconnect between seeing a distinction between the physical seed and the spiritual seed of Abraham.
Jeff C: The goal of the eternal covenant is for God to elect and save a people for himself, people who bear His name and are thus called “God’s children.” The Scripture is very clear that these are always and only those who have faith.
RS: Yes, all who are saved are saved by grace, bear His triune name, and are children of God through faith.
Jeff C: If the Abrahamic covenant is an administration of that covenant, then only those who have the faith of Abraham properly belong to it. And in fact, the Scripture teaches this in multiple places. But there’s a sticking point for you. Namely, that the Abrahamic covenant was outwardly extended to all physical descendants of Abraham, regardless of faith. What to do about this fact?
RS: But this is not a sticking point with me at all. I simply recognize that there were two aspects of the Abrahamic covenant since this is what makes sense of the information that Scripture gives us. It is not that the Abrahamic covenant was outwardly extended to all physical descendants, but that they were part of that covenant because they were physical descendants. They were to be the physical line that the Messiah came through and the ones that declared the Gospel in the animal sacrifices they made and the laws they kept.
Jeff C: The Reformers uniformly understood this to mean that in all administrations of the eternal covenant, there is true, genuine membership by faith; and there is also outward membership, which is extended to professors of faith and their children. They refer the warnings against apostasy and the references to temporary faith to this outward membership, to individuals who cannot be discerned between wheat or tares.
RS: Which does not in and of itself make it correct. The New Covenant is with the elect only as indeed in the eternal covenant the Father sent the Son to purchase an elect people and the Son purchased and elect people. Those who are the elect are the only ones in the New Covenant because it reflects more exactly in that regard the Eternal covenant.
Jeff C: The problem for the credobaptist (me, in former theological life) is that he cannot accept the notion of an outward membership in the New Covenant, because it would open the door to paedobaptism.
RS: No, just cannot accept it because it does not fit with the doctrine of election, the doctrine of the atonement, and of the nature of the New Covenant. It is taking something from the Old Covenant and forcing it into the New. So we don’t accept outward membership in the New Covenant because it leads to paedobaptism (which it does), but because the New Covenant does not have outward membership and insisting that it does is to bring the national or physical aspects of the Abrahamic covenant (hence, the Mosaic covenant) into the New Covenant.
Jeff C: But in rejecting the notion of outward membership in the New, he is forced also to reject inward membership in the Abrahamic. And thus he lands on a teaching that “kicks against the goads” of Scripture in multiple points: that the Abrahamic covenant was not about faith, but about nationality.
RS: But this gets to the two aspects of the Abrahamic covenant. The Old covenant was with the physical or national seed of Abraham. Indeed the whole Old Covenant (Mosaic as such) does show forth in some ways the faith of Abraham and circumcision points to the coming Messiah. But it says nothing about the faith of the person that was circumcised, though it may say something about the faith of Abraham.
Jeff C: T’aint so.
RS: Sounds like you have been reading Jonathan Edwards.
Jeff C: In fact, this was the error of the Sadducees and Pharisees who showed up to be baptized by John.
In the end, credobaptism (at least along the lines that I believed it, and that you also seem to believe) recapitulates the error of the Pharisees: believing that being part of Abraham’s family was a matter of parentage instead of faith.
RS: Now this is an amazing statement on your part. I thought you were the one that believed that on the basis of parentage one was part of the covenant. By the way, all through the Old Testament God blasted and punished the Israelites because they violated His covenant. So the Pharisees were part of that covenant. Credobaptists recognize that there are two aspects of the Abrahamic covenant, but the Pharisees did not. I would argue that there is no real teaching about breaking the covenant in the New Covenant because Christ has kept all aspects of the covenant in place of all who are in the New Covenant. The fact that some are said to break the covenant just shows that they were never in it to begin with.
LikeLike
Erik Charter quoting Richard: “You have to be in Christ to be a child of Abraham”
Erik: So you’re asserting that every member of Abraham’s household (servants included) who was circumcised was also saved? (which is what I assume you mean by “in Christ”)
RS: No, I am not asserting that at all. I am asserting that the Abrahamic covenant had a physical or national aspect and a spiritual aspect to it. The servants were part of the physical aspect.
Erik C: I think your whole line of reasoning falls apart when you have to admit that not everyone who receives “believer’s baptism” is ultimately saved either. Some fall away. We are talking about visible signs here. The only question is who is supposed to receive it.
RS: No, my line of reasoning does not fall apart at all. My argument is that since the Mosaic covenant is really an outworking of the national aspect of the Abrahamic covenant, the physical descendants should not receive the sign. After all, the Messiah that the nation of Israel pointed to has already come. Circumcision pointed to the Messiah who was to come and also to the need of a circumcised heart. Now that the Messiah has come, we have baptism which points to the resurrection of Christ and of His resuurected life in His people.
Erik C: You want to talk about everything on a “spiritual” level but that is not overly helpful when we have to make sense of the visible church.
RS: But why do you have to make sense of a visible church at the expense of the Bible? The biblical definition of the church is that it is the body of Christ.
LikeLike
Erik Charter quoting Richard: “No, we wait until there is evidence that they are spiritual children of Abraham, that is, have Christ and so they receive the sign of the covenant and actually enter into a covenant with God.”
Erik: And what do you say about them who then fall away thereafter? How could they “actually enter into a covenant with God” and then go on to deny him? It seems like you either have to give up some part of your view of what baptism is OR give up some of the five points of Calvinism (unconditional election, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints)? You can’t have it all.
RS: It is just like they did in Acts 8 in the case of Simon: “22 “Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray the Lord that, if possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven you.” In other words, just because there are some that demonstrate at a later point that they were deceived does not reflect on the New Covenant at all. It just means that some are deceived. As to the five points of Calvinism, there is no need to give any of those up for the Baptist, though indeed I might want to say that they are inconsistent with the paedobaptist. God elects His people and His people baptize them with the sign of a resurrected life. That is not inconsistent at all.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: I think this trying to reconcile the visible church with the invisible church has goofed a lot of Christians up throughout history – from the Puritans in the 1600′s to the Federal Visionists today. Just affirm both and don’t try to reconcile them. As Reformed people we trust God to sort this out. This doesn’t mean to ignore sanctification, just trust God for that as you also trust him for justification.
RS: Yes, it has goofed a lot of people up. The Pharisees were just one instance.
LikeLike
The Donatists—who baptizes is important, and your baptism might not be valid.
The Catholics–baptism by a Donatist is invalid.
Does this mean that the Catholics are talking a Donatist position?
I think it comes down to this question—is everybody to be considered baptized or only some people?
The Constantinian needs everybody to be baptized. Or else become a non-citizen or a non-person.
How are we going to divide everybody into two groups, covenant breakers and non covenant breakers, it we don’t put everybody in “the covenant” to begin with ?
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard- Your notion of individuals entering into a covenant with God also seems rather Arminian.
RS: Hmmm, and I thought that of your view. Oh well.
Erik C: The covenant that God made with Abraham was pretty one sided. God was the one doing everything, Abraham was only responding with faith. The only conditional part of the Old Testament covenants that God made with Abraham’s descendants that I see was possession of the land. That was conditional on obedience, not faith.
RS: So when God elects people and the respond in faith of a commitment, that is Arminian in what way? When one is baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one is saying that I am not longer my own but His. I bear His name for His sake rather than living for myself because He has bought me and I am His. He has purchased me and redeemed me by grace alone and now I am His with no rights to myself. How is that Arminian?
LikeLike
RS: I would argue that when the NT abrogates the Old Covenant, then along with what it says about the New Covenant that this shows that the physical and national aspect of the Abrahamic covenant is abrogated.
Then argue for it. What’s your line of reasoning?
It will not do as a starting point to assume that the Abrahamic covenant has a “physical” aspect and a “spiritual” aspect, one of which is abrogated … unless you can point to Scripture that teaches that.
LikeLike
RS: RS: But the sign was not just a sign of the righteousness of faith to the servants of Abraham and then to all the physical descendants. … Does this passage show faith in those circumcised or simply that one had to be part of the covenant of circumcision to be part of the Passover?
And there’s the misunderstanding. The phrase “sign of the righteousness of faith” does NOT mean “the person receiving the sign has faith.”
Likewise,
RS: Just because Abraham had faith and was then circumcised is no proof that circumcision in and of itself only points to saving faith.
Correct. Circumcision points to a righteousness from God that comes by faith. It doesn’t point to the faith of the recipient. Nor does baptism.
It is a declaration from God to us of the promise of righteousness that comes through faith.
RS: The covenant with Abraham had two sides to it. One was what would become a national covenant and the other was spiritual. Even Romans 4, which is the passage you quoted from, is quite clear on that.
Show me. Where does Romans 4 teach that there were two sides to the Abrahamic covenant?
The closest reference I can see is so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.
And this teaches that both Jew and Gentile are Abraham’s children, IF they have the faith of Abraham. That’s precisely contrary to the point you want to make. Paul says that whether natural descendent or not, all who have the faith of Abraham are children of Abraham.
Where are the “two sides” of which you speak?
There is a significant exegetical problem for you and that is to produce a passage that clearly teaches that the Abrahamic covenant can be split into two.
Sure, any number of passages *can be interpreted* with that presupposition in place. But that’s no proof. To get to proof, you must produce a reason to eliminate the alternatives.
LikeLike
Richard, when it is the credo-baptist’s view that the meaning of baptism is to signify the recipient’s faith because it assumes faith for its validity it thereby makes the meaning of the sign human-centered instead of God-centered. In taking its cues from Calvinism, covenant theology sees it in the reverse: baptism is God’s act of initiation on the sinner.
And so when you want to say that Calvinism is inconsistent with paedobaptism it is fairly laughable, because it springs from a covenant theology that is all about God’s initiation toward helpless sinners. And as Reformed like to point out, there is no greater picture of how God seeks out helpless sinners by grace alone than that which is envisaged by the most helpless creature on earth—the human child—being marked by God to his or her complete and utter ignorance and ability. Faith in the recipient is NOT operative to make baptism valid. It is made valid by the power of God alone. On the contrary, credo-baptism is inconsistent with Calvinism to the extent that it suggests sinners play a part in their own redemption; it becomes an act of response to God, instead of signifying God’s initiation toward the sinner. Credo-baptism completely nullifies the teaching that we are born children of wrath, are totally dead in trespasses and sins, and unable to save ourselves lest God come and rescue us.
Now you will tell me you believe salvation is by God’s grace alone for completely helpless sinners. Fine, then prove it and baptize your kids.
LikeLike
JRC: True membership in the covenant with Abraham was by faith (Rom 2.28, 29). Those without faith are declared by the Lord to be “not Abraham’s children” but “children of the devil.” (John 8.38 – 39).
RS: Not necessarily during the period of the Old Testament. You were in the covenant if you were born of a woman that was Jewish regardless of whether a person had faith or not.
Au contraire, mon ami. Paul’s proof that “not all Israel are Israel” is Esau. Esau was born of a woman that was Jewish, and he left the covenant through lack of faith.
Where does the bible teach the “born of a woman that is Jewish means truly in the covenant”?
RS: Could Romans 2:28-29 have been written during the times of the Old Testament?
Absolutely. God is continually removing unbelieving Jews from the covenant. If your argument were correct, He would be compelled by the terms of the covenant to leave them in “physical Israel.”
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, when it is the credo-baptist’s view that the meaning of baptism is to signify the recipient’s faith because it assumes faith for its validity it thereby makes the meaning of the sign human-centered instead of God-centered. In taking its cues from Calvinism, covenant theology sees it in the reverse: baptism is God’s act of initiation on the sinner.
RS: Yes, you do see it in reverse. Covenantal theology (Baptist) is that because of the etenral covenant within the Trinity God the Father sends the Son to live for, suffer, die, and be resurrected in order to glorify His grace. In time the Holy Spirit regenerates a sinner as He pleases and gives them a resurrected live. Baptism recognizes the work of God in this. Your view is to put all people in the covenant and then see if they will keep the covenant or not.
Zrim: And so when you want to say that Calvinism is inconsistent with paedobaptism it is fairly laughable, because it springs from a covenant theology that is all about God’s initiation toward helpless sinners.
RS: Perhaps I should have said a biblical God-centeredness that focuses on the sovereignty of God rather than Calvinism since so much of what goes under the name of Calvnism today seems to flee from that. In the eternal covenant Christ died for all that the Father would give Him and the Spirit would apply the work of Christ to all that Christ died for. I don’t think that there is any doubt in the mind of God as to whom Christ died for and so there is no need to say there are those in the covenant before God declares them to be so by election.
John 1:12-13 teaches us that sinners are not born again because of anything a human does, whether it is because of their parents or of any human decision. Rather than that, or even opposed to that, they are born of the will of God. That is precisely what I am arguing for and what it appears that you are arguing against. You will say that infants are in because of who their parents are, but John 1:12-13 specifically denies that.
Zrim: And as Reformed like to point out, there is no greater picture of how God seeks out helpless sinners by grace alone than that which is envisaged by the most helpless creature on earth—the human child—being marked by God to his or her complete and utter ignorance and ability.
RS: In that case the Reformed are dead wrong. The greatest picture is given us in Ephesians 2:1-4. God starts with those who are dead in their sins and trespasses and are by nature children of wrath.
Zrim: Faith in the recipient is NOT operative to make baptism valid. It is made valid by the power of God alone.
RS: Of course not, but as a sign of promise it shows the ones that God has promised to save. If it is God’s promise put on an infant and the infant breaks the covenant, then what of the promise of God? No, all that God has promised to save He will save.
Zrim: On the contrary, credo-baptism is inconsistent with Calvinism to the extent that it suggests sinners play a part in their own redemption; it becomes an act of response to God, instead of signifying God’s initiation toward the sinner.
RS: Sheer nonsense once again. Credo-baptism is not an assertion of anything that sinners do, but it is an assertion of what God has done in election. But again, in your view all the children are born in the covenant and so you put the sign of the promise upon them. They can then leave the covenant if they break it or reject it. Once again, that is more like Arminianism.
Zrim: Credo-baptism completely nullifies the teaching that we are born children of wrath, are totally dead in trespasses and sins, and unable to save ourselves lest God come and rescue us.
RS: Of course not, your view is the one that at the least implies that. Remember the stock that your view came from. It was there that they view was that baptism washed away original sin. The credo view is that all are dead in sin and are at enmity with God until God regenerates the sinner.
Zrim: Now you will tell me you believe salvation is by God’s grace alone for completely helpless sinners. Fine, then prove it and baptize your kids.
RS: God will save those whom He pleases. When He decides to regenerate them and so we can see that they are His children rather than just mine, then they can be baptized. So I believe salvation is by God’s grace alone and so I wait for Him to save before baptism rather than put a sign of His promise on those that He may never have promised to save.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: I would argue that when the NT abrogates the Old Covenant, then along with what it says about the New Covenant that this shows that the physical and national aspect of the Abrahamic covenant is abrogated.
Jeff Cagle: Then argue for it. What’s your line of reasoning? It will not do as a starting point to assume that the Abrahamic covenant has a “physical” aspect and a “spiritual” aspect, one of which is abrogated … unless you can point to Scripture that teaches that.
RS: But of course that is what I have been doing. I have given several passages of Scripture to show that the nation of Israel as a physical nation looked back to the Abrahamic covenant. I am not even sure how that part is a question. Abraham was the father of Israel and we are told over and over again that God looked to the promises He made with Abraham as why He kept enduring the nation of Israel. So when the Mosaic covenant (old covenant) was abrogated (as set forth in Hebrews 8), the physical or national aspect of the covenant was over and the focus was all on Christ and His spiritual seed now. All those who are in Christ are the children of Abraham.
So I have been arguing for that over and over and over. What is the nation of Israel but the physical seed of Abraham? Why did they look back to the promises given to Abraham? The promises to Abraham that his descendants would be given the land of Cannan shows that the nation of Israel was the physical seed of Abraham. The New Testament teaching points to the contrast between the physical descendants of Abraham and the spiritual seed of Abraham and how Christ and all who are in Christ are the spiritual seed. Since the Old Covenant was abrogated, the physical seed of Abraham came to a stop. The New Covenant was instituted by Christ and only with the elect and the physical seed of Abraham can only be in that covenant by regeneration.
LikeLike
Richard – You still haven’t explained to me how you account for adults who have received “believer’s baptism” who later renounce the faith. Is your church a pure church or not? They professed faith, were baptized, and are now gone. How do you account for them?
If you say they were false yet you baptized them how is your church any more pure than mine?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: quoting RS: But the sign was not just a sign of the righteousness of faith to the servants of Abraham and then to all the physical descendants. … Does this passage show faith in those circumcised or simply that one had to be part of the covenant of circumcision to be part of the Passover?
Jeff Cagle: And there’s the misunderstanding. The phrase “sign of the righteousness of faith” does NOT mean “the person receiving the sign has faith.”
RS: Does the NT say that this is what it meant for Abraham? When we read the rest of the Old Testament, what did circumcision mean for the nation of Israel? Are you sure that you are not taking one verse that pointed to Abraham and then applying it to all in the Old Testament?
Jeff Cagle: Likewise, Quoting RS: Just because Abraham had faith and was then circumcised is no proof that circumcision in and of itself only points to saving faith.
Jeff Cagle: Correct. Circumcision points to a righteousness from God that comes by faith. It doesn’t point to the faith of the recipient. Nor does baptism.
It is a declaration from God to us of the promise of righteousness that comes through faith.
RS: But a person that has faith is a person that has Christ and the resurrected life of Christ (at least in the NT). So the meaning of baptism is not the same as circumcision. Once again, credo-baptism says that baptism is a sign that God has given this person faith and has given them the resurrected life of Christ. Your view is that baptism is a promise of the righteousness that comes through faith even though infants don’t have faith and may never have faith. I don’t know why you would put the sign of God’s promise on an infant since you don’t know that God has promised that to an infant/
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: The covenant with Abraham had two sides to it. One was what would become a national covenant and the other was spiritual. Even Romans 4, which is the passage you quoted from, is quite clear on that.
Jeff Cagle: Show me. Where does Romans 4 teach that there were two sides to the Abrahamic covenant? The closest reference I can see is so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.
And this teaches that both Jew and Gentile are Abraham’s children, IF they have the faith of Abraham. That’s precisely contrary to the point you want to make. Paul says that whether natural descendent or not, all who have the faith of Abraham are children of Abraham. Where are the “two sides” of which you speak?
There is a significant exegetical problem for you and that is to produce a passage that clearly teaches that the Abrahamic covenant can be split into two. Sure, any number of passages *can be interpreted* with that presupposition in place. But that’s no proof. To get to proof, you must produce a reason to eliminate the alternatives.
RS: I am not sure anyone can prove anything to another in the first place, but secondly I am not sure it is possible to eliminate all the alternatives in way that proves something.
Romans 4: 9 Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, “FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” 10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.
RS: We have two groups here and both are told that Abraham is their father. On the one hand you have those who were circumcised and on the other those with faith. In the context, those with faith were of both the circumcised and the uncircumcised. The circumcised is a clear reference to the nation of Israel or the Jews. So we have the nation of Israel which came from Abraham and then we have those of faith who follow him in faith without being circumcised. Yet both came from Abraham and both have promises that came to Abraham. In the Moaic covenant there were promises to the nation and in some ways they had promises based on their obedience. This was, in the eyes of John Owen and others, in some way a restatement of the covenant of works.
Romans 4: 13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; 15 for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.
RS: Once again we see two sides in this. There are those who are of the Law and yet they were the physical or national seed of Abraham. On the other side we have those who see that Abraham is to be heir of the world through faith.
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, 17 (as it is written, “A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE YOU”) in the presence of Him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.
18 In hope against hope he believed, so that he might become a father of many nations according to that which had been spoken, “SO SHALL YOUR DESCENDANTS BE.”
RS: In the passage just above we see once again the two lines of the descendants of Abraham. One, the seed of Abraham that had the Law (the physical or national descendants). Two, those who receive grace. Notice closely that Abraham is said to be the father of many nations. It is also said that the promise by grace is guaranteed to all the descendants, whether they are of the Law (implying that those of the Law are the descendants of Abraham and part of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant) or to those of faith. It seems that this text clearly sets out that the physical seed of Abraham are those of the Law and then there is the spiritual seed of Abraham that is guaranteed by grace.
Please notice this one point once again. It is by faith in order that it may be by grace. Why is it by grace? In order that the promise would be guaranteed to ALL the descendants. In other words, in the New Covenant the promise is guaranteed to All the spiritual seed of Abraham and not to all of the physical seed. The teaching of faith is that it must be by grace and grace teaches us that God’s promise is a guarantee and it is a guarantee to all the spiritual seed of Abraham. So the sign of the promise of God should not be put on the children of believers unless one is going to say that God promises to save all the children of believers.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: JRC: True membership in the covenant with Abraham was by faith (Rom 2.28, 29). Those without faith are declared by the Lord to be “not Abraham’s children” but “children of the devil.” (John 8.38 – 39).
Old Post RS: Not necessarily during the period of the Old Testament. You were in the covenant if you were born of a woman that was Jewish regardless of whether a person had faith or not.
Jeff (the Frenchman) Cagle: Au contraire, mon ami. Paul’s proof that “not all Israel are Israel” is Esau. Esau was born of a woman that was Jewish, and he left the covenant through lack of faith.
RS: Did he leave the covenant? He was still a Jewish man.
Jeff Cagle: Where does the bible teach the “born of a woman that is Jewish means truly in the covenant”?
RS: It is not in the Bible as such but is a deduction that some have made. If a woman was raped and did not know who raped her, a baby born to her would be considered Jewish. Yet those who did not circumcize the baby would be said to break the covenant. So the baby was born in the covenant, that is, the physical or national covenant and was in the covenant by birth.
Old post RS: Could Romans 2:28-29 have been written during the times of the Old Testament?
Jeff Cagle: Absolutely. God is continually removing unbelieving Jews from the covenant. If your argument were correct, He would be compelled by the terms of the covenant to leave them in “physical Israel.”
RS:
Romans 2:25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?
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.
RS: In the times of OT Israel they did not put out those who did not have true faith. They only put those out who violated the external laws. So in the Old Testament a man was Jewish if he was born a Jew and was circumcised (yes, they did allow others in too if they did certain things, one being circumcision). But the true Jew (the spiritual seed of Abraham in the New Covennat period) was one that had a circumcised heart. This Scripture could not have been enacted in the Old Covenant time.
LikeLike
Richard says: “But a person that has faith is a person that has Christ and the resurrected life of Christ (at least in the NT). So the meaning of baptism is not the same as circumcision. Once again, credo-baptism says that baptism is a sign that God has given this person faith and has given them the resurrected life of Christ.”
Erik: Wow, now you are really making statements that make it hard for you to account for the wayward! God has given them faith and the resurrected life of Christ in baptism and now they have abandoned it, never to come back? How does that work within the framework of Calvinism?
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard – You still haven’t explained to me how you account for adults who have received “believer’s baptism” who later renounce the faith.
RS: They were never saved and are not saved. By leaving they show that they were never one of the elect.
Erik C: Is your church a pure church or not?
RS: Not in an absolute sense, no.
Erik C: They professed faith, were baptized, and are now gone. How do you account for them?
RS: Just like Acts 8 and the situation with Simon and then in the Gospels with the parable of the sower. Some of the seed sprang up with joy, but withered later on. They appeared to be the real thing but demonstrated later that they were not.
Erik C: If you say they were false yet you baptized them how is your church any more pure than mine?
RS: Because you are not in it? : – ) Let us imagine a covenantal Baptist church and one you are in. Let us say that they both have 100 members in them. Let us also say that both have ten infants and ten young children in attendance. That means that one fifth of your congregtion is baptized and you don’t know how many are believers or will ever be. The Baptist church has not baptized any of their 20 %. If you looked at this from a purely human perspective, I would say that my church would be purer than yours. That is also not taking into account that the remaining 80% would be examined somewhat closer in order to give a spiritual accounting.
LikeLike
Erik C: Is your church a pure church or not?
RS: Not in an absolute sense, no.
That’s all I was looking for. An Arminian might logically say “yes” since profession of faith + baptism = saved and apostasy = was saved, but no longer saved. You show you are serious about being Reformed by saying “no”, so I appreciate that.
I think the “accounting” is somewhat irrelevant. The question is what is biblical and thus the argument that has gone on for 400 years.
LikeLike
I would actually argue you have more pagans in your church than I do (by your own admission). All of those infants and young kids are guilty until proven innocent by your way of reckoning.
LikeLike
That would actually make a good tee-shirt:
Reformed: Innocent until proven guilty
Reformed Baptist: Guilty until proven innocent
LikeLike
Richard, as Jeff has pointed out, because in the credo scheme the outward aspect of covenantal membership is swallowed whole by the inward aspect, you naturally worry that a child who denies God’s promise in baptism makes hay of that promise. The irony here for the paedo is how this assumes human power to overturn what God has ordained. But it’s no problem in the paedo scheme, because its Calvinism makes proper room for human will to respond according to its either being left dead or made alive. And so long as it does not appear made alive the child is fenced from the table—the credo-communionism is kicking in.
The credo-baptist’s problem is that he wants baptism to do what communion does instead of letting each function according to its purpose. (This is the paedo-communionist’s problem, only in reverse.) And it almost follows a sort of Gnostic scheme, where God works one way in the OT (circumcision of only male descendants and converts) and another in the NT (baptism of only male and female converts), instead of seeing both continuity and discontinuity (circumcision of only male descendants and converts replaced by baptism of both male and female descendants and converts).
LikeLike
Erik, why not follow those slogans with this one:
“Gospel: Guilty until made innocent”
Hey! That actually looks like one of the above! Could that be a coincidence?
But I’m glad you’re admitting the “Reformed” for baptists, though I don’t necessarily want to claim it for myself, for I’m still perplexed by how we use it.
LikeLike
C.G. – I can affirm that shirt, although it says nothing about baptism.
LikeLike
When the credobaptist convert falls away to you repossess the shirt?
LikeLike
I blew my joke! “Do you repossess the shirt?”
Alan Stanwyk: “Do you own rubber gloves?”
Fletch: “I rent em. I have a lease with an option to buy.”
Not sure why I was reminded of that.
LikeLike
C.G.: “Hey! That actually looks like one of the above!”
Erik: Actually it doesn’t. “made” and “proven” are two way different things.
The “made” happened 2,000 years ago. The “proven” happens over a lifetime and is judged by God.
LikeLike
Erik, no – he can keep the shirt – the slogan is an objective rather than a subjective statement of truth, isn’t it?
But it would be strange to construct a narrative of theology in your idea of baptism which runs absolutely in the opposite direction to the narrative theology of the gospel.
Baptism is meant to confirm and illustrate the gospel, not contradict it (ie we move from guilt to innocence, and not vice versa, as you posted above). It illustrates, among other things, that we once lived in sin but are now dead to sin (Rom 6; Titus 3:4-5). So baptism is about illustrating the application of the gospel and its benefits, the move from the status of “guilty” to that of “innocent.” And that application is publicly declared, at least, in, with, and alongside baptism. Does that sound right to you? Or does that prove too much for covenant children? Or are we both arguing the same thing?
By the way, when you say, “Reformed: Innocent until proven guilty,” you don’t imply that you believe in the presumptive justification of covenant children, do you? How does the baptism of covenant children relate to their justification? In what sense are they “innocent” if they haven’t been justified?
LikeLike
Erik, thanks: of course that should have been “Gospel: Guilty until declared innocent,” keeping up your forensic language.
But we weren’t “made,” and certainly weren’t “declared,” innocent “2000 years ago” – see WCF 11:4.
And can you make the comment that “the “proven” happens over a lifetime and is judged by God” if you don’t believe in a Bucerian second justification? FV alert?
LikeLike
C.G.: “Does that sound right to you? Or does that prove too much for covenant children? Or are we both arguing the same thing?
By the way, when you say, “Reformed: Innocent until proven guilty,” you don’t imply that you believe in the presumptive justification of covenant children, do you? How does the baptism of covenant children relate to their justification? In what sense are they “innocent” if they haven’t been justified?”
Erik: Let me start by answering your question with a question: Do you have kids? If you do, will you expect them to have a conversion story or testimony before allowing them to be baptized and join the church?
LikeLike
Westminster 11:4 – “God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,[11] and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:[12] nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them”
I agree with that. My point is that the act that made the application by the Holy Spirit possible happened 2,000 years ago. I think we agree. If I flip it around on you, I don’t think you would be comfortable saying “made” means the time that a believer professed faith. It’s not the faith that “made” anything, it’s Christ’s work 2,000 years ago applied to a believer by the Holy Spirit at the proper time.
LikeLike
“Proven” is a tough word to get a handle on in this context. Maybe I’ll take it off my shirt. Our justification is in some sense “proven” by our works, by our lives, by our sanctification, but it is difficult for men to judge in this matter (even Richard) because we do not fully see men’s hearts. That’s why I said we leave judgment to God. No second justification, just trying to express what our confessions say about sanctification accompanying justification.
LikeLike
Erik Charter quoting Erik C: Is your church a pure church or not?
ERic C quoting RS: Not in an absolute sense, no.
Eric: That’s all I was looking for. An Arminian might logically say “yes” since profession of faith + baptism = saved and apostasy = was saved, but no longer saved. You show you are serious about being Reformed by saying “no”, so I appreciate that.
I think the “accounting” is somewhat irrelevant. The question is what is biblical and thus the argument that has gone on for 400 years.
RS: Sigh, that Iowa State thing popping up again. I thought you might appreciate a reference/pun to accounting.
LikeLike
No FV alerts for me. I did my time with the Moscow-ites and lived to tell about it.
LikeLike
If John Frame can write about “The Escondido Theology” why were none of the Reports on the NPP/FV called “The Moscow Theology”? I guess everyone would think it was about Communism or something.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard says: “But a person that has faith is a person that has Christ and the resurrected life of Christ (at least in the NT). So the meaning of baptism is not the same as circumcision. Once again, credo-baptism says that baptism is a sign that God has given this person faith and has given them the resurrected life of Christ.”
Erik: Wow, now you are really making statements that make it hard for you to account for the wayward! God has given them faith and the resurrected life of Christ in baptism and now they have abandoned it, never to come back? How does that work within the framework of Calvinism?
RS: Baptism is a sign of that and so is a different sign than circumcision. But a person that truly has the resurrected life of Christ will never not have the resurrected life of Christ. As we discussed in the past, making a profession of faith is not the same thing as having faith. Making a profession of Christ is not the same thing as having Christ.
LikeLike
Richard – I’ve read you enough at this point to not put spiritual accounting past you. It’s seems a very Puritan thing to do.
I actually did most of the accounting classes to sit for the CPA exam at ISU. Fun times.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Westminster 11:4 – “God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,[11] and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:[12] nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them”
I agree with that. My point is that the act that made the application by the Holy Spirit possible happened 2,000 years ago. I think we agree. If I flip it around on you, I don’t think you would be comfortable saying “made” means the time that a believer professed faith. It’s not the faith that “made” anything, it’s Christ’s work 2,000 years ago applied to a believer by the Holy Spirit at the proper time.
RS: While I am not trying to be overly picky, what you (Erik C) wrote is not the same thing as the WCF says.
WCF: “nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them”
Erik C: ” it’s Christ’s work 2,000 years ago applied to a believer by the Holy Spirit at the proper time.”
RS: The confession says that the Spirit applies Christ unto them. You said that the Spirit applies the work of Christ. I would submit that it is because of the work of Christ that the Spirit applies Christ and that when Christ is one with the believer on the basis of oneness with Christ the sinner can be declared just by God in such a way that God is both just and Justifier.
LikeLike
Richard – Now that I’ve got you onto the visible/invisible distinction you are really running with it. I like that.
Baptismal language can be quite confusing. When you look at the Heidelberg, Belgic, and our baptismal forms in the Psalter Hymnal I’ll admit it can look like baptismal regeneration. Just like interpreting Scripture in light of Scripture you need to read confessions in light of confessions. When the Heidelberg asks & answers questions like “What is True Faith?” it doesn’t make sense that the same guy is teaching baptismal regeneration.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard – I’ve read you enough at this point to not put spiritual accounting past you. It’s seems a very Puritan thing to do.
RS: Thank you
Erik C: I actually did most of the accounting classes to sit for the CPA exam at ISU. Fun times.
RS: Folks at that school are so “I” centered.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Baptismal language can be quite confusing. When you look at the Heidelberg, Belgic, and our baptismal forms in the Psalter Hymnal I’ll admit it can look like baptismal regeneration.
RS: Yes, it certainly looks that way. Hence, it does have the appearance of not being too far from the Roman tree.
Erik C: Just like interpreting Scripture in light of Scripture you need to read confessions in light of confessions. When the Heidelberg asks & answers questions like “What is True Faith?” it doesn’t make sense that the same guy is teaching baptismal regeneration.
RS: But Luther had the same problem. In one spot he sounds like believed in the baptismal regeneration of children and in another he says that unless you deny your free-will you are not even ready to be saved.
LikeLike
RS: I have given several passages of Scripture to show that the nation of Israel as a physical nation looked back to the Abrahamic covenant.
None of those passages have taught that. Vehement re-assertion is not argument.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: I have given several passages of Scripture to show that the nation of Israel as a physical nation looked back to the Abrahamic covenant.
None of those passages have taught that. Vehement re-assertion is not argument.
RS: I would argue that your silence on those passages is also no argument. Let me give just a few once again.
Genesis 15:13 God said to Abram, “Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years. 18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your descendants I have given this land, From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates:
RS: The physical descendants of Abram were the people going into Egypt and those same descendants were given the land. In other words, the people who were going to receive the Mosaic covenant or the covenants of circumcision were the physical descendants of Abraham.
Exodus 3:15 God, furthermore, said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations.
RS: Again, notice the link with God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, being brought up to the sons of Israel.
Exodus 32:13 “Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants to whom You swore by Yourself, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heavens, and all this land of which I have spoken I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.'”
RS: Here is a verse that links the nation of Israel with Abraham and calls their attention to the covenant with Abraham and how it relates to them.
Exodus 33:1 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, “Depart, go up from here, you and the people whom you have brought up from the land of Egypt, to the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying, ‘To your descendants I will give it.’
RS: The same land that the LORD told Moses to take the people to is the land that He swore to Abraham that He would give to his descendants.
Deuteronomy 4:37 “Because He loved your fathers, therefore He chose their descendants after them. And He personally brought you from Egypt by His great power,
RS: It was because the Lord loved the fathers (Abraham was the main one) that He chose their descendants. I am not sure how it can be denied that the nation of Israel looked back to their father Abraham and the covenant with Abraham for their promises and their stability as a nation.
Joshua 24:2 Joshua said to all the people, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘From ancient times your fathers lived beyond the River, namely, Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, and they served other gods. 3 ‘Then I took your father Abraham from beyond the River, and led him through all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his descendants and gave him Isaac.
4 ‘To Isaac I gave Jacob and Esau, and to Esau I gave Mount Seir to possess it; but Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt. 5 ‘Then I sent Moses and Aaron, and I plagued Egypt by what I did in its midst; and afterward I brought you out. 6 ‘I brought your fathers out of Egypt, and you came to the sea; and Egypt pursued your fathers with chariots and horsemen to the Red Sea.
2 Chronicles 20:7 “Did You not, O our God, drive out the inhabitants of this land before Your people Israel and give it to the descendants of Abraham Your friend forever?
RS: Here we see that God gave the land to the descendants of Abraham His friend which is what He had promised Abraham.
Isa 41:8 “But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, Descendant of Abraham My friend, 9 You whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, And called from its remotest parts And said to you, ‘You are My servant, I have chosen you and not rejected you. 10 ‘Do not fear, for I am with you; Do not anxiously look about you, for I am your God. I will strengthen you, surely I will help you, Surely I will uphold you with My righteous right hand.’
RS: Again we see that God brings up His promise to Abraham and his descendants. Based on that promise to Abraham they are not to fear.
LikeLike
Erik: I don’t think you would be comfortable saying “made” means the time that a believer professed faith. It’s not the faith that “made” anything, it’s Christ’s work 2,000 years ago applied to a believer by the Holy Spirit at the proper time.
mark: It is not God the Holy Spirit who imputes Christ’s righteousness to the elect. The legal application of the death of Christ is by God’s imputation, and this takes place both when Abraham is justified (before Christ’s work was done) and also, one by one (individually, not by household) when God justifies the elect after Christ’s cross and resurrection. As Paul writes to the Romans (chapter 16), some of you were “in Christ” before I was.
I certainly agree that faith in the gospel (produced by the Holy Spirit) is not what “makes” or “causes” God’s imputation to happen. But that being said, that imputation of Christ’s finished work has as its immediate result faith in the gospel. At the same time, when there is righteousness, there will be life because of that righteousness. (Romans 8:10)
Nobody is justified eternally. And all the elect were not justified at the time when Christ was justified (2000 years ago). The elect are justified as God legally credits to them Christ’s death.
II Cor 5:21–“Made him to be sin” does not mean that Christ became corrupt. Christ became a sin-offering because all the sins of the elect had been imputed to Him. “That IN HIM we would BECOME the righteousness of God.” The justification Christ has obtained for all the elect has not yet been declared for all the elect.
Since you can’t take faith out of the justification process, then you are back to my question. If the “outward aspect” is not about the person being baptized (but is simply objective and conditional), then why restrict giving that “outward aspect” only to the children of one professing parent? Does the new covenant (or the new adminstration of the one never-changing covenant) have less room for children in it than the old covenants (Abraham, Mosaic) did?
That question is not about what should happen. Faith should happen. The question is not about discerning the “inward aspect”. When circumcision is commanded from Genesis 17 all the way through Nehemiah, and nobody is “cut off” unless they fail to be circumcised, why narrow “the covenant” and exclude the children of unbelieving parents for the sake of some liberal anti-Constantinian notions about “church discipline”? Will this discipline be an attempt to look at the “inward aspect” of one parent? Do you really want to exclude some infants because their parents are immoral? Don’t you remember that baptism is about the objective work of Christ, and not about the parents?
How can baptism be a converting means of grace if you don’t let people have it in the first place? And how can you have any “covenantal leverage” (sanctions) if you let some unbelievers go unbaptized? Since it’s objective and not about the “inward aspect”, why not give baptism to every sinner? And then if they break the “objective” (and conditional) covenant, then the elders can explain to the covenant-breakers that they sinned not only against God’s law but also against God’s “covenantal grace”.
Nobody is born innocent. And nobody is presumed to have been born justified. So on what basis do you keep some out of “the covenant” until they give a creditable profession of faith and justification?
When the Crusade gets to South America, the Christian soldiers CANNOT see the insides of the pagans. So why not just baptize them all? If they refuse the offer of baptism, then “cut them off”.
..
LikeLike
Zrim – So does the Kuyper quote indicate a concession on your part that if theocracy is of the essence of the Reformed confession and if civil disobedience often characterized Reformed practice, that you are not Reformed? Please know that I staunchly reject theocracy as a confusion of cult and culture which violates the covenant of common grace by trying to make God less patient than he has promised to be.
There are two different questions being asked and answered here: the exegetical/theological and the historical. As far as I can tell, nobody is really engaging the former. But all I hear are crickets when I ask fellow Old Lifers about the theocratic default setting of the c16th and c17th Reformed and about their proclivity to violate their confessions by rebelling against the civil magistrate. Or maybe they didn’t believe they were violating their confessions? So will you say that the Westminster Assembly was wrong? If not, why not? Are you still willing to claim that any form of civil disobedience is not Reformed? If so, please help me understand how you have not excommunicated the Westminster divines from Reformed-dom.
CG – my point about authority is simply that when a church subscribes a confession, it says, “We confess that this is what the Bible teaches.” In the c16th and c17th, Reformed churches wrote many confessions. However, today, instead of writing and subscribing a new confession, Reformed churches receive historic confessions in such a way that its officers do not have to subscribe everything the confession says (Pragmatically speaking, I’m glad – I don’t want my pastor believing that the POTUS or the Congress can regulate our church councils). Thus that church seems to have assumed the authority of what must and need not be believed. That starts to sound a bit Roman Catholic to me. Please jump in – anyone – to show me what I am missing here.
Come to think of it – in addition to the Westminster Assembly being an assembly of civil disobedience, I wonder about the desire of the assembly to comprehend as many different viewpoints as were represented there. Don’t we insist that presbyterian ecclesiology is of the essence of Reformed theology? So what does it mean that the assembly sought to accommodate Independents and even invited some Anglicans? Was this a function of it being the creature of the civil magistrate? Would such accommodation/comprehension have been sought had it been a purely cultic assembly? Does this also account for hypothetical universalists like John Davenant who participated in the Synod of Dort?
LikeLike
Chris, does WCF 31 actually teach Presbyterian church government? There’s nothing there about a hierarchy of courts, nor on the membership of those courts. But some of it does look Erastian.
The Assembly’s “Form of church government” (1645) does teach Presbyterian church government, but it’s not commonly regarded as a confessional standard.
I would submit that the WCF is not distinctively Presbyterian, though it has been adopted by Presbyterian churches throughout its history. I’m still happy to call it Reformed, despite its being written by men, convening in an act of civil disobedience, representing multiple and competing ecclesiological preferences, who finally settled on Erastianism.
By the way, WCF 31:2 explains why the divines thought they could meet in defiance of Charles I, who had commanded them not to do so. But interestingly, the language is that of “may” not “ought.”
LikeLike
Zrim, here’s an interesting thought: the Savoy Declaration (1658), largely a revision of the WCF under the supervision of John Owen, drops WCF 20:4 in its entirety:
“And because the powers which God has ordained, and the liberty which Christ has purchased are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ has established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the Church. and by the power of the civil magistrate.”
Owen, leading his congregation of Republican officers in Wallington House, would shortly bring down a government – that of Richard Cromwell – for what it’s worth.
A couple of days ago you asked whether anyone could find a Reformed confession allowing civil disobedience. We talked about whether the behaviour of the Westminster divines undermined their ostensible commitments in 20:4. But here is John Owen, Thomas Goodwin, and a host of other Reformed theological worthies, significantly revising the earlier text (under a different name – so no false advertising, Erik!) to allow for precisely this option.
Does the Savoy count as Reformed confession?
LikeLike
Chris – Could one not make the point that in both Europe at the time of the Reformation and in England at the time of Westminster there were legitimate debates going on as to who the legitimate magistrate was? In Germany Luther was protected by a prince. In England there was a power struggle between the king and parliament. In our day you can make the same case – The Magistrates are constantly changing and we the people are within our rights to change them through elections.
LikeLike
Perhaps Jesus’ and Paul’s point was to not be a bonehead and resist legitimate requirements that the magistrate puts upon you – pay taxes, obey basic laws, etc. Some people in our day could not say anything good about Obama if their lives depended on it. He was at ISU and my daughter briefly met him and someone snapped a picture. She posted it on Facebook and some Christian people acted as if she had had her picture taken with Satan himself.
LikeLike
Erik, sorry to jump in on your point to Chris, but the way you put the question indicates you’ve already taken a side in the conflict. The “power struggle between the king and parliament” could not be understood to be a “legitimate debate … as to who the legitimate magistrate was” if you supported the monarchy against parliament. English royalists understood exactly who was the “legitimate magistrate” and the supporters of Parliament – including the Westminster divines who assembled in contravention of Charles’ instruction – were simply rebels. The people had no “right” to change the magistrate. I think that’s also Zrim’s point? Seventeenth-century England wasn’t a democracy like modern-day America.
LikeLike
Erik C: Some people in our day could not say anything good about Obama if their lives depended on it. He was at ISU and my daughter briefly met him and someone snapped a picture. She posted it on Facebook and some Christian people acted as if she had had her picture taken with Satan himself.
RS: Well…. Did he offer her some fruit? Did he promise her that she could be as God? Did he tell her that with Obamacare she would not die?
LikeLike
Chris, my point with the Kuyper quote was to put some muscle into the Reformed ethic of sola scriptura, which is to say, the Bible doesn’t teach theocracy (or theonomy). And if we really believe that the Reformed confessions are the most superior reflections on earth of what the Bible teaches then any hint of it must go. And if any confession refuses to do so then call it whatever you like (“Reformed”), but we should then be sooner willing to let the hallowed name go then attach it and ourselves to unbiblical teaching.
The reason for the crickets is that I, for one, am assuming the exegetical/theological questions which are decidedly opposed to theocracy/theonomy in favor of 2k. And I am content to leave it to others to speculate as to what the c16th and c17th Reformed believed they were doing (to say nothing of excommunicating them). All I am saying is that I do not see any room given whatsoever in what they wrote for civil disobedience. Further, that this seems quite consonant with biblical teaching. I will say this though: it is one thing to get a doctrine right, another to practice it perfectly. I make plenty of room for sinners to screw up. And as I suggested earlier, I make plenty of room for a distinction between disagreement and disobedience (don’t get me started on our local leash laws).
LikeLike
CG, Savoy may have dropped WCF 20.4, but it retained 23.4 (and moved it to 24.4 “Of The Civil Magistrate”), which says:
“It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates, to honour their persons, to pay them tribute and other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority for conscience sake. Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrate’s just and legal authority, nor free the people from their obedience to him: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted, much less hath the Pope any power or jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people, and least of all to deprive them of their dominions or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretence whatsoever.”
So I don’t think you’ve found anything here that allows for civil disobedience. It also affirms paedobaptism. Whatever else might be said of Savoy, those two traits are Reformed.
LikeLike
C.G. – Hadn’t some form of Parliament been around in England since 1066? Make a Biblical case for the legitimacy of the Monarch vs. the legitimacy of a Parliament. Isn’t it the nature of politics that these messy issues get worked out on the ground vs. us having clear instructions from God? In the U.S. some people would like to make the case that Scripture clearly says what the level of taxation should be or what the government should or should not be doing, but this group (at Oldlife) generally is skeptical of such notions.
LikeLike
RS, all of those passages demonstrate what you claim in that post: that the promises of God were given to Abraham and his descendents.
None of those passages demonstrate what you claimed in the previous post, that the promises of the covenant with Abraham can be divided into “physical aspect” and “spiritual aspect.” To get there, you would need to show, for example, that the physical descendents of Abraham were not expected to also partake of the spiritual aspect of the covenant.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle RS, all of those passages demonstrate what you claim in that post: that the promises of God were given to Abraham and his descendents.
None of those passages demonstrate what you claimed in the previous post, that the promises of the covenant with Abraham can be divided into “physical aspect” and “spiritual aspect.” To get there, you would need to show, for example, that the physical descendents of Abraham were not expected to also partake of the spiritual aspect of the covenant.
RS: Clearly, then, from the verses that I have given in the post just above the nation of Israel was in fact part of a national or physical covenant that was made with Abraham. The spiritual aspect is set out in the verses that speak to the circumcised heart and then the verses from the New Testament that spoke of the seed of Abraham as being singular which was Christ. Then the teaching that one has to be in Christ to be a child of Abraham and then have a circumcised heart to be a descendent of Abraham. So we have a covenant with Abraham as having a physical line and the covenant with Abraham as having a spiritual line. The physical or national covenant was abrogated and now we have the spritual aspect of the covenant.
I don’t think that I have to show that the physical descendents were not expected to partake of the spiriutal aspect of the covenant since the spiritual aspect was with the elect. Abraham had both spiritual descendents and physical descendents. At this point and time whether one is a spiritual descedent of not one must be a spiritual descendent of Abraham, that is, one must be in His seed and that was/is Christ. The physical descendents looked to the animal sacrifices and there were benefits, but only those that looked to Christ had spiritual benefit. But the true descendents of Abraham have always been of promise that came by grace and that promise is certain to all the spiritual seed of Abraham.
After the cross the physical descendent was gone and the nation of Israel was gone. Now we have Christ who was the fulfillment of the physical descendents in that He came in human flesh but He was and is the seed of Abraham in the spiritual sense. All are elected in Christ or they are not in the New Covenant at all. It is in Christ and the New Covenant or out of Christ. Those who are born again are not born again because of their physical parents (John 1:12-13) of the covenant with them, but because of God’s eternal covenant that we see carried out in Abraham and with his seed (Christ) and all who are one with Him.
LikeLike
Savoy moved 23.4 to 24.4 “:
“It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates, to honour their persons, to pay them tribute and other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority for conscience sake. Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrate’s just and legal authority, nor free the people from their obedience to him: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted, much less hath the Pope any power or jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people, and least of all to deprive them of their dominions or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretence whatsoever.”
Which credobaptist ever objected to this theory? Which pacifist (non-resistant, submissive to evil) anabaptist ever denied God’s providence to put the powers (including the devil and death) in their place? Unless of course you are still insisting on defining all anabaptists (and even all credobaptists) by the violent rebels in Munster (as opposed to John Owen and those who took off the head of a king).
LikeLike
Sure, the solution is to make a distinction between theory and praxis. Don’t be fooled by the anabaptists’ actually being loyal to King George during the Reformed led (Witherspoon) Revolution, because their praxis only hides the sedition inherent in all anabaptist ecclesiastical theory.
Another solution is to read the Old Testament as if it were the New, put Romans 9 beside what Genesis 17 actually says, and then conclude that the Abrahamic covenant excluded people who did not believe the gospel. So Ishmael was circumcised in an “objective conditional” way, but with the warning that he and his mother would be “cut off” if they did not continue to (or begin to) believe the gospel?
Thus the Reformed theory of baptism is read into and imposed on Genesis 17. The circumcision says nothing about Ishmael. The circumcision only says something objective about the promise of “the covenant”. And it’s best to ignore the plurality of the promises and also that these promises are made to Abraham. Because “objective promises” to Abraham won’t get you to he “one conditional promise about the gospel” which is given to everyone in Abraham’s household. So it’s best to skip quickly over the redemptive-historical significance of Abraham as the father of the seed to come (who will be the redeemer), and translate “the promise” so that it’s no longer unconditional and only to Abraham, so that it becomes conditional and to every parent who professes to be a Christian.
So then “the promise” has both a primary and a secondary meaning. When you are talking to dumb credobaptists, you stress the primary and objective meaning, that this is not about who is being baptized, not about the infants themselves or their parents. But when you are talking to Roman Catholics or other Constantinians, then you do want to talk about the faith of the infants, or at least the faith of the parents, or at least their “creditable professions”.
So when the credobaptists say, wait for creditable profession concerning doctrine, you say no, the baptism has an efficacy— even if doesn’t cause faith, it increases faith. But when the liberal Constantinians say, then let’s baptize them all because baptism is God’s work (not ours) and God will save through the power of the water, you say no, not that kind of efficacy…
And so you play both sides of the street, and your Confessions confuse even your own people into going too far in either tradition, which means that you need some sacerdotalism so that your people can be told what their confessions mean (when compared with each other) even though these people sometimes have Nevin for their clergyman and other times have Hodge (and Thornwell)
LikeLike
Marky Mark, nobody has said civil disobedience was a credo-baptist affliction. But when you ask what Anabaptist was ever so afflicted, well, it had to be some sort of AB according to Belgic 36:
“And on this matter [civil disobedience] we denounce the Anabaptists, other anarchists, and in general all those who want to reject the authorities and civil officers and to subvert justice by introducing common ownership of goods and corrupting the moral order that God has established among human beings.”
Unless you’re saying de Bres was a liar and that all the Reformed churches have ever since aid and abet his false witness?
LikeLike
Calvin: The first object, therefore, for which it is appointed by the Lord, is to be a sign and evidence of OUR purification, or (better to explain my meaning) it is a kind of sealed instrument by which he assures US that all OUR sins are so deleted, covered, and effaced, that they will never come into his sight, never be mentioned, never imputed. For it is his will that all who have believed be baptised for the remission of sins (Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38)
jeff: yes, it does say our and us, therefore there is a subjective meaning, which is about us and about our justification, we who are being watered, but remember that this is not the primary meaning, because the primary idea is “all who believe” and the water is not telling anybody that they specifically and in particular have had their sins deleted. And credobaptism can’t do that either.
mark: And of course I agree, but why then does Calvin about us and our sins. Is Calvin talking about the sins of every sinner ever born in this world, or only about the sins of those who are baptized? When Christ died for “our sins”, does that mean that Christ died for every sinner in order to make to them a conditional proposal of grace? Or to get to the point, is “baptism for the remission of sins” mean baptism in order to that remission, or baptism because of remission, or neither, or both?
.
Calvin: Hence those who have thought that baptism is nothing else than the badge and mark by which we profess our religion before men, in the same way as soldiers attest their profession by bearing the insignia of their commander, have not attended to what was the principal thing
in baptism; and this is, that we are to receive it in connection with the promise, “He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved,” (Mark 16: 16.) — Calvin Inst 4.15.
mark:Well, there will always be those hung up on the origin of words not used in the Bible like “sacrament”, but clearly Calvin is talking about both seditious anabaptists (martyrs who wouldn’t worship the “bread-god”, and also Constantinian Zwinglians). And the point is that the water is not merely objective, in the sense of telling sinners that they need to believe, and it’s not them saying that they believe, but it’s “more” than that, which is where it gets a bit tricky, because on the one hand we want to hold on to the efficacy of the baptisms we ourselves already got as infants from the pope, but on the other hand, we want to retain as much of the language as possible while at the same time “tweaking” the efficacy theory so that we can what it is not, even if we can’t rationally explain what it is….
jeff: Now if you were to read this in isolation, you might think Calvvin is saying, “the primary thing in baptism is to tell us that our sins are forgiven. Baptism is evidence of or the cause of cleansing.”
Calvin: God did not mean to intimate that our ablution and salvation are perfected by water, or that water possesses in itself the virtue of purifying, regenerating, and renewing; nor does he mean that it is the cause of salvation, but only that the knowledge and certainty of such gifts are perceived in this sacrament.
mark: The knowledge and certainty that God has such gifts for some people, but not the knowledge that these gifts are for us who are baptized? Is Calvin here talking about the “seal” which objectively says that the gospel is true and its promises true for as many as believe it? Or is talking about some increase of assurance that the person themselves baptized have their own sins remitted?
Calvin: And Peter immediately subjoins, that that baptism is ” not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, which is of faith.” Nay, the only purification
which baptism promises is by means of the sprinkling of the blood of Christ, who is figured by water from the resemblance to cleansing and washing. Who, then, can say that we are cleansed by that water which certainly attests that the blood of Christ is our true and only laver?
mark: I love that “the only purification”. I like merelys and solas! Only the death of Christ takes away sins. It’s not Kobe Bryant and me together. It’s Christ alone, and not the water, which is what has caused sins to be taken away if those sins have indeed been taken away. So when Calvin says that the blood is “our only hope”, he is NOT saying that the water has some non-primary significance which assures us that we ourselves believe. So why not baptize everybody? But wait!
Calvin: For inasmuch as it is appointed to elevate, nourish, and confirm our faith, we are to receive it as from the hand of its author, being firmly persuaded that it is himself who speaks to
US by means of the sign; that it is himself who washes and purifies US, and effaces the remembrance of our faults; that it is himself who makes US the partakers of his death, destroys the kingdom of Satan, subdues the power of concupiscence, nay, makes US one with himself,that being clothed with him WE are accounted the children of God.
mark: And Tonto asks Ishmael and Isaac, who is that “us” Calvin is talking about it. It’s all of “us”, isn’t it? Or is it all of who believe, whoever that turns out to be? Or is the “us” those of us born to one parent with a creditable profession of faith? You may remember, that both my parents were exterminated by Christians before they ever heard the gospel. Do you also believe in credobaptism, or do you only the “God saves by grace” kind, which is for infants?
LikeLike
Zrim,
Not to re-open old wounds or anything, but certain types of CD have been embraced by the Reformed tradition going back to the very begining. Beza himself developed a Reformed criteria for civil disobedience based on his understanding of NL. Reformed Resistance Theorists have been used by DVD to demonstrate that NL has figured prominently in Christ and Culture configurations in the Reformed Tradition, even if he doesn’t hold to the conclusions of RRT advocates. Wherever you land on the matter of CD, you are likely to find some attesting source in the tradition. To me, whether or not one engages in CD of any sort, or refrains must be borne out from conscience, and ethical reasoning based on biblical reflection and a sense of what might (or might not) be appropriate in a given situation. I don’t particularly care to dive too much into this discussion, but suffice to say, your position is certainly attested in Reformed history, however, it is not the only position out there. But, in this case, it seems like you are trying to use Scripture to norm a cultural position, when typically you would argue NL is the best route to navigate non-ecclesiastical matters.
LikeLike
RS: Clearly, then, from the verses that I have given in the post just above the nation of Israel was in fact part of a national or physical covenant that was made with Abraham.
No, that’s not clear. The words “national” and “physical” just aren’t in the text. They are a construct that you’re adding to the text.
Which is fine, if they are a necessary inference from the text. However, I’m not seeing the necessity, and you haven’t (yet) provided an argument for their necessity.
LikeLike
And on this matter [civil disobedience] we denounce the Anabaptists, other anarchists, and in general all those who want to reject the authorities and civil officers and to subvert justice by introducing common ownership of goods and corrupting the moral order that God has established among human beings.”
Zirm: Unless you’re saying de Bres was a liar and that all the Reformed churches have ever since aid and abet his false witness?
mark: Is it a lie when you repeat a lie but think it’s the truth? Are people lying when they tell you that Reagan never raised taxes and balanced the budget? If you read Verduin, or George H Williams, or Franklin Littell, they will explain to you how all anabaptists have been slandered with being the same as certain gnostic and antinomian sects which existed a thousand years before Zwingli did Bible study with Blaurock, Grebel, Mantz, and Sattler. Not many who have subscribed to Reformed Confessions have been told much at all about these anabaptists, and what they have been told is mostly not true.
if I should happen to hear one Christian Reformed pastor tell us that the Lord Jesus was sure to come last year, is there any reason I can’t explain how Christian Reformed people are into apocalytpic false predictions and that this kind of thing is inherent in being Christian Reformed? And when you say, well Camping wasn’t really Christian Reformed, I could say, so now you are taking it on yourself to say which ones are the real Reformed and the real anabaptist, and if you disagree with what I have said about Christian Reformed false predictions,are you calling me a liar?
And you can’t just back out, and say, well I know that not all anabaptists practice what they preach, they are not really all trying to replace the state and make people all be pacifists, but there must have been one which did that, and anyway it’s inherent in their theory.
it’s like a loaded deck of cards. Throw some accusations against the wall and see what sticks. if Leithart says he wants Constantine back, then that must be what all Reformed people want or should want if they were consistently Reformed. I am NOT saying that.
But Reformation churches have repeated such slanders for years. Not all anabaptists are Hutterites, and Hutterites are not anarchists. Nor do they believe or practice marriage in common. But some anabaptist somewhere must have done that, or else some Reformed confessions would be less than inerrant, and then you would either have to compare one confession with another or even revise them….
LikeLike
Chris: Don’t we insist that presbyterian ecclesiology is of the essence of Reformed theology?
Todd: No, Presbyterian church government has always been considered bene esse (for the well being) of the church and gospel, not esse (essential) to the church and gospel.
LikeLike
Jed, what took you so long? But as I’ve said, I am aware that there are various political and historical theories and precedents for resistance. It just isn’t clear to me how any of it squares with either the confessional articulations or biblical witness.
But two things on your point about NL navigating non-ecclesiastical matters: 1) You and I both know it’s misguided, but there is a worry that 2k ignores biblical ethics for the public square. Whatever else could be said, my point here serves to show that 2kers are cognizant of what the Bible has to say about our civil engagement. 2) If both natural and special revelation are always in harmony then it would seem to follow that natural law reveals just as clearly the virtue of obedience and the vice of disobedience. If that’s true then natural law can do for my point everything the Bible does.
LikeLike
Mark, fair enough. How about we keep the repudiation of the Anabaptist error in Belgic 34 (because baptism is of the essence to both camps) but edit 36 to avoid slander?
LikeLike
I guess when we get to the 17th page of comments it makes sense that at least two debates would be going on at the same time, neither of which has anything to do with the original post. Funny stuff.
LikeLike
Erik,
I’ll say this for the particular baptists, they like them some debate on paedobaptism. I happened to marry a girl from that upbringing, and any conversation with her family about da*@ near anything can become an argument about how the poor presbies can’t get over there Romish hangover. Of course with my background, I get the; “of course you believe in it, we’re still looking for your rosary beads, we know you still have ’em.” It’s the never-ending, perpetual conversation at every family function. Of course they can’t get along with their particularist’s brethren either, so they sit in the PCA pew every week essentially in protest.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: Clearly, then, from the verses that I have given in the post just above the nation of Israel was in fact part of a national or physical covenant that was made with Abraham.
Jeff Cagle: No, that’s not clear. The words “national” and “physical” just aren’t in the text. They are a construct that you’re adding to the text.
Which is fine, if they are a necessary inference from the text. However, I’m not seeing the necessity, and you haven’t (yet) provided an argument for their necessity.
RS: Of course the specific words may not have been there, but when the nation of Israel is told to look back to Abraham that is a nation and it was a physical nation. Not all of the nation of Israel were in Christ (in fact, it appears that very few were) and so they were not of the covenant of the elect in which the Spirit (and therefore, spiritual) applied Christ and then dwelt in as His temple. I am not sure how it could be stated with a greater degree of clarity without using the exact words you are looking for.
LikeLike
Todd – So are you saying that one can have Reformed theology without Reformed ecclesiology?
CG – No, I didn’t mean to make that mistake twice. I was simply assuming that most Old Lifers would call the Westminster Standards a Reformed document. Operating from that assumption, some of ways in which the Assembly formulated (or didn’t formulate) statements, the membership of the Assembly, and the desire to be as inclusive of all of that as possible doesn’t sound like contemporary Reformed theology/ecclesiology. But that brings me back to my question: Is that because the Assembly was not an ecclesiastical body, but a creature of the civil magistrate?
Zrim – I’m with you on the fact that theonomy, theocracy (or, as I prefer, “the confusion of cult and culture”) are unbiblical. I think I hear you saying that if the theocratic principle was of the essence of c16th and c17th Reformed confessions such that it was non-negotiable (as indicated by its being elevated to confessional status), then we may not be Reformed. I, too, am willing to follow the Bible.
It is precisely that that makes me question your statement to the effect that any form of civil disobedience is not Reformed. It is not biblical – but who is certain that it is not Reformed?
LikeLike
JRC: we who are being watered
Did I really say “being watered”? Man, my sleep situation is worse than I thought.
Mark: Or to get to the point, is “baptism for the remission of sins” mean baptism in order to that remission, or baptism because of remission, or neither
Neither. Neither baptism as instrument of remission, nor baptism because sins have been remitted, but baptism as a sign and seal of remission.
The key is to see baptism as an efficacious symbol. Symbol, because its function is to preach the gospel in liquid form. Efficacious because it uniquely signs and seals the truth of that promise (like a royal seal. Baptism says, “The gospel promise is from the king of the church. It is trustworthy.”)
Therefore, when the promise is believed, the benefit is received.
The efficacy of baptism is like the efficacy of the preached word.
Mark McC: Is Calvin here talking about the “seal” which objectively says that the gospel is true and its promises true for as many as believe it?
Yes.
MMcC: Or is it all of who believe, whoever that turns out to be?
Yes.
MMcC: Or is the “us” those of us born to one parent with a creditable profession of faith?
No. Remember Ishmael. I believe that Calvin’s stance is that children of believers are presumed elect (in the salvific sense) until they prove they are not. This would be parallel to what happened under Abraham. Esau was presumed to be elect until he sold his birthright.
MMcC: Do you also believe in credobaptism, or do you only the “God saves by grace” kind, which is for infants?
Sorry, I didn’t follow this question. Are you asking whether I would accept re-baptizing? Or are you asking if I believe that an unbaptized adult who professes faith should be baptized?
MMcC: You may remember, that both my parents were exterminated by Christians before they ever heard the gospel.
No, I did not know that!!! Wow. Story?
LikeLike
Zrim,
If both natural and special revelation are always in harmony then it would seem to follow that natural law reveals just as clearly the virtue of obedience and the vice of disobedience. If that’s true then natural law can do for my point everything the Bible does.
And this is where we disagree, because, while I would consider myself a CD minimalist, meaning there are very few instances where I think it would actually be warranted, I do think that Scripture also allows for it in some instances where the ethical ramifications for disobedience to the state are preferable to obedience – even while generally condemning it. Much of this won’t translate well into a blog discussion though, since it has to do with a more detailed discussion of legal ethics, enforcability, and how there are times in Scripture when the “lighter” command is suspended when in conflict with the “weightier elements of the law”.
So, while I can acknowledge your position as 1) a valid expression of 2k ethics; and 2) a freedom you certainly have with respect to conscience. I cannot grant that it is normative, or that there aren’t valid arguments for the validity of at least some expressions of CD. The fact that the Reformed tradition is so diverse on the question of CD, and the limits (or lack thereof) on the believer’s responsibility to the state makes me think that we won’t resolve this matter here, as it appears to me to be owing to very different consciences on the matter.
I simply chimed in here to offer the flip-side to the discussion – that in this issue of Christ and culture, there is legitimate room for disagreement in the 2k camp. With Stellman gone, it does weaken my ability to cite a contemporary 2ker whose views on the matter comport with mine – but, that’s another story. I’ll let you guys take it up from here, and chime in if I feel like I need to – which I am not so inclined toward right now.
LikeLike
RS: Of course the specific words may not have been there, but when the nation of Israel is told to look back to Abraham that is a nation and it was a physical nation. Not all of the nation of Israel were in Christ (in fact, it appears that very few were) and so they were not of the covenant of the elect in which the Spirit (and therefore, spiritual) applied Christ and then dwelt in as His temple. I am not sure how it could be stated with a greater degree of clarity without using the exact words you are looking for.
Here’s why it’s not nearly as clear as you might think.
(1) As noted before, the Scripture doesn’t actually come out and say that there are two aspects to the covenant with Abraham. So already, we’re alert to the possibility that we might be over-reading or nudging the text a bit. Certainly, some words and phrases have two meanings (“fear” and “fear”). But we have to be careful. The “two aspects” view needs a high bar of evidence.
(2) If we were to grant two aspects, then we would note that there are two distinct conditions and two distinct types of blessings for these two aspects. The “physical aspect” has the condition of parentage and the blessing of real estate. The “spiritual aspect” has the condition of faith and the blessing of being God’s child.
(3) However, God does not treat Israel according to this distinction. Physical descendents of Abraham are routinely cut out of the covenant people because of lack of faith. Likewise, non-physical-descendents (e.g. Ruth) are brought into the covenant people because of their faith.
And in the end, the entire nation-state is obliterated because of lack of faith. Yet this does not end the promise of real estate! (Rom 4).
God, as it turns out, is no respecter of the distinction between the aspects!
To my mind, this clearly falsifies the “aspects” theory and puts us in the position of needing a new theory of the covenant with Abraham.
(looks over at new theory waiting in the left wing)
LikeLike
Sean – My inlaws are atheists so we mostly talk about football & movies. We get along great.
LikeLike
“So are you saying that one can have Reformed theology without Reformed ecclesiology?”
Chris,
Reformed ecclesiology is a broader category than Presbyterian ecclesiology, which is what you originally stated. One can be Reformed without being Presbyterian. Reformed theology certainly includes ecclesiology, but a certain church government is not of the essence of the gospel or reformed theology is all I’m saying.
LikeLike
Chris, certainty about what is Reformed may be the first mistake. Maybe it’s more a matter of learning from history. That said, there seem to be three doctrines on the table in relation to the question of what is Reformed (or what the Reformed confessions teach): paedobaptism, civil obedience, and theocracy. The first two seem to have survived history, while the third has not. Maybe it should be the other way around or another combination—maybe there is a form of civil disobedience that is Reformed. But the reality is that civil disobedience has never been affirmed throughout confessional history. I think that says something, especially if we believe that Christ has promised to gift his church to lead into all truth.
We could go the route of Rome and claim infallibility to solve it. But aide from the obvious problems with that, history seems a better guide, even if it only provides assurance as opposed to guaranteeing certainty.
LikeLike
Jed, thanks.
You say this: “I do think that Scripture also allows for it in some instances where the ethical ramifications for disobedience to the state are preferable to obedience – even while generally condemning it.” It may be more a matter of language, but as I’ve said, when it is the apparent case that there is a clear conflict between what the state and God demand, the latter obviously trumps the former. But I don’t think it’s helpful to construe this so much as civil disobedience as it is to obey God rather than men. In other words, the Bible only and ever teaches obedience, so what is there to be gained by casting anything we do as disobedience. It’s misleading and confusing.
LikeLike
Gents, I’ve been reading this blog for years without always paying attention to the details, so forgive me that I don’t get the code language about CDs and DVDs. I know you all like music and films, but I suspect you’re using these abbreviations in more precise ways that are flying right past me.
Zrim, you say that “there seem to be three doctrines on the table in relation to the question of what is Reformed (or what the Reformed confessions teach): paedobaptism, civil obedience, and theocracy. The first two seem to have survived history, while the third has not.”
The point you make can only be made in America (I think!), where denominations have so thoroughly purged the theocracy from their not-always-acknowledged revised confessions. But here in the British Isles the Presbyterian denominations that continue to take seriously the WCF do maintain its establishment claims. In fact it is disputes about how those claims should work that have torn apart the Presbyterian denominations in Scotland, both historically and much more recently. And they all certainly believe they are “Reformed,” just as you do.
So I’m still searching for a usable definition of “Reformed.” Do we need different definitions for different territories? Are Scottish or Irish Covenanters, who hold to the theocratic responsibilities of the state, now less “Reformed” than their American brethren who don’t? Are we in danger of setting up a stadial theory of the development of a theological identity, in which a position which we agree is entirely outside the parameters of the c16th or c17th confessions becomes the new norm by which every other claim to the label must be measured? That’s what I’m seeing, I think. But it’s ironic that it’s American exceptionalism (all the talk about the US constitution on this thread!) that becomes the measure of the rest of us. We’re being measured against your progress, and found wanting. (I speak in general terms.)
I would be helped a lot if folks on this thread could propose a definition of “Reformed” which takes seriously the early modern historical realities of confessional origins, confessional revision within particular denominations, geographical and historical variation across the denominations, and the biblicist impulse which (rightly) wants to keep symbolic standards subordinate and always open to revision.
I still think it’s easier to say “Reformed” means adherence to one of the relevant reformation-era confessions, and that the “neo-Reformed” are those who receive those confessions with different and competing qualifications. I think that’s fair to everyone, and allows for the geographical and historical variations we’re talking about. It might also allow baptists to use the label if they wish to. I don’t think “Reformed” ever did or can now mean anything totally static. It’s much less irreducible than we’re thinking, and can allow for revisions which take confessors entirely outside the permitted range of earlier generations.
LikeLike
Zrim, sorry to bother you with another one. But if “we believe that Christ has promised to gift his church to lead into all truth,” how do we account for the fact that the dozen believers who formed the first baptist church in the English speaking world in 1609 (or so) have theological descendants now numbering about half a billion (give or take)?
LikeLike
CG, I don’t see how your quest for Reformed cohesion really works in Protestantville with its fallible eccesiology. It doesn’t even really work in Catholic-land with infallibility (maybe in the CtC mind). Something short of global unity is all we can really manage in the militant age.
And I’m not sure numbers are the proof of Christ’s preservation so much as consonance with the Bible. I mean, the RCC is pretty big, but…
LikeLike
I am not going to complain about the selective quotation. But sometimes it does help us if we read what the person wrote that we chose not to quote.
MMcC: Do you also believe in credobaptism, or do you only the “God saves by grace” kind, which is for infants?
Sorry, I didn’t follow this question. Are you asking whether I would accept re-baptizing? Or are you asking if I believe that an unbaptized adult who professes faith should be baptized?
mark: This is a very long thread and if you read back far enough, you will get to a discussion not only of “none of us are Constantinians anymore” but also to the often given assurance by paedobaptists that they too are credobaptists. They too will baptize the unbaptized.. (For your good and because it does me no harm, I will repeat my analogy to John Piper claiming that he is both Arminian plus more, also Calvinist.).
So the paedobaptists tell us today–none of us are Constantinian anymore, so we no longer agree with Nehemiah in sending the pagan wives back to their own territory, indeed we have always been ready to circumcise the stranger but now we will accept that stranger into the public square even if they don’t get circumcised.
To get to the point, the paedobaptists are saying to the credobaptists–we have all that you have and more, we do the credobaptism also, plus the best kind of baptism, which of course is still paedobaptism.
Again, I am not only pointing to the patronizing attitude. The point is that what we call “baptism” is not the same. The paedobaptists like to say that credobaptism (not the kind they do, but the kind that those who don’t do infants do) is a sign of Arminian free will. And then they say (I think this was not Jeff but Erick) now show me that you really believe in sovereign grace by baptizing babies. This is the context for my remarks.
Unless you begin to baptize babies, we are going to keep thinking you don’t really believe in sovereign grace. One, so what’s happening when a paedobaptist also does credobaptism? Is that the paedobaptist also being an Arminian? Two, if you say that paedobaptism is what really shows that a person believes in grace, then you seem to have two different baptisms. The infant kind, which is about grace. And then the kind for those who have already believed the gospel, which is not about grace but about man. And so, by baptizing your infants, you are trying to make sure there will be as few credobaptisms as possible (even if you do them on occasion).
I think it would be best if we disagree about the subjects of baptism, without accusing each other of not really believing in sovereign grace, or of being still too close to Romanism or to free-will theology. That kind of generalization is not going to be helpful. I mean, I have asked several times if the “objective” (not about the persons) promise and efficacy of baptism is “conditional”, and nobody has really answered that, except to say yes, it’s objective, and yes also the promise is only for those who believe it.
If we really want to avoid Arminian theology, we need some more instruction in this area. How do we keep the “conditionality” into turning into salvation depending on the sinner? And if the efficacy which meets the “condition” is God’s sovereign call, how does water play any real role in that? Does God given faith make the baptism effective? Or does the baptism make something effective which would not be effected only by the Spirit and the Word? And if so, why not give that effective water to every sinner?
Yes, I feel somewhat “bummed” to be told that the ultimate way I can prove that I believe in election is to baptize babies. From the outside looking, it seems to me the more ultimate test in many “Reformed” churches is to never say the word election, but only to say “us” or “if you believe” or “covenant” (without the “condition” word, even though that seems to be implied). This is what Norm Shepherd counseled.
Talk about Christ’s atonement only for the elect, that kind of talk is cheap, since we never really know who is elect, so we don’t talk that way much, and instead go to the idea of “covenant baptism” to find out who’s really Reformed (though of course again you can never really know, maybe Arminians are Reformed on the inside).
MMcC: You may remember, that both my parents were exterminated by Christians before they ever heard the gospel.
No, I did not know that!!! Wow. Story?
mark: Again, if you look back to what I wrote and what you left out. It was Tonto’s parents who were ‘”cut off”. Tonto was talking to Isaac and his brother Ishmael. And this was after Ishmael the teenager had been circumcised but before he had been “cut off”. I am all for reading Romans 9. Not all Abraham’s children are Abraham’s children.
But both his chidren were circumcised. Tonto is not in my copy of Genesis 17 (or Romans 9) either. My point is that Tonto was never circumcised. So there is no sacramental efficacy for Tonto. Tonto without circumcision is going to be dependent only on the Holy Spirit and God’s effectual call
If Ishmael were to circumcise Tonto (before Ishmael is cut off), sure that circumcision would still be valid after Ishmael is cut off (no Donatists here). But in a way it’s already too late. Isn’t the circumcision of converts (rather than infants) a sign of human free will and a rejection of sovereign grace?
Am I sarcastic? It’s not that difficult to drive me to it…..
LikeLike
MMcC: I am not going to complain about the selective quotation. But sometimes it does help us if we read what the person wrote that we chose not to quote.
It’s a fair cop. To be honest, I’ve been dodging the Constantinian thread on this post. Perhaps I should mend my ways.
MMcC: Do you also believe in credobaptism, or do you only the “God saves by grace” kind, which is for infants? … [I]f you say that paedobaptism is what really shows that a person believes in grace, then you seem to have two different baptisms. The infant kind, which is about grace. And then the kind for those who have already believed the gospel, which is not about grace but about man.
Ah, now I understand your question. No, I would say that there is one kind of baptism only, the kind that upholds the promises of God and seals them as being true.
That one baptism, whether of infants or adults, is conditionally efficacious — only upon faith is its benefit received. The meeting of that condition is monergistically accomplished.
Now here is where I have been hotly disputed by other Reformed folk (David Gadbois, Bob Mattes), and I want to mark this section as my own opinion.
BEGIN Caveat lector.
My own opinion is that the best way to think about baptismal efficacy is as follows:
(1) Baptism signs and seals the promises.
(2) Baptism takes effect when the promise is believed.
(3) Therefore, baptism’s efficacy can reasonably be said to occur either before or after the actual action BECAUSE its efficacy is not instrumental, but “in content.” If the promise has been believed, the baptism has had its effect.
David G thinks I’m nuts — something about “time-traveling sacraments” — but my point is, if we are serious about baptism as sign and seal and NOT instrument, then we should tie the “efficacy” to the moment of conveyance of what is signed. It is the content, the meaning, of baptism and not the washing of water that is effective.
For what its worth, my view has the effect of retaining one meaning for baptism of both adults and of children.
END caveat lector.
LikeLike
CG, I know Presbys in Ireland and Scotland still talk about establishment, but is it really not a bit hollow? After all, Westminster didn’t talk about establishment. Of course, they didn’t have to. But the Free Church has to talk about establishment because it contemplated what the Divines never could — a church free from the very magistrate that the Westminster Confession says may call synods and councils. I do appreciate cautions about American exceptionalism which is something that flows generally from American provincialism. But in my reading of all the Reformed churches since 1800, they have all asserted the independence of the church from the state for the sake of the Lordship of Christ in ways that would have been incomprehensible to sixteenth century Reformers (and even to Anabaptists).
So I do think that all of the Reformed churches have gotten over Christendom (even if they haven’t gotten over a Xian America or a Xian Scotland). No one is contemplating an alliance with the monarchy against parliament or vice versa which will lead to civil war. This is establishmentarianism or theocracy for wimps.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle Quoting RS: Of course the specific words may not have been there, but when the nation of Israel is told to look back to Abraham that is a nation and it was a physical nation. Not all of the nation of Israel were in Christ (in fact, it appears that very few were) and so they were not of the covenant of the elect in which the Spirit (and therefore, spiritual) applied Christ and then dwelt in as His temple. I am not sure how it could be stated with a greater degree of clarity without using the exact words you are looking for.
Jeff Cagle: Here’s why it’s not nearly as clear as you might think.
(1) As noted before, the Scripture doesn’t actually come out and say that there are two aspects to the covenant with Abraham. So already, we’re alert to the possibility that we might be over-reading or nudging the text a bit. Certainly, some words and phrases have two meanings (“fear” and “fear”). But we have to be careful. The “two aspects” view needs a high bar of evidence.
RS: In Romans 1 God does not come right out and condemn homosexuality by name either. But it is described quite well. I don’t think of myself as over-reading or nudging the text to see homosexuality spoken of there. I am not sure why the “two aspects” view needs such a high bar of evidence. There is no real over-reading and no nudging of the texts of Scripture to simply see what Scripture sets out. God had a people that consititued the nation of Israel and He had an elect people. Both were the seed of Abraham in different ways. In the present day the national aspect has gone away and the spiritual aspect continues.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Jeff Cagle: (2) If we were to grant two aspects, then we would note that there are two distinct conditions and two distinct types of blessings for these two aspects. The “physical aspect” has the condition of parentage and the blessing of real estate. The “spiritual aspect” has the condition of faith and the blessing of being God’s child.
RS: Yes, that is true. And those things are clearly in the Bible. The nation of Israel were told to obey or they would die and get kicked out of the land. The Pharisees made a big mistake in that and did not see that the Gospel that was preached to Abraham was that of grace alone rather than by works. When they confused the two aspects they ended up with a works salvation. Your side confuses the two aspects and you end up with infant baptism which is simply following along in the national or physical thought.
Jeff Cagle: (3) However, God does not treat Israel according to this distinction. Physical descendents of Abraham are routinely cut out of the covenant people because of lack of faith. Likewise, non-physical-descendents (e.g. Ruth) are brought into the covenant people because of their faith.
RS: But God did treat Israel according to their works and their faithfulness just like in a covenant with a national or physical people.
Jeff Cagle: And in the end, the entire nation-state is obliterated because of lack of faith. Yet this does not end the promise of real estate! (Rom 4).
RS: But was their lack of faith because they did not come up with it or because they were not of the elect of God (spiritual seed) and so they were given over to their sin?
Jeff Cagle: God, as it turns out, is no respecter of the distinction between the aspects!
RS: So God is no respecter between those He elected and those He was in covenant with on a national basis?
Jeff C: To my mind, this clearly falsifies the “aspects” theory and puts us in the position of needing a new theory of the covenant with Abraham.
RS: So far you have not falsified the two aspects position at all. Until you can demonstrate that God’s covenant with Abraham on the one hand did not have the elect in mind and His covenant with the nation of Israel was based in some way on works, then it is not falsified.
Jeff Cagle: (looks over at new theory waiting in the left wing)
RS: (looks at the biblical theory which is waiting on Jeff to submit to)
LikeLike
Zrim,
But I don’t think it’s helpful to construe this so much as civil disobedience as it is to obey God rather than men. In other words, the Bible only and ever teaches obedience, so what is there to be gained by casting anything we do as disobedience. It’s misleading and confusing.
I’ll grant that there are very clear instances where the issue of obeying God vs. the state is cut and dry. In our western context however, many of those who have used either NL argumentation or biblical justification for their civil disobedience have done so on the basis of conscience that other Christians may not share. If we look into our own American Reformed history, there are instances where conscientious, pious Reformed individuals have sided with a political rebellion both in the American Revolution, and Civil War, where the justification was obedience to God or man, based on perceived legislative injustices that infringed upon the consciences of these believers. Are these issues up for debate as to their legitimacy? Sure, as are modern examples.
What if a Reformed believer felt that he ought to side with Occupy Wall St. and protest government policy that he feels is ethically egregious, even in a case where the govt (possibly on shoddy legal reasoning) claims protest is illegal? What of a believer, who is not a pacifist, and holds to a generally Augustinian view of just war, refuses military service because he feels the US incursions in Iraq and Afghanistan are a violation of just war ethics, placing him in a precarious position with respect to the 6th command? What if a Reformed Christian in (the always popular 2k discussions) Nazi Germany feels it his duty to express neighborly love to Jews, Gypsies, and other Nazi dissenters, and lies to the German gov’t about doing so, because the command to love one’s neighbor (the 2nd greatest) trumps the command to submit to the state? I am sure there are valid arguments as to why a Christian could submit to the state in all these cases, however I would not assert that they are wrong for acting according to conscientious ethical reasoning.
This is not to say that, the Christian who, based on certain Austrian School economic convictions, can refuse to pay taxes to the state because he thinks it is tantamount to theft. I do think that there needs to be sound ethical bases for any instance of civil disobedience, grounded both in NL and in Scripture – but as a general rule governments are to be submitted to, even when genuine hardships might be created, such as in the case of taxation, traffic citations, and civil laws. This is why the whole concept of civil disobedience needs to be couched in rather precise ethical reasoning, but this shouldn’t dissuade any 2k advocate, since NL itself is an ethical discipline that sometimes requires careful argumentation and distinction. This would mitigate against reckless citation of conscientious privilege to disobedience where sound moral and ethical reasoning have not been provided.
LikeLike
mark: thanks, Jeff, for at least saying the c word. Of course, if you had the time to read back through this thread (but which of us does?), you would see that I have asked several questions about the “conditionality of the covenant”. I am not only coming from having read the Protestant Reformed (Engelsma, Hanko, Hoeksema) critique of conditional covenants, but more urgently the John Piper (Scott Hafemann, John Armstrong, Doug Wilson, Dan Fuller, Tom Schreiner) idea of a “future grace” based on God causing us to meet conditions.
As long as we don’t use the word “merit”, and as long as 100% of the enablement is from God, it is claimed that we don’t have synergism. Of course some Gaffin assure us that there is a biblical synergism when it comes to future justification (100%God, 100%enabled sinner, no antithesis now). But I don’t want to open up that large discussion on this already very long thread.
Jeff: That one baptism, whether of infants or adults, is conditionally efficacious — only upon faith is its benefit received. The meeting of that condition is monergistically accomplished.
mark: Compare to Arminians (people like Chafer from Dallas Seminary, who think they are 4 point Calvinists) who say that regeneration follows faith. We who believe in sovereign grace would say that regeneration causes faith. And then we would ask Chafer—if you could believe before you were regenerated, then what do you need regeneration for now?
if you could believe the gospel before “the efficacy of baptism” kicked in, what then is the meaning and reality of that efficacy. Note, Jeff, that I am not here arguing about the subjects of baptism but about the nature and significance of baptism. I am not questioning the “time-lag” nature of your proposal, but rather asking what “efficacy” means. One, as who so rightly remind us, what you thik about this is not at all what many who talk about efficacy think. I am not only thinking about Lutherans or federal visionists, but about those at the Westminster Assembly who advocated for baptismal regeneration–thus we have a political document which not only can be read different ways, but was written in such a way so it could be read in different ways.
To repeat my analogy (third time), if my efficacy in the basketball game only kicks in once Kobe Bryant has scored 40 points, and we score 40 points together, exactly what did I do? or to ask my original question, if the “inward aspect” had no effect on the non-elect “in the covenant”, how can we be sure that the “inward aspect” had any effect on the elect “in the covenant”. (If Jesus died for all, but some perish, how can we say that His Death saved even those who are saved?)
Jeff: Now here is where I have been hotly disputed by other Reformed folk (David Gadbois, Bob Mattes), and I want to mark this section as my own opinion.My own opinion is that the best way to think about baptismal efficacy is as follows:
(1) Baptism signs and seals the promises.
(2) Baptism takes effect when the promise is believed.
(3) Therefore, baptism’s efficacy can reasonably be said to occur either before or after the actual action BECAUSE its efficacy is not instrumental, but “in content.” If the promise has been believed, the baptism has had its effect.
For what its worth, my view has the effect of retaining one meaning for baptism of both adults and of children.
mark: again, I appreciate that you understand at least one of my questions. Since there is only one baptism, you are saying that faith makes it effective. But what does effective mean?
But at least you aren’t saying that one kind of baptism is about grace and the other kind is about free will. Which would put you in the position of saying—-when we paedobaptists do a baptism of a convert (like Tonto), that’s not about free will (but it’s not that good picture of grace, like it would be if he were an infant).
And yes, CG, there are millions of baptists in this world now, but almost all of them practice credobaptism as an affirmation of man’s free will. That needs to be said, but that sad fact in no way means we need to start baptizing babies to show somebody who we are not like….
LikeLike
mark: Thanks again, Jeff for your patient interaction. I especially appreciated one of your points about Israel not getting the land (the outward aspect) because of unbelief, just like it (for the most part, except for the remnant) didn’t get justification (the inward?) because of unbelief.
But of course that does raise some questions about the distinction between law and gospel. As I remember, the 2k folks at Westminster Ca would give formal assent to the Mosaic covenant being included in “the covenant of grace”, but then make “some primary? aspects of the Mosaic covenant” be conditional in a way that the ceremonial (gospel?) Mosaic laws wouldn’t be. And as I remember, you Jeff are not exactly comfortable with that. But again, this is a long thread, so let me get to my question.
Calvin:We have a proof of this in Cornelius, the centurion, who, after he had been previously endued with the graces of the Holy Spirit, was baptised for the remission of sins, not seeking a fuller forgiveness from baptism, but a surer exercise of faith; nay, an argument for assurance from a pledge.
mark: it would be fascinating to talk about if you think Cornelius was already justified before Peter and baptism. There is disagreement on this of course, even between those who are credobaptists. We could talk some more about “time-travel” and “time lag”. It’s somewhat like the debate about John’s baptism.
But my question is simple, on the “assurance from a pledge” thing. I assume you would read I Peter as saying the pledge is from God to the sinner (even though that doesn’t seem the obvious meaning of the text, but Calvin did tell you it wasn’t like the loyalty oath of a solider to Caesar). I don’t think you would say something like–“and the credobaptists think it’s a pledge from the sinner to God, because they are all free-willers wanting assurance from their decisions. ”
What is God pledging? What is being “more sure”? What is effected? if I understand what you are saying, you are denying efficacy for those who don’t yet have faith in the gospel. So, at least as I read what you are saying, a baptized child has no more promise from God than an unbaptised child. Conditionally, if you believe the gospel, you will be saved. Tonto can be told that, without baptism. (I suppose you could say that baptism is the best way to tell him that -if you believe–but remember that Tonto doesn’t have a parent with a creditable profession, so you can’t do that.) So the baptism had no efficacy until the person believed, it was not about the person being baptized, and it was not promising anybody that the child would believe?
I think either a. I am misunderstanding what you have said or b. you will back off these denials of efficacy before faith. Otherwise, what is the efficacy? Why does anybody need the efficacy of baptism, now that they have already met the conditions? Is this going to take us in the direction of a second justification, and a continuing probationary need to meet conditions?
LikeLike
Jed, thanks again. As I’ve hinted at when CG and Chris suggest that my point about civil disobedience ends up excommunicating the greater balance of Reformed, my aim in all of this isn’t to solve specific instances of ethical puzzles. I get that being a dual citizen is hard, and your point about liberty of conscience is very well taken. It’s simply to say that the Reformed have only and ever formally affirmed the virtue of civil obedience and vice of disobedience, per Scripture.
But it is interesting that when this simple point is made it takes all of about three minutes for someone to worry that it is to mass retro-excommunicate and undermine phenomenon like abolition or the birth of a nation. That’s a breathtaking series of implications. Nothing against CG or Chris, but it affirms my own suspicion that we (westerners?) tend to associate “civil disobedience” with whatever is honorable and noble and “civil obedience” with whatever is morally compromised and ignoble. We often talk easily about bringing biblical ethics to bear on our civil life, but it seems rare to hear about the virtue of obedience and vice of disobedience, perhaps because of this associative tendency. Whatever its cause, the more I think about it, the more question-raising it becomes.
LikeLike
R. L. Dabney, Practical Philosophy, pp. 350-51. “Some one may ask: May not the authority of the State or Church so conflict with the authority of God that it becomes the freeman’s duty to appeal to the principle that ‘we ought to obey God rather than man’? I reply that such a case may arise. But it arises only when the act or omission required of individuals by the human authority would be essentially sin per se, when obedience to the human would be unavoidable, positive disobedience to the divine authority. When this extreme conflict occurs, the free citizen must obey his conscience and resist even such human authorities as were legitimate up to that point. When a State lays her prohibition upon a given action, the dissenter must be able to show that the mere omission of that action would be sin per se for him; else he must conform his action to the State’s judgment against his own judgment.”
David Gordon: I’m ordinarily hesitant to disagree with Dabney, but I think his reasoning here is fallacious, and the root of the fallacy is perspicuous in his own words: “else he must conform his action to the State’s judgment against his own judgment.” But “judgment” is precisely the issue: If my judgment is that the magistrate’s role is limited by the Word of God to punishing wickedness; and if it is my judgment that the magistrate now threatens to punish behavior that is not wicked, why am I obliged to concur with the magistrate’s judgment? If the right of private judgment is inherent in the Protestant view of liberty of conscience, and if, for this reason, I am even free to understand scripture in a sense other than the sense taught by the church (asserting, in such a case, my judgment over the judgment of the church), how is it that I do not enjoy the same liberty of conscientious judgment with regard to the dictates of the magistrate? Is it possible that I owe more allegiance to the civil than to the ecclesiastical authorities? If I may prefer my judgment to that of the Pope; I can surely prefer my judgment to that of the Congress. And, I suppose it is not impertinent to recall that Dabney’s judgment that the southern states could/should secede from the Union differed from President Lincoln’s judgment. Did Dabney regard it as sinful per se to remain in political union with the northern states?
Gordon’s entire essay on “limited obedience to the magisrtate” is available on his web page.
http://www.tdgordon.net/theology/
LikeLike
David Gordon against Augustine’s “two swords”, with Augustine as the Roman Catholic villain.
Gordon, Religious Arguments for Separation of Church and State: “The weapons of our warfare are not fleshly,” said the apostle Paul, indicating his sole confidence in the Spirit’s work to accomplish the church’s task (2 Cor. 10:4). In this passage, Paul implicitly distinguishes the church’s “warfare” from the state’s warfare. Each employs different weaponry, and the church’s weaponry is self-consciously not the coercive powers of the state.
This idea is indeed apostolic; it is neither Southern, nor distinctly Presbyterian, nor distinctly nineteenth century, for we find the idea articulated by the Massachusetts Baptist minister John Leland (1754 – 1841), who said: “It has often been observed by the friends of religion established by human laws, that no state can long continue without it; that religion will perish, and nothing but infidelity and atheism prevail. Are these things facts? Did not the Christian religion prevail during the first three centuries, in a more glorious manner than ever it has since, not only without the aid of law, but in opposition to all the laws of haughty monarchs? And did not religion receive a deadly wound by being fostered in the arms of civil power and regulated by law?”
LikeLike
Charles Hodge : “And when reasoning from the word of God, we are not authorized to argue from the Old Testament economy, because that was avowedly temporary, and has been abolished; but must derive our conclusions from the New Testament.”
“Relation of the Church and State,” Princeton Theological Review, vol. 35 no. 4 (1863) 692.
mark: But of course that it is only true when you are talking to Roman Catholics and theonomists. It’s not true when you are attempting to educate the non-reformed mind about the need for paedobaptism.
LikeLike
Mark, that’s a bit wooden. You should know by now that PBs talk as much about continuity as we do discontinuity with the OT.
Re Dabney/Gordon, thanks for the link. (Here’s hoping Gordon’s point about conscience can help me win the debate with my wife about leash laws—should those of us who do not concur and whose goofball dog injures no one really be punished for not following the letter of the law? The point about civil obedience is a Reformed one, not Fundamentalist.)
LikeLike
Mark: And as I remember, you Jeff are not exactly comfortable with that.
That’s correct. I think Kline is mostly right, and teach the Old Covenant from a republication point of view. Still, I think it is important that Jesus fulfilled the demands of the OT Law in a moral sense, and strict Klinean republication sits slightly less than comfortably with this fact.
I consider it a relatively minor point.
mark: it would be fascinating to talk about if you think Cornelius was already justified before Peter and baptism.
Most definitely. I don’t see how anyone can reasonably argue that Peter is saying anything other than “Cornelius is obviously saved … get him baptized already!”
Mark: Otherwise, what is the efficacy?
This is the real issue, and I think all the other issues hang off of it.
When we use the word “efficacy”, most people think of some kind of agency: “Baptism is effective for X because baptism does X.”
Try for a moment to suspend that mental model, because that’s not what sacramental efficacy is about.
Instead, consider the efficacy of the Word of God. We know that Scripture uses efficacy language about the word (“the word which is able to save you”, “the gospel is the power of God for salvation”, etc.). What does that language mean?
It does not mean that the actual words on the page, or the act of reading those words, or the vibrations of air caused by Whitfield’s mighty voice, or the hearing of those vibrations, none of those, does anything at all.
The power of the word to save is not the power of agency.
Instead, the word of God has content to it. When that content is believed, the word has the power of salvation. What is actually “doing” the salvation? The Spirit is creating faith; faith receives the promise.
The efficacy of the sacraments is precisely parallel. Nor the pouring of the water nor the washing of dirt does anything, but when the promise that is “spoken” in baptism is believed, that is when baptism is effective.
LikeLike
Mark: Otherwise, what is the efficacy?
jeff: This is the real issue, and I think all the other issues hang off of it. When we use the word “efficacy”, most people think of some kind of agency: “Baptism is effective for X because baptism does X.”
mark: Thanks for continuing the dialogue. I don’t agree that there are two sides, with a decision about one issue committing one logically to the other issues (ie, stuff like Constantinianism and civil disobedience. But yes, Jeff, I do worry when most people use a word I am using to mean something very different from what I mean. I am so uptight about this that I don’t call myself an evangelical or Reformed. But of course, if I were consistent, I wouldn’t call myself a Christian or a credobaptist or a pacifist. Because what you think those labels mean I don’t mean.
So, Jeff, does it bother you to be using a word that most people mean something else by?
But we have to figure out out to communicate somehow, and we can’t say all we think every time we say something (though some of us try, at least in the “what I am NOT saying” department) Jeff, when you say “most people think”, are you thinking of most Reformed folks? That is, there are some Reformed folks who have a Lutheran or Augustinian view of the agency of water, and then are a lot of Reformed folks who oppose themselves to that kind of efficacy, because they assume that’s what “efficacy” is all about.
Letham in his new Union with Christ book, p120–calls Wayne Spear “neo-Zwinglian” because of Speer’s essay, “Calvin and Westminster on the Lord’s Supper”, in The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century, volume 3.
Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4:481–“No one would call the connection between a pledge and that of which it is a pledge, an union. Yet the relationship that exists between the sign and thing signified in the sacrament is of the same nature.”
Jeff: consider the efficacy of the Word of God. We know that Scripture uses efficacy language about the word (“the word which is able to save you”, “the gospel is the power of God for salvation”, etc.). What does that language mean?
mark: I think this is a good question, indeed a standard to test one’s definition of baptismal efficacy. I myself (as much as anybody I know) link effectual call to the Word creating hearing. I think it’s a great evil for a lot of sovereign grace folks to suggest that God saves sinners apart from the gospel or by using a false (conditional) gospel. I have talked about this at length many times on this page, but to summarize–i don’t approve of the distinction between regeneration and effectual call because it suggests some kind of change in substance or nature apart from the Word and the gospel, and then also suggests a possible time-lag between regeneration and the person regenerated having life and believing the gospel.
So I am most willing to talk about the efficacy of the Word, of course not apart from the the work of the Spirit, but I don’t think we should talk about the efficacy of water regeneration in the way we would about “gospel regeneration”. Indeed, I think one of the biggest problems with Roman Catholic (Augustinian) theology is its idea of water regeneration And I think one of the way to distinguish ourselves from the Roman Catholics is to make a distinction between the Word and the Water (and I don’t mean the water as a metaphor for the Word, I mean a “sacrament administered by the sacerdotalist”.
John Fesko, Word, Water and Spirit, p131—“Nowhere do the Westminster standards state that a person is regenerated by baptism. A key tenet of the Roman Catholic understanding of baptism is that it ex opere operato regenerates both adult and infant alike, and (at some point) cleanses them of original sin. Roman Catholics say that baptism is the instrument of justification, whereas for the Westminster divines, justification is by faith alone.”
jeff: The power of the word to save is not the power of agency.
mark: I appreciate that you are trying to say what the efficacy IS NOT. But texts tend to deconstruct themselves when the thing you think you have excluded somehow gets assumed anyway.. Which means that you are still going to have to talk about ‘conditionality”. Because the Word is not effectual only if you hear it. God by the Word creates the hearing.
And I am not taking about the timing, or the delay of efficacy. Whenever it happens, what did the “legitimate non-Donatist” water actually do, when we consider that the Word by the Spirit causes the hearing, and that (you would agree) apart and without the Water?
jeff: The efficacy of the sacraments is precisely parallel. Nor the pouring of the water nor the washing of dirt does anything, but when the promise that is “spoken” in baptism is believed, that is when baptism is effective.
mark: Yes, you are back to “the promise”. You think you have isolated one promise from the many promises made to Abraham and that you can give that “the promise” to everybody who gets water. But if that promise is “conditional” on the efficacy of the Word, what is that promise? And why can’t that same “the promise” be given to those who are not given water? And if so, what’s so special about the grace given to a “Christian” who may turn out to not be a Christian?
Sure, we credobaptists (I used the label) end up baptizing many of the non-elect. But we never told them that it was a “means of grace”. And I am not just saying, it’s not about the specific persons, as in–it may not be grace for you, but instead greater covenant curses. I am saying, we never told even the persons who end up being justified by grace that baptism was a “means of grace” for them either. I don’t think your efficacy/ not agency “difference” is going to account for what enables some sinners to “meet the conditions”.
LikeLike
Mark: So, Jeff, does it bother you to be using a word that most people mean something else by?
Well, yes, kind of. What I mean is that my view of efficacy is actually (1) derived from Scripture, and (2) seems to me to be confirmed by Calvin and Reformed standards of faith.
What bothers me is that not all Reformed folk agree with me. So …
But about Luther, you are absolutely right. Luther understood both baptism and the word to have efficacy that was more tied to the action. When baptism occurs, the Spirit works. When the word is preached, the Spirit works.
LikeLike
Mark McC: Yes, you are back to “the promise”. You think you have isolated one promise from the many promises made to Abraham and that you can give that “the promise” to everybody who gets water.
Not exactly. I’ve criticized the “physical/spiritual aspect” theory above because it divides the covenant with Abraham really into two covenants, with promises given on one ground to one group here, and promises given on a completely different ground to another group there.
So I’m not isolating one promise and giving it to some.
Rather, the Abrahamic covenant is a whole. And its proper recipients of *all* of the promises are those who have faith. This corresponds roughly to RS’s “spiritual aspect”, but with all of the promises in view.
At the same time, because we cannot see the spirits of men, God ordained that the one, spiritual, Abrahamic covenant be administered outwardly by physical means: By an outward sign, by officers (speaking of the later development of priests, then church officers), by excommunication.
That outward administration is on the basis of physical evidence.
So we say to covenant members (that is, people whom we can actually see!) that “you are admitted to the administration of the covenant, but know this: you may only lawfully possess the benefits of that covenant if you have faith.”
Based on this, why admit children? Only because God said so.
If it were up to my own reasoning, I might well reason that little kids should not be admitted until they possess faith. But God in His wisdom ordained otherwise. What does this mean? We can hash that out afterwards — but first, obedience to the command: “Let the little children come unto Me, and do not hinder them, for to such as these is the kingdom of God.”
So: Do all recipients of baptism get to claim the promises? Can they have assurance of salvation? Only if they believe.
Should all recipients of baptism be treated as if believers? Yes. In the case of adults, on the basis of their profession (as fallible evidence). In the case of children, they should be treated as presumptively elect and taught and catechized as such.
What I’m getting at is that there are two perspectives on the one single covenant because there are two knowing agents involved. God, who knows the heart, sees the church as it truly it is. Man, who does not, sees the church through its outward administration.
Respecting that outward administration, including God’s command to circumcize children, is part of respecting the creator/creature distinction.
So I would tie credo-baptism to a disrespect for the visible church and God’s commands concerning it. CB seems to me to be an attempt to do better than God in defining the outward boundaries of the church.
LikeLike
Jeff: The outward administration is on the basis of physical evidence.
mark: interesting that you use the word “physical” in front of evidence, given your earlier disdain for the physical/spiritual distinction. But no matter. My problem is that the basis for your adminstration of water baptism is the genealogical principle. Thus the difference between the water and the Word. The Word you proclaim to anybody and everybody, even if you say “us” when you proclaim the Word. God has decided to whom to make the Word effectual, but none of us fences the Word from those who are born without one parent with a “creditable profession”.
But you do this fencing with the water, even though Augustine and Luther didn’t do so. And more to the point, you can’t show that the “physical” children of Abraham asked for a creditable profession from one parent. This is not to deny that the gospel was proclaimed in the Abrahamic ceremonies (or the Mosaic ones). Nor do I deny that those old covenants called for faith in the gospel. But it is to say you shouldn’t read Genesis 17 as if God had handed Abraham the baptismal policy of a current Reformed denomination.
Ie, it’s not enough if one parent got water from the Roman Catholics, at least one parent has to have an affirmation of faith. That policy is not announced for the generations to come in Genesis 17. But “covenant sanction” is there–do the circumcision or be cut off, do the circumcision and then still maybe be cut off. And no, I am NOT complaining about the way God did it then. But that doesn’t mean that God is now calling for “new covenant” Constantinianism.
jeff: Based on this, why admit children? Only because God said so.
mark: One, we are all children. So I am not against the baptism of children but against giving baptism to infants who have not made a profession of faith. If It’s Arminian to ask for a profession of faith from the person baptized, then it’s Arminian to ask for it from one parent. (But that what not directed to you, Jeff, because you never made the Arminian accusation.)
Two, if you can show me where “God said” that all the covenants were “administrations in one covenant of grace”, then all the rest follows. But you can’t show that, no matter what kind of continuity (same God) you point to. God never said to baptize infants. Only if you assume that circumcision is a type of water baptism, can you even infer that the subjects of the two ceremonies are the same. But of course Colossians 2 says no such thing. Christ and His circumcision are the fulfillment of Abrahamic/Mosaic circumcision.
Jeff: If it were up to my own reasoning, I might well reason that little kids should not be admitted until they possess faith. But God in His wisdom ordained otherwise. What does this mean? We can hash that out afterwards — but first, obedience to the command: “Let the little children come unto Me, and do not hinder them, for to such as these is the kingdom of God.”
mark: if you want to go to this text, deconstruction will follow. You will not find water. You won’t find baptism. You won’t find circumcision. And you won’t even find a promise given to Abraham, much less to children with one parent with a creditable profession. So your reading of that text will be pregnant with what isn’t there. These pre-emptive announcements that you are correct with details to be “hashed out later” beg all the old questions
—the infant is in “the covenant”, but how does the grown up infant stay in “the covenant”?
—the infant was in “the covenant” without faith, but now has to have faith to “stay in”?
—the infant was not put in “the covenant” by being baptized, but baptized because the infant was already in the covenant, correct?
—so are there less conditional curses hanging over the infant who has not been baptized, but who is in the covenant by birth (to one parent with creditable profession)?
I am not simply attempting to reduce your paradigm to the absurd. One, if you are going to impose your paradigm (one professing parent) onto Genesis 17, then you need to get the details of your paradigm figured out. Two, I really am concerned about how “conditionality” turns out to be merely Arminianism or Romanism by another name.
I guess this explains why I am more concerned about the federal visionist paradigm than you are, Jeff, not that I am equating what you say with what Lusk and Leithart say. But I am just as concerned when Kline equates the negative sanctions of the old covenants with the possible consequence of infant baptism.
People with Augustine’s view of sacramental efficacy are very likely to have his view of church and covenant. And I don’t think it’s so simple for Reformed people to say–well, we don’t agree with the Roman Catholic side of Augustine. That’s why Reformed people like to find some other Roman Catholic saying the thing they disagree with that Augustine also said…Who is pointing out the errors of Augustine to Tate and Cross?
jeff: So I would tie credo-baptism to a disrespect for the visible church and God’s commands concerning it. CB seems to me to be an attempt to do better than God in defining the outward boundaries of the church.
mark: One, you forgot Tonto. Ie, you forgot that you guys also do credobaptism. You baptise a person on their profession of faith, if they don’t have one parent with a creditable profesion. When you do that, is that disrespect for “the visible church”? You think “re-baptism” when you say “credobaptism”, which of course is a category mistake.
Two, none of us believe in “re-baptism”. It’s just that some of us don’t think that Mormon and Roman Catholic and or any paedobaptism is baptism. This is not because we claim to “do better than God”. Don’t confuse me with revivalists wanting to looking at people’s insides (some paedobaptists do that with parents, but many don’t) Rather, I have no respect for Roman Catholic “professions of faith” because I disrespect the Roman Catholic “church”. I don’t have to look in the heart to find evidence that the Roman Catholic “church” does not have the gospel.
No gospel, no church. That seems simple to us. Anti-donatistism is not an excuse for accepting as a church which doesn’t believe or teach justification by grace.
But the more complicated question is where there is gospel but we disagree about the subjects of baptism. And then my paedobaptist friends who believe the gospel say to us–though we disagree with your practice, we understand that it’s because you haven’t read the books we have, and know that if you had you would, and anyway we won’t re-baptize those who have baptism, not simply because it’s now too late, but because we are generous enough to accept that you really did baptize these people. So why won’t you credobaptists reciprocate, and welcome us to the table, even though you think we have not been baptized.
I think you see the difference. Why shouldn’t you accept us to the Lord’s (not ours of course) table (if we wanted to come) since you agree that we are baptized. But since we don’t agree that you have been baptized, then why should we accept you? (and don’t tell me about this adult baptism you got from some Arminian “bible church”, because I am not “catholic” enough to agree that people are regenerated without the gospel. Faith in a false gospel is not evidence of anything but idolatry)
Sorry to end on that note. Again, you weren’t talking about Arminianism. You never said that we have to start doing babies to stop being Arminian. So what do we to do to respect “the visible church”? We don’t have to baptize babies? Do we have to agree not to ‘”re-baptize” anybody except maybe mormons and unitarians? Or do we have to say, to show our respect, that what you did was “baptism”, even though we wouldn’t have done it. Again, this is not exactly the same kind of “respect” you are showing us.
You are telling us–what you do, we do also. We are telling you–what you do is wrong, we won’t do it.
LikeLike
Mark, thanks for the comments.
A word about the exegesis of 1 Peter 3.21. Earlier, you remarked that
I assume you would read I Peter as saying the pledge is from God to the sinner (even though that doesn’t seem the obvious meaning of the text …
But actually, it is.
The difficulty is with the genitive case: ο και υμας αντιτυπον νυν σωζει βαπτισμα ου σαρκος αποθεσις ρυπου αλλα συνειδησεως αγαθης επερωτημα εις θεον δι αναστασεως ιησου χριστου
but “of a pledge of a good conscience unto God.”
Now, what is the nature of the genitive συνειδησεως “of a good conscience” here?
(1) Is it a material genitive, meaning
“pledge out of a good conscience to God”?
Here, the genitive συνειδησεως describes the quality of the one making the pledge.
But if so, then the believer is pledging in baptism that he is already saved — and this reading empties the phrase “baptism now saves you” of any content whatsoever.
So this reading might be tempting if we examine only the phrase in isolation from the rest of the sentence, but context destroys it. That reading ends up saying, “Baptism doesn’t save you, but represents the pledge of the believer to God that he has a good conscience, which is what actually saves you.”
This reading argues against the text.
(2) The other possibility is that the genitive is a genitive of description:
“The pledge to make the conscience good”
Here, the “of a good conscience” συνειδησεως describes the content of the pledge itself, not the quality of the one making the pledge.
God pledges to us that we will have a good conscience.
Both (1) and (2) are grammatically possible readings for the phrase in isolation. But only (2) makes sense of the phrase “baptism saves you.” The only way that Peter can say “baptism saves you” is if baptism does or says something to the believer from God.
Further, this reading is in accord with the gospel itself: God promises to us that He will make the conscience good; we don’t pledge to Him that we have a good conscience!!
So I would argue that (2) is the most obvious reading of the text if we are careful to think through the genitive συνειδησεως and what it might mean.
LikeLike
Mark: interesting that you use the word “physical” in front of evidence, given your earlier disdain for the physical/spiritual distinction.
No, there is something to the physical and spiritual distinction. Richard isn’t making this up out of thin air!
But I’m arguing that the distinction is not between parts of the covenant: physical promises to physical descendents, spiritual promises to spiritual descendents. Then we really have two separate covenants.
Instead, the distinction is between the covenant, which is spiritual “of the Spirit”, and the administration of the covenant, which is temporal (and thus physical).
Mark: Two, if you can show me where “God said” that all the covenants were “administrations in one covenant of grace”, then all the rest follows. But you can’t show that, no matter what kind of continuity (same God) you point to.
There’s two different arguments one can make from the Abrahamic covenant.
The “Strong Abrahamic Argument” (my term) is that on the basis of Galatians 3 and Romans 4, believers are all included into Abraham’s covenant.
This is the plain, literal reading of the text; and as we have seen, the only way to avoid this conclusion is to split the Abrahamic covenant into two separate covenants.
If one accepts the SAA, then the rest follows.
But for those who do not (yet) accept the Biblical doctrine 🙂 (smiles in RS’ direction), there is the Weak Abrahamic Argument.
Let’s accept for the moment that the Abrahamic Covenant is distinct from the New. Still and all, it is the case that God Himself ordained that the physical descendents of Abe were to be admitted as covenant members, and were expected to have the obedience of faith, and were to be given the sign of the righteousness of faith.
The argument then that God couldn’t possibly admit non-professing children into a covenant of faith would then prove too much. It would prove that God was mistaken in telling Abraham to apply the sign and the covenant stipulations to his descendents.
Now, RS evades the force of this argument by arguing that circumcision was only the “sign of the righteousness of faith” for Abraham.
Nice try, but.
25 For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. 26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded[b] as circumcision? 27 Then he who is physically[c] uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code[d] and circumcision but break the law. 28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. — Rom 2
Circumcision was the sign for all Jews of the righteousness of faith. It symbolized on the outside what was to be true on the inside: the circumcision of the heart.
So there it is: Jewish children received the sign prior to professing the reality. If this were indeed such a terrible problem as the credobaptists would have it, then God would not have commanded it.
LikeLike
JRC: To my mind, this clearly falsifies the “aspects” theory and puts us in the position of needing a new theory of the covenant with Abraham.
RS: So far you have not falsified the two aspects position at all. Until you can demonstrate that God’s covenant with Abraham on the one hand did not have the elect in mind and His covenant with the nation of Israel was based in some way on works, then it is not falsified.
First, bringing in the Law and works is greatly confusing the matter. We need to first examine the covenant with Abraham in isolation, prior to the Law, before we can start to ask the question, “What did the addition of the Law do to the covenant?”
Here’s why the two aspects position has been shown false by the above argument.
According to your theory, if I’ve understood it,
(1) There are physical promises made to physical descendents. Circumcision belongs to all of these.
(2) There are spiritual promises made to spiritual descendents. The circumcision of the heart belongs to these.
Now, what my argument demonstrated above was:
There existed people who met the condition of being a physical descendent BUT who were refused the physical promises. This included all those who were cut down in the Wilderness Wandering because of their unbelief (1 Cor 10; Heb 3.7 – 11).
So we have people who meet the criterion of being a physical descendent, but are refused the “physical aspect” promises. Is God then a liar? May it never be! Instead, it must be the case that the requirement for obtaining the physical promises must have included, or partially included, the requirement of faith.
Those are your only two options.
Likewise, we also have people like Ruth who did not meet the requirement of physical descent, but were taken into the “physical aspect” of the covenant because of their faith.
She did not meet the requirement, yet received the promise anyway. Is God then a liar? OR, is faith the primary requirement for receiving the covenant promises?
And finally, when Paul comments on the “physical aspect” of the covenant, he says,
For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. — Rom 4.13
Notice that Paul is speaking here of the physical aspect of inheritance of real estate. What was the requirement? Faith.
So again: God does not agree with your splitting the Abrahamic covenant into two pieces, one with promises conditioned upon physical descent. He required and still requires faith on the part of Abraham’s descendents in order to inherit.
Now: you may object that God didn’t immediately cut off all unbelievers from Israel. And that’s very true. But does this mean that faith is not a requirement, or does it mean that God was patient in enforcing His requirement?
Don’t make the mistake my students sometimes make, in thinking that patient enforcement of a rule means that there is no rule.
LikeLike
jeff: The argument then that God couldn’t possibly admit non-professing children into a covenant of faith would then prove too much. It would prove that God was mistaken in telling Abraham to apply the sign and the covenant stipulations to his descendents.
mark: I am not going to have a lot of time this morning, but this one won’t take long. And I want you, Jeff, get back to the issues of conditionality and the “Constantinianism” (anachronism for cult with same subjects as the body politic) of the Abrahamic covenant. It’s not going to work to just pretend those issues are not there, and then read Genesis 17 as if it were after Christ’s birth and work as the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham.
So, you say, assume it’s covenants not “the covenant” (after all, that is the Bible language), even so, it is a covenant of faith, it is a covenant of grace. And then you say that a credobaptist “could” argue that God can’t possibly admit non-professing children into a covenant of faith. But this is wrong for many reasons. One, what credobaptist ever said that? Assuming you have at least one credobaptist book in your house, find me somebody saying this. It’s not a real debate if you make up what the other side could or might say. Now, of course, you can say what they ought to say given what they said about other stuff, to be logical, to be consistent.
But two, all of us affirm some continuity and some discontinuity between covenants. And we credobaptists can certainly say that the old covenants are not the same, and neither of them the same as the new covenant, without insisting that one of those covenants is “not of faith”. When Kline and Gordon and Horton can rightly point out that the law is “not of faith”, that does not mean that they are saying that the Abrahamic or the Mosaic covenants in entirety are “not of faith”. And this is no less true of credobaptists, because we can and do say that there is “law” in the new covenant, without at the same time saying that the content of this new covenant law are the same as that of Abrahamic or Mosaic law.
So nobody is saying that God had no right to put non-professing infants in the Abrahamic covenant. The promises to Abraham involved also all his non-professing children, which is what the genealogical principle is all about. Every “physical” seed of Abraham is born as an insider to that covenant. They are not circumcised to get in that covenant. They are circumcised because they are born in that covenant. At best, Jeff, your only points turns out to be–if God can do it one covenant, then God can do it another covenant. But that is far from proving that God has done the same thing in the new covenant.
That is why you will need to return to the dialectic–well, you know all the covenants are one covenant, because your argument (not Augustine’s, not Luther’s, but Calvin’s and Zwingli’s) depends on that paradigm assumption. And in the meanwhile you need to ignore the difference between a land promise about the people of God having a territory where only the members of that covenant live and the diaspora promise of the new covenant.
You can pretend that the “Constantinian” factor is not there, but one look at the politics of the Reformation heirs of the “argument from circumcision” will show you that land and genealogy cannot be ignored. You shouldn’t have to read Kierkegaard or Barth or Paul Jewett to see that.
LikeLike
If circumcision was for Abraham a seal of the promise to Abraham that Abraham would have children and own a lot of land, then we cannot say that circumcision is ONLY a seal of righteousness that he had by faith. Circumcision for Abraham is a sign of more than one thing. But many paedobaptists tend to reduce the Abrahamic covenant to being only about the righteousness earned by Christ.
Even though we can say that circumcision is simply an objective sign, and not about the persons circumcised, Romans 4:11 does teach that circumcision was a sign to Abraham that he Abraham had the righteousness. The circumcision is a sign that Christ will bring in the righteousness, but not a sign to anybody else that they in particular will believe and have that righteousness.
Circumcision is a type of the forensic “cutting off” from legal identity in Adam by means of Christ’s death. Christ’s death is legally the death of all the justified eect, and that death is not water, not regeneration, not “covenant membership” for the purposes of a conditional probation.
Christ’s death to the curse of divine law and imputed to the elect is the ultimate thing signified by circumcision. Christ did not become cleansed or regenerated, but His blood was shed to satisfy justice, and that’s the central truth to which circumcision speaks.
But that does not mean that paedobaptists should ignore the other preliminary things signified by circumcision. We don’t have to agree with Hodge that there were two different Abrahamic covenants to agree that circumcision had more than one significance. The promises to Abraham were plural.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: The argument then that God couldn’t possibly admit non-professing children into a covenant of faith would then prove too much. It would prove that God was mistaken in telling Abraham to apply the sign and the covenant stipulations to his descendents.
Now, RS evades the force of this argument by arguing that circumcision was only the “sign of the righteousness of faith” for Abraham. Nice try, but.
25 For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. 26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded[b] as circumcision? 27 Then he who is physically[c] uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code[d] and circumcision but break the law. 28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. — Rom 2
Circumcision was the sign for all Jews of the righteousness of faith. It symbolized on the outside what was to be true on the inside: the circumcision of the heart.
So there it is: Jewish children received the sign prior to professing the reality. If this were indeed such a terrible problem as the credobaptists would have it, then God would not have commanded it.
RS: It is not a terrible problem in the Old Covenant. The question, however, is of the New Covenant. Abraham is our (Gentiles) spiritual father. He believed and was then circumcised. What did he believe? He believed in the promise of God that the coming Messiah would come from him. The Messiah was to come from the Jews as to His physical nature. The Messiah was to come and would be a male. Are you so sure that the sign placed on the Jewish male had to do with the faith that may come later or could it be the faith of a parent who believed that the coming Messiah would come through the Jews? As Jesus said, salvation is from the Jews.
While it is the case that this because a rite that people performed for various reasons, why was Isaac circumcised? Wasn’t it because of Abraham’s faith and as a sign of God’s faithfulness that He was going to send the Messiah through this people? But now, however, the Messiah has come and the nation of Israel no longer has the promise of this coming Messiah. Instead, we now have spiritual children and the spiritual children have the promise of the Holy Spirit.
It seems to me that paedobaptists assume that circumcision is a sign of faith on the infant as it was with Abraham and run with that. Instead, it was the sign of faith with Abraham and now it is the sign of faith in the circumcised of heart who are baptized. But with the infants of Israel, instead of looking ahead to their faith I don’t see that in Scripture.
LikeLike
Gen 18:19 “For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice, that the Lord may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him.”
When Jeremiah contrasts the new covenant with the one made with the fathers, the contrast is to the Mosaic covenant and not to the Abraham covenant. But neither is it accurate to say that the new covenant is only a renewal of the Abrahamic covenant. As Genesis 18 suggests, the Abrahamic covenant also had its “conditional” aspects.
One way some people put this all together is to say that the unconditional aspect of covenants only refers to God’s promise to save a people, but that which INDIVIDUALS are part of the people is conditioned on covenant obedience. I speak not only of Arminians, who say that Jesus died for everybody and that the difference is faith and obedience. Instead of saying that all blessing is conditioned only on Christ’s finished work, many “Reformed” folks bring into the picture the sovereign grace of God which enables the elect to meet “the conditions of the covenant”..
This view of the new covenant insists that we must separate “covenant” from election and particular redemption. Some who are in get broken off because they do not obey. And sure, behind the scenes, this must have had something to do with Christ’s atonement and decretal election, but why talk about that kind of thing when instead we can talk about the grace which causes us to do what needs to be done?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: JRC: To my mind, this clearly falsifies the “aspects” theory and puts us in the position of needing a new theory of the covenant with Abraham.
RS: So far you have not falsified the two aspects position at all. Until you can demonstrate that God’s covenant with Abraham on the one hand did not have the elect in mind and His covenant with the nation of Israel was based in some way on works, then it is not falsified.
JRC: First, bringing in the Law and works is greatly confusing the matter. We need to first examine the covenant with Abraham in isolation, prior to the Law, before we can start to ask the question, “What did the addition of the Law do to the covenant?”
RS: Okay, but the Law was given to the physical descendents of Abraham and they looked back to Abraham as their father. So I don’t think that it is necessarily confusing the issue at hand.
JRC: Here’s why the two aspects position has been shown false by the above argument.
According to your theory, if I’ve understood it,
(1) There are physical promises made to physical descendents. Circumcision belongs to all of these.
(2) There are spiritual promises made to spiritual descendents. The circumcision of the heart belongs to these.
Now, what my argument demonstrated above was:
There existed people who met the condition of being a physical descendent BUT who were refused the physical promises. This included all those who were cut down in the Wilderness Wandering because of their unbelief (1 Cor 10; Heb 3.7 – 11).
So we have people who meet the criterion of being a physical descendent, but are refused the “physical aspect” promises. Is God then a liar? May it never be! Instead, it must be the case that the requirement for obtaining the physical promises must have included, or partially included, the requirement of faith.
RS: Faith as in external obedience, yes. But saving faith? No. The nation of Israel was supposed to believe the words of God and obey His laws and as such they had an external faith. But that is not the same thing as the faith of the elect. The external promises depended on an external keeping of the Law, but the promises the elect depended on God and His grace.
JRC: Those are your only two options.
RS: Well, once again, I think I have went between the horns of your dilemma. You throw up so many horns I am beginning to think that you are a rancher from Texas. Remember the covenant with Abraham and the symbol of God walking between the animals split into two pieces. It is impossible for God not to carry out His unconditional promises, that is, the promises that are conditioned upon Himself to carry them out. But the promises that were conditional to physical Israel, they should have believed His covenantal threats to them.
LikeLike
As I understand it, modern conservative Presbyterian churches are also pretty patient on “enforcing the rule” against those who never profess faith. If such a person quietly departs and has no interest in the table, what more can be done, if you can’t put her out of the land?
Meredith Kline’s By Oath Consigned , despite its use of new information about extra-biblical treaties to talk about “covenant”, has more traditional conclusions than many Reformed writers who are now rejecting the conditional/unconditional distinction.
I agree (perhaps more than Jeff) with holding the line on the law/gospel antithesis. Unlike the confessional language which focuses the water as a means of assurance, Kline says that the water puts individuals into a conditional covenant, and introduces them to potential curse as well as potential blessing.
If there is such a thing as “being in the covenant” but not being in Christ, what are the blessings of “being in the covenant” for those for whom Jesus did not die? Kline cautions that “we are not to reduce the redemptive covenant to redemption..”
Those who don’t continue to believe the gospel are condemned. (John 3:18). But this is something different from saying that the non-elect are in the new covenant, and will be cursed and broken off if they don’t continue to believe..
But Kline resists “such a reduction of covenant to election. To do so is to substitute a logical abstraction for the historical reality” The historical reality for Kline is the reality of covenant threats and “actual divine vengeance against the disobedient as covenantal”. I agree about divine vengeance but my question is if this wrath is “new covenantal”.
Do those who are never initiated into the new covenant experience wrath? I am sure Kline would agree with me that they do. But this is something different from saying that those who experience the wrath of God were once members of the new covenant. This is one important way that the new covenant is not like the Abrahamic covenant.
Those who hear the gospel and reject it face greater condemnation but this does not prove that they EVER knew the Lord covenantally. Matthew 7 teaches us that there are those who never knew the Lord.
I agree that the blessing of the new covenant comes through covenant curse on Jesus Christ. But if Christ has kept the covenant for all those in the new covenant, then how can Kline speak of “dual sanctions” for those in the new covenant? But of course Kline does not say that Christ kept the covenant for all those in the new covenant—but this being so, where then is the grace of these non-elect folks having been in the new covenant?
Kline thinks that some for whom Jesus never died are initiated into the new covenant. And his pattern for this is not only the Mosaic covenant but the Abrahamic covenant. Not all the children of Abraham are children of Abraham. It was possible to be in that covenant but not be justified like Abraham was.
Kline agrees that Jeremiah 31 sounds like “discontinuity” with earlier covenants. “Jeremiah speaks, to be sure, only of a consummation of grace; he does not mention a consummation of curses in the new Covenant.” p76. But Kline maintains this is only a matter of focus—the emphasis is on eschatological blessing but curse is not denied Kline asks: “But the theologian of today ought not to impose on himself the visionary limitations of an Old Testament prophet.”
Jeff, can you tell me why any of us should we take Kline’s approach to Jeremiah? I think the prophet really is seeing a new covenant which has no “dual sanctions” because it is altogether conditioned on the obedience of Christ.
Yes, there is excommunication in the New Testament. But what Kline needs to show is that those judgments are exclusions of those who are in the new covenant. Otherwise he simply assume the paradigm with which he began. I John 2:19 says that those who sent out “were not of us.”
Kline argues that the new covenant of Jeremiah 31 is ultimately not about now but about after the second coming. (Richard Pratt uses a similar argument) Klines says that we who say that only the elect are now in the new covenant “prematurely precipitate the age to come.” (p77, footnote about Jewett). Kline does the already/ not yet number, with an emphasis on the not yet. Because we do not yet know everything, we do not know who will end up in the covenant, but that shouldn’t keep us from saying that those with one parent with creditable profession is in (and that those without one such parent are out until they profess)
To greatly simplify, Kiline says that the new convent is unconditional because the Abrahamic covenant was not unconditional. Verse 21: “he may not spare you either”.
Of course we have the promise of Romans 8:32 that all those for whom God did not spare His Son will be spared. The condition of this blessing is Christ’s obedience (even to death) . So I think it is possible to warn folks ( he may not spare you either) without telling them that they have been initiated into the new covenant. So why be so urgent to say that some (not all) who are non-professing are nevertheless in, like it or not?
LikeLike
When Romans 9:32 complains that some of the children of Abraham did not seek righteousness by faith, this does not mean that they did not work in the right way. Faith in the righteousness means that we do NO WORKS in order to be justified (to be found in the righteousness). Many who rejected Jesus the Messiah were perfectly willing to give God’s grace credit for their works. They were NOT ready to be told by Jesus Christs that their works were not only unprofitable but also ungodly! .
The reason the works of the Israelites who stumbled were evil was not simply a lack of sincerity or moral effort. Their works were evil because they were done without faith in the gospel Abraham believed.
That gospel says that God justifies the ungodly who do not work (Romans 4:5). It was not a situation of being in a covenant but failing to meet certain conditions. The problem was people not believing the promise of the gospel. Romans 10:3 “for they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. “
This is not me with a “premature anticipation” of the age to come. In Romans 9-11, Paul already makes two points:
1. Not every Jew is elect or justified–one could be in the Abrahamic covenant but not justified by God. So far, with this even the Jew who stumbled could agree. Yes, we are elect because God has made us able to keep the covenant. Thus they teach both grace and conditionality..
2. Paul has a second point to make in Romans 9:11, and this is the one many stumble upon. Paul claims that we cannot establish our own righteousness, not even if we give God the credit for our doing.
Romans 11:32 — “God has committed them all to disobedience, to have mercy on all.”.This is not a claim that everybody will be justified. All for whom Christ kept all conditions will be justified. The claim is that gospel hope is not founded on the obedience of those who will be justified.
There was a law-aspect to the Abrahamic covenant so that we can speak of some Israel being broken off. Some once in the Abrahamic covenant did not stay in. They didn’t get the land. They didn’t get Christ.
But those for whom Christ died will be spared and know the Lord.
LikeLike
RS: Faith as in external obedience, yes. But saving faith? No. The nation of Israel was supposed to believe the words of God and obey His laws and as such they had an external faith.
“External faith”?!
Yikes.
LikeLike
RS: Are you so sure that the sign placed on the Jewish male had to do with the faith that may come later or could it be the faith of a parent who believed that the coming Messiah would come through the Jews?
Neither. It was the sign of the righteousness that comes by faith. It said nothing about the faith of the one receiving it.
LikeLike
Mark: And I want you, Jeff, get [to] back to the issues of conditionality and the “Constantinianism” (anachronism for cult with same subjects as the body politic) of the Abrahamic covenant.
OK, here it is. I agree with Kline that the political aspects of the covenant were a kind of intrusion, a special circumstance that was in operation from Moses till the coming of Christ.
As such, the Abrahamic covenant had no civic governmental structure. Abraham was rather a man in search of a better city, which is our status right now.
What was true about the external administration of Abraham’s covenant was that it was regulated through the family and the covenant community, and nothing more.
So the “Constantinianism” (as you call it) of Israel is really a function of being under the Law. (Which, BTW, is why I object to theonomy: it appears to me to place believers back under the Law.) Hence, it is limited to national Israel under the Old Covenant, and has truly expired.
LikeLike
Mark: If there is such a thing as “being in the covenant” but not being in Christ, what are the blessings of “being in the covenant” for those for whom Jesus did not die?
Hebrews 6.
And again with “being in the covenant”, it would be best to distinguish between “rightly being in the covenant” (by faith) and “belonging to the administration of the covenant” (by outward membership).
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: Faith as in external obedience, yes. But saving faith? No. The nation of Israel was supposed to believe the words of God and obey His laws and as such they had an external faith.
Jeff Cagle: “External faith”?! Yikes.
RS: It is something like the verses below. People believe something when they see miracles and many believed in Jesus when they saw Him do miracles. This is something like a historical faith or a temporary faith. If you will carefully go through the Gospel of John you will find that the great majority of people that the Bible says believed were not converted. Simply trace out what happens to those who believed. For example, many believed in John 6 after Jesus fed them by a miracle, but by the end of John 6 they had left. Whatever believing they were doing was not a believing of the heart.
John 2:23 Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing. 24 But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men, 25 and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man.
John 6:14 Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” 26 Jesus answered them and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.
John 8:30 As He spoke these things, many came to believe in Him. 31 So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine;
Mat 13:20 “The one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he falls away.
James 2:19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: Are you so sure that the sign placed on the Jewish male had to do with the faith that may come later or could it be the faith of a parent who believed that the coming Messiah would come through the Jews?
Jeff Cagle Neither. It was the sign of the righteousness that comes by faith. It said nothing about the faith of the one receiving it.
RS: Abraham already had faith and it was a seal of the faith he already had.
Rom 4:10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,
RS: But again, note again the connection between Abrham and the covenant God made with the Jewish nation and then remember that the Mosiac covenant was abrogated. But then remember that Christ is the seed of Abraham and one must be in Him to be considered a spiritual child of Abraham. As Isaac was the child of promise in one sense, so Christ is the child of promise in reality. As Isaac was the father of Jacob (not to mention Esau), so Jacob became the father of the patriarchs or heads of the tribes of Israel. They were all part of the covenant of circumcision, but apparently few had the faith of Abraham, Jacob, and then Joseph. As circumcision was external, so many had an external faith (as opposed to spiritual). They believed in external things. As the Jews of the NT saw miracles and believed something but were not converted, so the OT Jews could see miracles and yet not be converted. They saw what went on at Sinai and yet before Moses could come off of the mountain they were in full idolatry. They had an external faith.
Acts 3:24 “And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and his successors onward, also announced these days. 25 “It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘AND IN YOUR SEED ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED.’
Acts 7:5 “But He gave him no inheritance in it, not even a foot of ground, and yet, even when he had no child, He promised that HE WOULD GIVE IT TO HIM AS A POSSESSION, AND TO HIS DESCENDANTS AFTER HIM.
6 “But God spoke to this effect, that his DESCENDANTS WOULD BE ALIENS IN A FOREIGN LAND, AND THAT THEY WOULD BE ENSLAVED AND MISTREATED FOR FOUR HUNDRED YEARS.
7 “‘AND WHATEVER NATION TO WHICH THEY WILL BE IN BONDAGE I MYSELF WILL JUDGE,’ said God, ‘AND AFTER THAT THEY WILL COME OUT AND SERVE ME IN THIS PLACE.’
8 “And He gave him the covenant of circumcision; and so Abraham became the father of Isaac, and circumcised him on the eighth day; and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the twelve patriarchs.
LikeLike
RS, your reading of Rom 4 is ungrammatically shaky.
The modifier of σφραγιδα is της δικαιοσυνης, not της πιστεως.
LikeLike
RS: But again, note again the connection between Abrham and the covenant God made with the Jewish nation and then remember that the Mosiac covenant was abrogated. But then remember that Christ is the seed of Abraham and one must be in Him to be considered a spiritual child of Abraham.
RS, you really can’t have it both ways. You cannot argue that on the one hand, God makes “connections” between the Old Covenant and the Abrahamic, such that the Old Covenant is really just the Abrahamic; and on the other, argue that Gal 3 is only referring to “spiritual children of Abraham”, when Paul doesn’t use that word.
At some point, you need to admit that the physical / spiritual aspect is based on your reasoning about the texts presented, and not on the actual words of the texts themselves.
There’s been a lot of Scriptural quoting, but none of it has actually taught that there are two different covenants with Abraham. That teaching is all found in the connections in your reasoning.
Which is sometimes needed, but it would be helpful if you could put a little bit of distance there between what the Bible actually says, and what you believe that it means.
LikeLike
RS: People believe something when they see miracles and many believed in Jesus when they saw Him do miracles. This is something like a historical faith or a temporary faith.
OK, that’s fine. But that kind of faith cannot be had by a nation, only by the individuals within that nation. (A nation is a single entity, with laws and government, etc; or a lineage, if we are thinking in terms of Hebrew “goy”).
And in any event, you’ve just added a condition to the “physical aspect” that wasn’t present before in your description: A requirement of “historical” or “external” faith.
So now we have a new definition of the “physical aspect” — the physical promises are to the physical descendents who demonstrate an “external faith.”
So I ask again: how were children circumcised before they demonstrated their “external faith”? They didn’t meet all the conditions you laid out.
The “physical aspect” theory cannot and will not win in the face of the Biblical data. It is clear that God required some kind of faith from the physical descendents of Abraham, whether actual or external.
And since that is the case, it is false that the physical promises were made to the physical descendents of Abraham.
LikeLike
Charles Hodge: “It is to be remembered that there were two covenants made with Abraham. By the one, his natural descendants through Isaac were constituted a commonwealth, an external, visible community. By the other, his spiritual descendants were constituted a church. The parties to the former covenant were God and the nation; to the other, God and His true people. The promises of the national covenant were national blessings; the promises of the spiritual covenant (i.e., the covenant of grace), were spiritual blessings, reconciliation, holiness, and eternal life.”
mark: I wouldn’t say two covenants, as Hodge did, but his main point remains valid. There is a “connection” of some aspects of the Abrahamic covenant with the Mosaic covenant, so that one aspect of the Abrahamic covenant must be abrogated when the Mosaic economy is abrogated. Since I don’t need to collapse covenants together to make one “the covenant of grace”, I don’t need to use that language to describe the “spiritual blessings” which come because of Christ’s righteousness.
Jeff: the political aspects of the covenant were a kind of intrusion, a special circumstance that was in operation from Moses till the coming of Christ.
What Hodge is seeing is that these “political aspects” are in force from the time of the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 17). (At some other time perhaps we will ask if the Noahic covenant is a “covenant of grace” and “by faith”.)
Jeff: What was true about the external administration of Abraham’s covenant was that it was regulated through the family and the covenant community, and nothing more.
mark: and yet you have tried to say that some in the Abrahamic covenant were cut off from the land NOT because of disobedience to external political law BUT INSTEAD BECAUSE of unbelief. I don’t think the difference you suggest between obedience and unbelief will come out as neat and clean as you want it to, Jeff. But I refer you to my earlier comments on Romans 9:32. To the extent you agree that there is this ‘external legal political adminstration” aspect, then the reason folks get cut off is that they disobey the law.
Jeff: This is really a function of being under the Law…Hence, it is limited to national Israel under the Old Covenant, and has truly expired.
mark: I think you are assuming that this legal aspect is limited in also not applying the Abrahamic economy up until Moses. But this is only because you have already assumed an identity between the Abrahamic and the new covenants (in “the covenant of grace”, details of discontinuity can be ignored.)
When do you think “national Israel” began? Surely we are not talking about a modern nation-state, so why aren’t we talking about the family of Abraham and the land promise to them?
Charles Hodge: “The conditions of the one covenant were circumcision and obedience to the law; the condition of the latter was, is, and ever has been, faith in the Messiah as the Seed of the woman, the Son of God, the Savior of the world. There cannot be a greater mistake than to confound the national covenant with the covenant of grace, and the commonwealth founded on the one with the church founded on the other.”
Hodge: When Christ came “the commonwealth” was abolished, and there was nothing put in its place. The Church remained. There was no external covenant, nor promises of external blessings, on condition of external rites and subjection. There was a spiritual society with spiritual promises, on the condition of faith in Christ. In no part of the New Testament is any other condition of membership in the Church prescribed than that contained in the answer of Philip to the eunuch who desired baptism: “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” (Acts 8: 37)
Charles Hodge, Church Polity (New York: Scribner, 1878), 66-67.
LikeLike
Hebrews 10:28-29, “Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the One who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which He was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace.”
This Bible text is often used to teach that the new covenant is common to both elect and non-elect.
The verse is then used to teach that the new covenant can be broken, and that the new covenant is bigger than election, and that new covenantal grace is for more than the elect. The idea is that God has some grace for everybody in the new covenant, but even more grace for the elect. This idea is not biblical.
The Hebrews 10 warning is not saying that an apostate was in the new covenant. I do not think it is even saying that the apostate appeared to be in the new covenant, although this is a possible interpretation if you work out of a visible and invisible church contrast.
The “Son of God” is the closest antecedent of the pronoun “he” in the phrase “the covenant by which he was sanctified”. Of course we need to remember that “sanctify” does not mean to get better and better, as most systematic theology would have it. “Sanctify” is to set apart before God, both in the Old Testament context of Hebrews 10, (blood of the covenant, Zechariah 9:11, Ex 24:8) and in John 17. “And for their sake I sanctify myself, that they shall also be sanctified.”
To teach that Christ sanctified Himself even for non-elect sinners to be “in the new covenant” is to profane the death of Christ.
A lot of confessional tradition wrongly defines sanctification as getting better. Some then take that idea to turn this “getting better” into the condition/result which makes Christ’s “common death” (for all in the new covenant, some of whom are said to be non-elect) effective. But the book of Hebrews instead gives all the glory to Christ’s death and resurrection.
Those who profane the death of Christ tell us that the new covenant is a location for sinners who will never be glorified. They tell us that the One sanctified was set apart for more than will be sanctified in the end. They tell us that Christ died also for those who are not and who will never be children of God.
That Christ sanctified Himself does not mean that Christ got better and better but that Christ set Himself apart to die for a people set apart for Him before the creation of the world. These elect people are one day sanctified by faith given by Christ’s Spirit, but before that, and as the cause of that, God’s elect are set apart by the death of Christ.
LikeLike
Mark, I think Hodge is trying to maintain a kind of separation of church and state similar to Hart’s. If he had lived in the post-dispensational era, I don’t think he would have spoken so glibly of two covenants.
OP Robertson is far better in his explanation, IMO.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: RS, your reading of Rom 4 is ungrammatically shaky.
The modifier of σφραγιδα is της δικαιοσυνης, not της πιστεως.
RS: But the point is that Abraham had faith and as such he had the imputed righteousness that is received by faith. He had faith (and the imputed righteousness which comes through faith) and as such his circumcision was after than and it was a seal. I am not sure why you think the grammar is shaky in this regard. A person that has faith has imputed righteousness.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: But again, note again the connection between Abrham and the covenant God made with the Jewish nation and then remember that the Mosiac covenant was abrogated. But then remember that Christ is the seed of Abraham and one must be in Him to be considered a spiritual child of Abraham.
Jeff Cagle: RS, you really can’t have it both ways. You cannot argue that on the one hand, God makes “connections” between the Old Covenant and the Abrahamic, such that the Old Covenant is really just the Abrahamic; and on the other, argue that Gal 3 is only referring to “spiritual children of Abraham”, when Paul doesn’t use that word.
At some point, you need to admit that the physical / spiritual aspect is based on your reasoning about the texts presented, and not on the actual words of the texts themselves.
RS: No, just because I use a word that a specific text does not use does not in and of itself mean that the aspect is not in the text. I am not sure how anyone could deny that the nation of Israel was in fact that physical children of Abraham. They were constantly reminded in the OT and the NT that Abraham was their father and that the promises to him were the reason that God was merciful to them and did not destroy them. After all, the physical lineage of Christ was going to come from them. However, Gal 3:3 “Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” What is spiritual is from the Spirit.
Gal 3:7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.
In the NT it is not those who are of the flesh (by itself) who are the children of Abraham, but it is those who are of faith. Those who are of faith have faith by the work of the Spirit and have the fruit of the Spirit and as such they are spiritual.
Gal 3:14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
How can it be denied that in Christ the blessings of Abraham comes to the Gentiles? Part of that promise is that believers (we) would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Again, a person that has the Holy Spirit is a spiritual person. But the Holy Spirit comes to those because Christ died in order that they may have the Spirit in accordance with the promise (according to the NT) of the Spirit in the covenant with Abraham. The physical descendants of Abraham received the Law only, but the spiritual descendants (those who would believe and so have the Spirit) of Abraham received the Spirit.
Gal 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. 19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. 22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.
24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.
RS: All are sons of God through faith (not physical) in Christ and if one belongs to Christ then that person is a descendant of Abraham. It is in this regard that a person is a spiritual descendent of Abraham as opposed to a physical descendent.
Jeff Cagle: There’s been a lot of Scriptural quoting, but none of it has actually taught that there are two different covenants with Abraham. That teaching is all found in the connections in your reasoning.
RS: I am not arguing that there were two different covenants with Abraham as such, but that there were two different aspects to the covenant. Read Galatians 4 below and see that it is not just a connection from my reasoning, but instead my reasoning is from Scripture. Notice with care verses 28-29. Those who were born according to the flesh are contrasted to those who are born of the Spirit. Those are the two aspects of the covenant. One cannot deny that the nation of Israel constituted the physical children (fleshly) of Abraham and yet one cannot deny that the Church consists of those born of the Spirit are the spiritual children of Abraham. Those are the two aspects of the covenant with Abraham. But only those born of the Spirit and only those who are in Christ are his spiritual children now. The physical descendent part was abrogated with the Law of Moses.
Galatians 4:22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. 23 But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. 24 This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar.
25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.
27 For it is written, “REJOICE, BARREN WOMAN WHO DOES NOT BEAR; BREAK FORTH AND SHOUT, YOU WHO ARE NOT IN LABOR; FOR MORE NUMEROUS ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE THAN OF THE ONE WHO HAS A HUSBAND.”
28 And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.
29 But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also.
30 But what does the Scripture say? “CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON, FOR THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE AN HEIR WITH THE SON OF THE FREE WOMAN.” 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.
Jeff Cagle: Which is sometimes needed, but it would be helpful if you could put a little bit of distance there between what the Bible actually says, and what you believe that it means.
RS: It is better to use a bit of shorthand than to quote the whole Bible.
Romans 2:29 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.
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
RS: Not all are Israel who are descended from Israel, but only the children of promise are the descendants of Abraham. Only those who are the children of promise (born again, born of the Spirit) are the true descendants of Abraham. So again, there are the two descendants of Abraham taught in the Bible. There are those of the flesh and there are those of the promise. Those of the flesh was the Jewish nation and those of the promise are those who are born of the Spirit (hence, spritiual). So the physical/spiritual aspect is based on the texts themselves and is not based on reasoning apart from the texts.
LikeLike
Jeff, I understand that you are not saying that Hodge could have profited by more study of dispensationalism. Rather, you are saying that, now that we are surrounded on every hand by dispensationalism, we have to be careful when we say the same thing dispies do on a certain point that we don’t sound like them. Otherwise, somebody somewhere might think that 2k attention to redemptive-historical discontinuity is a kind of dispensationalism.
Which again is why when we criticise one of Augustine’s political ideas, we make sure not to quote Augustine, but rather some other Roman Catholic who said what Augustine said.
John Murray’s Mono-Covenantalism, by David Gordon, in By Faith Alone, edited by Gary Johnson and Guy Waters (Crossway,2006, p121
“What I am less happy with is the language of the covenant of grace, because this is a genuinely
unbiblical use of biblical language. Biblically, covenant is always a historic arrangement, inaugurated in space and time.
David Gordon: “Once covenant refers to an over-arching divine decree or purpose to redeem the elect in Christ, confusion Is sure to follow. In my opinion, John Murray kept what ought to be discarded and discarded what ought to be kept.”
David Gordon: “John Murray despised dispensationalism. We all disagree with it, but few of us with the passion of John Murray. What Murray jettisoned was the notion of distinctions of kind between
the covenants. He wrote that was not ‘any reason for construing the Mosaic covenant in terms different from those of the Abrahamic.’ Murray believed that the only relation God sustains to people is that of Redeemer. I would argue, by contrast, that God was just as surely Israel’s God when He cursed the nation as when He blessed it.”
David Gordon: “The Auburn theology cannot describe covenant theology without reference to dispensationalism, despite the historical reality that covenant theology was here for several centuries before dispensationalism appeared. My own way of discerning whether a person really has an understanding of covenant theology is to see whether he can describe it without reference to dispensationalism.
David Gordon: “The word covenant is rarely employed in the Bible. Where it is used, there is almost always an immediate contextual clue to which biblical covenant is being referred to, such as “the covenant of circumcision” (Acts 7:8) The New Testament writers were not mono-covenantal regarding the Old Testament (see Rom 9:4, Eph 2:12; Gal 4:24).”
LikeLike
RS: I am not sure why you think the grammar is shaky in this regard.
Because you are making the circumcision into a sign of Abraham’s faith, rather than what the text says, a sign of the righteousness itself (which he had by faith).
LikeLike
Mark, here’s why I think Hodge is wrong. We may not notice this because the Scripture spends so much ink on Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, but between Abraham and Moses, Israel spent most of its time under the civil governance of Egypt.
What could he mean, then, and what does RS mean, to say that Israel was a “nation” under the Abrahamic covenant with its own government? Would God suffer His own ordained government to be subject to the government of Pharaoh? μη γενοιτο!
Rather, we should say what the Scripture says, that Abraham’s country was not of this world. The land of Canaan was a type of that country, but it was not the ultimate object of the covenant promises (Heb 11.10).
By focusing on “physical promises to physical descendents”, y’all are reifying the type to take on a life of its own. But it was only a shadow of the things to come.
LikeLike
JRC: Which is sometimes needed, but it would be helpful if you could put a little bit of distance there between what the Bible actually says, and what you believe that it means.
RS: It is better to use a bit of shorthand than to quote the whole Bible
Shorthand is fine. My point is that you are very, very confident about your interpretations. You have a large amount of certitude. I understand. When one has studied for a long time, confidence is not a bad thing.
But here, in the midst of others who also have studied for a long time, it should be OK for us to ask of one another for proof, and to criticize those proofs.
And to your great credit, you are willing to do the back-and-forth; but not so much to your credit, you tend to repeat your assertions instead of providing solid evidence for them, and you tend to rush past criticisms without considering their substance.
I’m just asking you to up your game, brother. We all have studied the Scripture here and are all committed to believing what it teaches.
My obstacle to credobaptism is very simple: Paul affirms that we are children of Abraham if we are in Christ.
You wish to add to his words that we are “spiritual children only.”
That addition requires a very high bar of justification, a good and necessary inference. So far, you have provided only insinuations, such as
“The New Covenant supercedes the Old in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, so the New Covenant must supercede the Abrahamic as well.”
This would only follow if the Abrahamic were coextensive with the Old, but that coextension is not taught in Scripture (and is contrary to Gal 3-4).
You are nevertheless very confident in your belief, and you continue to assert coextension as if it were obvious. It’s not.
So I’m asking you (and myself, of course) to clearly distinguish what Scripture says from how you read Scripture.
It does not help when I ask, “Where does Scripture teach a physical aspect and a spiritual aspect”, and you respond by pointing out that all of Abraham’s physical descendents fell under the terms of the covenant. I know that. I just don’t think it proves what you think it proves.
Does that make more sense?
LikeLike
RS: Not all are Israel who are descended from Israel, but only the children of promise are the descendants of Abraham. Only those who are the children of promise (born again, born of the Spirit) are the true descendants of Abraham. So again, there are the two descendants of Abraham taught in the Bible. There are those of the flesh and there are those of the promise. Those of the flesh was the Jewish nation and those of the promise are those who are born of the Spirit (hence, spritiual).
Total agreement so far.
RS: So the physical/spiritual aspect is based on the texts themselves and is not based on reasoning apart from the texts.
Nope. Consider the extra propositions of the “physical/spiritual aspect” theory — PSA hereafter.
(1) The physical aspect contained physical promises and was guaranteed to physical descendents.
(2) The spiritual aspect contained spiritual promises and was guaranteed to spiritual descendents.
We agree that there are two types of descendents. But I do not agree that there were two types of promises. Everywhere I look, the promises made to Abraham are presented together, in one package. And, everywhere I look, the “physical but not spiritual” descendents are called “not children of Abraham”, NOT “physical but not spiritual children of Abraham.”
So I would argue, using the words of Scripture, that the “physical-but-not-spiritual” children are no children at all, and have no rightful claim to any of the promises.
This does not mean that God immediately removed them from the possession of those promises, but over time He did.
Take Esau. He was not immediately removed from Abraham’s family. But over time, he and his descendents were cut off from Israel (and became the nation of Edom).
If the PSA were true, then Esau, who met the requirement of “being a physical descendent”, ought to have been permitted to remain in the family.
You say, “Well, external obedience was required of physical descendents.” And I ask, Where in the Abrahamic covenant is that stipulated or implied?
LikeLike
Not nation. Not church. Who is promised the land? Family. How can church be more basic than family if family determines who’s in the church? And this “family of Abraham” continues into the exile, after they were dwelling in disapora with foreign kings., up until the brrth of the Seed.
And this family was the government before Moses, when the children did not yet have a land. It’s just as wrong to read a medieval nation back into the time between Abraham and Moses, as it is to read a modern Reformed church into that time.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: People believe something when they see miracles and many believed in Jesus when they saw Him do miracles. This is something like a historical faith or a temporary faith.
Jeff Cagle: OK, that’s fine. But that kind of faith cannot be had by a nation, only by the individuals within that nation. (A nation is a single entity, with laws and government, etc; or a lineage, if we are thinking in terms of Hebrew “goy”).
RS: Which is all that I intended anyway. While there is no nation apart from the individuals, when the vast majority of individuals broke covenant with God by not keeping the laws God punished the nation by sending the individuals into exile.
Jeff Cagle: And in any event, you’ve just added a condition to the “physical aspect” that wasn’t present before in your description: A requirement of “historical” or “external” faith.
So now we have a new definition of the “physical aspect” — the physical promises are to the physical descendents who demonstrate an “external faith.”
RS: I am not sure how I have added anything. There were promises and curses to the nation (yes, and to the individuals in that nation) that were promises and curses that depended on their obedience. Indeed they could not be saved (eternally) by that obedience, but there were still promises and curses (Mosaic Law) that depended on their keeping of the Law.
Jeff Cagle: So I ask again: how were children circumcised before they demonstrated their “external faith”?
RS: With a sharp cutting instrument.
Jeff Cagle: They didn’t meet all the conditions you laid out.
RS: They were born a Jew and so they did meet that condition. Was the circumcision a sign of the infant’s faith or of the faith of Abraham and the faithfulness of God in bringing a Messiah? Jesus was to be born of a Jew and indeed He was. But the infant being circumcised did not mean that the infant did have faith or would have faith, but instead it simply mean that the little boy was a Jewish baby and that God was faithful and would bring the Messiah through that line.
Jeff Cagle: The “physical aspect” theory cannot and will not win in the face of the Biblical data. It is clear that God required some kind of faith from the physical descendents of Abraham, whether actual or external.
RS: It was a belief of who God was and that He would bless or punish them according to their works. But as for eternal salvation, it had to be a faith that apart from their works they were to look to the coming Messiah for salvation as Abraham did.
Jeff Cagle: And since that is the case, it is false that the physical promises were made to the physical descendents of Abraham.
RS: But for your case to be true, there would be no temporal/physical promises in the Mosaic covenant. This is to say that there would then be no Mosaic covenant at all.
Just after the giving of the Ten Commandments, Deut 5: 32 “So you shall observe to do just as the LORD your God has commanded you; you shall not turn aside to the right or to the left. 33 “You shall walk in all the way which the LORD your God has commanded you, that you may live and that it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days in the land which you will possess.
Deuteronomy 6:1 “Now this is the commandment, the statutes and the judgments which the LORD your God has commanded me to teach you, that you might do them in the land where you are going over to possess it,
2 so that you and your son and your grandson might fear the LORD your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command you, all the days of your life, and that your days may be prolonged.
3 “O Israel, you should listen and be careful to do it, that it may be well with you and that you may multiply greatly, just as the LORD, the God of your fathers, has promised you, in a land flowing with milk and honey. 18 “You shall do what is right and good in the sight of the LORD, that it may be well with you and that you may go in and possess the good land which the LORD swore to give your fathers, 19 by driving out all your enemies from before you, as the LORD has spoken.
Ephesians 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.
2 HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER (which is the first commandment with a promise),
3 SO THAT IT MAY BE WELL WITH YOU, AND THAT YOU MAY LIVE LONG ON THE EARTH.
LikeLike
RS: I am not sure how I have added anything. There were promises and curses to the nation (yes, and to the individuals in that nation) that were promises and curses that depended on their obedience. Indeed they could not be saved (eternally) by that obedience, but there were still promises and curses (Mosaic Law) that depended on their keeping of the Law.
There was not a Mosaic Law in operation during the time of which we are speaking.
JRC: They didn’t meet all the conditions you laid out.
RS: They were born a Jew and so they did meet that condition.
First, you laid out one condition: parentage. Then you laid out two conditions: parentage and “external faith.” Now, you are retreating back to one condition: parentage.
This is becoming silly. And the reason for that silliness is that you are bringing in the Mosaic Law as if it somehow applied during the time between Abraham and Moses. But it did not.
LikeLike
Mark: Not nation. Not church. Who is promised the land? Family. How can church be more basic than family if family determines who’s in the church? And this “family of Abraham” continues into the exile, after they were dwelling in disapora with foreign kings., up until the brrth of the Seed.
Good, yes.
Now, can you agree that Ruth was adoped into that family on the basis of her faith?
LikeLike
Mark, you wrote somewhere up above that the Weak Abrahamic Argument proves only that “if God can do it one covenant, then God can do it another covenant. But that is far from proving that God has done the same thing in the new covenant.”
That is correct, which is why the argument is weaker than the SAA. The purpose of the WAA is defensive. It says to the credobaptist, “You treat it as absurd that God would bring physical descendents under the administration of a covenant whose true membership is by faith. But God has already done so. So perhaps you should rethink what you understand to be absurd.”
The WAA does not prove, as you rightly point out, that God has done so under the New Covenant. To get to that point, the credobaptist must accept the plain literal meaning of Gal 3 and Rom 4.
LikeLike
The “plain literal meaning” of Galatians 3 and Romans 4? Jeff, it must be exasperating to keep talking to two different credobaptists, with about ten different sub-topics going on at the same
time. But that “plain literal” sounds like some of the over-confidence about which you have correctly warned RS (and us all). Part of my problem in trying to fairly represent the mind-set of those with the argument from circumcision is that you folks don’t agree with each other. Most of you don’t sound enough like Zwingli, because you want to keep Calvin’s dialectic (the person baptized is given assurance that she is ingrafted but what does that mean?) going. And many of you are reluctant to divide the legal promises from the gospel promises in the Mosaic covenant in the way that Kline and Mark Karlberg would do it.
So I would watch it on the “plain and literal” conclusion, Jeff, unless you can get your confessional allies to come on board with you in your distinctions between Abrahamic circumcision and Mosaic circumcision. Was the literal circumcision the Lord Jesus received on day eight from the Mosaic or the Abrahamic economy, and how would you know, and what would it matter?
jeff: We agree that there are two types of descendents. But I do not agree that there were two types of promises.
mark : I can count at least five types of “seed”.
1. There are children with Abraham’s DNA who do not seem to have been justified and elect (Ishmael, Esau)
2. There are children with Abraham’s DNA who do seem to have been justified and elect (see Hebrews 11)
3. There are children without Abraham’s DNA who come into the Abrahamic covenant (see Ruth, see Hebrews 11)
4. There are “gentile” children without Abraham’s DNA who are children of Abraham but who never come into the Abrahamic covenant. The Abraham covenant (minus certain redemptive historical discontinuity of aspects) is not identical with the new covenant. Jeff, this is the “plain and literal meaning of Romans 4 and Galatians 3.
5. And most important, there is Abraham’s one seed, Christ, concerning whom God promised Abraham in the good news. Galatians 3:16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ.
mark: as for your claim that there are not two kind of promises, Jeff, you have already agreed to “legal intrusions” backwards. Are these sanctions not a function of the Abrahamic covenant? Is the promise about keeping the land no different than the promise about having a righteousness brought in by the Seed? (of course those promises are connected, related) I think you have already agreed to this distinction, so why are you now attempting to reduce the promises to one promise? Ironically it leaves you with the inference that Esau meet the legal conditions for keeping the land, but didn’t get it because of his unbelief of the gospel. So you haven’t avoided saying promises are different, but have simply placed all the “conditionality’ under the category of “faith”
Jeff: Abraham’s country was not of this world. The land of Canaan was a type of that country,
but it was not the ultimate object of the covenant promises (Heb 11.10). By focusing on “physical promises to physical descendents”, y’all are reifying the type to take on a life of its own. But it was only a shadow of the things to come.”
mark: First, I don’t like the yall. Because I don’t like the South and wish I didn’t have a southern accent and I try to make up for being born southern by being as unfriendly with strangers as I can. Second, because I am not a Banner of Truth pietist who ignores the political aspect of the puritans or of the covenants. In other words, RS doesn’t speak for me. I have read and profited from theonomists and many other kinds of Reformed theology. Third, because most credobaptists are free-will Arminians and I deny that I need to stop being credobaptist to show that I am not Arminian.
(So, Jeff, not a big deal, but say “Yall except mcmark”. I am very special. Like the USA is “very unique”. But I shouldn’t try to make a joke. I feel your exasperation. It would be so much easier if there were only two sides to everything.)
Abraham was looking to the one Seed, but that doesn’t mean that Abraham didn’t have many seed, many of whom were not elect and are not in the new covenant. So, Jeff, when you accuse others of reifying the type”, you need yourself to be concerned about reification of the fulfillment (the circumcision of Christ) such that you mistake the antitype for the type. As if to say, no “physical aspect” here, so no “physical aspect” there. The fact that Hebrews 11 doesn’t mention the “family-political” reality doesn’t mean it wasn’t there, just as the fact that Hebrews 11 doesn’t mention Abraham’s sins doesn’t mean that Abraham didn’t sin.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: I am not sure how I have added anything. There were promises and curses to the nation (yes, and to the individuals in that nation) that were promises and curses that depended on their obedience. Indeed they could not be saved (eternally) by that obedience, but there were still promises and curses (Mosaic Law) that depended on their keeping of the Law.
Jeff C: There was not a Mosaic Law in operation during the time of which we are speaking.
JRC: They didn’t meet all the conditions you laid out.
RS: They were born a Jew and so they did meet that condition.
Jeff C: First, you laid out one condition: parentage. Then you laid out two conditions: parentage and “external faith.” Now, you are retreating back to one condition: parentage.
This is becoming silly. And the reason for that silliness is that you are bringing in the Mosaic Law as if it somehow applied during the time between Abraham and Moses. But it did not.
RS: Jeff, the reason it may appear silly to you is because you are not following the argument. Perhaps you are confusing what Mark is saying and what I am saying, or perhaps you are simply not reading carefully. I will step out and let you and Mark have at it. But let me try to clear one thing up for you. The condition for being circumcised was to be born a Jew. A condition for the blessing of God rather than the curse of God was obedience to an external law and as such an external faith. I have no idea where those last two lines came from.
LikeLike
Richard and Jeff,
Thanks for keeping the discussion at OL going. Without you the site seems a little blah. I’ll try to change that soon.
LikeLike
RS: Jeff, the reason it may appear silly to you is because you are not following the argument. Perhaps you are confusing what Mark is saying and what I am saying, or perhaps you are simply not reading carefully.
Sean: This is how the sunday lunch with my in-laws ends every week. It starts with; “so how many babies did you ‘wet-hand’ (gotta get the dig in on how we get the mode wrong as well) this week.” Of course Jeff gets to avoid the whole; ‘where’s your rosary beads’, shot. Heading toward the 1000 comments plateau would be in keeping with the whole ‘war of attrition’ aspect as well.
LikeLike
yes, I agree, Sean, I hate it when credobaptists talk about mode. But of course I only like it when credobaptists are quoting Hodge and Nevin and Fesko and Leithart.
Sean, were you a “covenant child”? Were you baptized as an infant because of your being a “covenant child”? I know that many of the folks most urgent for paedobaptism on old life did not have that “experience”.
I am asking if you ever had the experience of being accused of being an Arminian because you wouldn’t baptize babies? It’s kinda the reverse of being charged with Romanism because you do.
We should agree not to ever talk about mode until we all agree on the subjects of baptism. Until we know the difference between God’s baptism that saves and water baptism (the appeal of a good conscience), why waste our time discussing mode?
LikeLike
McMark,
I don’t get my feelings hurt by any of it, far from it. It’s just that it’s tantamount to the whole theonomy discussion. It’s never-ending. From my perspective the argument primarily revolves around the attempt to secure a more ‘true’ or ‘perfect’ confession. I don’t think the credo-baptism, solely, argument against the lack of NT direct scriptural appeal, has any traction beyond the initial assertion unless the “credo-only” wants to also take the stand against all ‘inferred’ dogma. I wouldn’t assume that you do. So, now we’re in the realm of what’s being communicated and how. Also, continuity/discontinuity points of contact which, for me, tracks along the abrahamic/ mosaic distinctions in Rom 4 and Gal. For me it doesn’t get any better than Sign and Seal and then ‘confirmation’-make good on your baptism before receiving the Lord’s supper. One sacrament of initiation, another sacrament of ongoing renewal. See, that took like 2 minutes.
LikeLike
sean quoting RS: Jeff, the reason it may appear silly to you is because you are not following the argument. Perhaps you are confusing what Mark is saying and what I am saying, or perhaps you are simply not reading carefully.
Sean: This is how the sunday lunch with my in-laws ends every week. It starts with; “so how many babies did you ‘wet-hand’ (gotta get the dig in on how we get the mode wrong as well) this week.” Of course Jeff gets to avoid the whole; ‘where’s your rosary beads’, shot. Heading toward the 1000 comments plateau would be in keeping with the whole ‘war of attrition’ aspect as well.
RS: I really think that Jeff was getting things confused between what Mark said and what I said. It was not an attempt to avoid anything other than confusion. I thought it was a great conversation/discussion between Mark and Jeff and if I stopped engaging that would help Jeff focus more and their discussion might be even better. At least it would be more accurate and/or precise.
LikeLike
Sean: Heading toward the 1000 comments plateau would be in keeping with the whole ‘war of attrition’ aspect as well.
RS: The number 1000 has some biblical meaning, so perhaps it is not all bad. Maybe, just maybe some things are built on so many assumptions and differing views that it takes a lot of discussion to get to the bottom of it. I would prefer a thousands of comments on a meaningful thread to much shorter ones that don’t have much to do with anything important.
LikeLike
Richard,
Sometimes it’s ok to introduce a little levity into these discussions. I enjoy both Mark’s and Jeff’s contributions. I can’t say I keep up with it all or agree with every point being made. But, I do recognize and am familiar with the nature of these conversations, and I’m sure I’ll have about an hour’s worth of it tomorrow, followed with; ‘for such a smart fellow, you aren’t very bright, you’d think someone like you could read the plain language of scripture, you find your rosary yet.’ And I’ll ask him how it is, he believes in the trinity and how it is that he came to believe in the hypostatic union, did he get that from the Gospel of Thomas or something?” At which point they’ll be a harrumph or something akin to that and he’ll ask my brother-in-law Michael if the youngest has accepted Jesus yet and if they plan to use the pool to dunk her. It’s all good. Wash, rinse, repeat next week.
LikeLike
Richard,
BTW, I read a good portion of your stuff too, and appreciate much of it.
LikeLike
Richard,
Sorry to have muddied the waters.
LikeLike
Mark: As for your claim that there are not two kind of promises, Jeff, you have already agreed to “legal intrusions” backwards. Are these sanctions not a function of the Abrahamic covenant? Is the promise about keeping the land no different than the promise about having a righteousness brought in by the Seed? (of course those promises are connected, related) I think you have already agreed to this distinction, so why are you now attempting to reduce the promises to one promise?
Here’s how I see it.
There is one covenant, with one set of promises — all or nothing. That covenant is conditioned on faith. All of the descendents of Abraham through faith — whether Jew or Gentile — are legitimate heirs of this covenant because, ultimately, they are legally included in the One Seed, Jesus.
There is an outward, or physical, administration of that covenant. God decreed that those who professed faith, and their children, should be brought under the administration of that covenant unless and until they showed unbelief by egregious sin, at which point they were cut off from their people.
I think this understanding of the Abrahamic Covenant accounts for all of the facts in the Scripture.
So: the promise about keeping the land is grouped together with the promise about having righteousness. Only righteous people deserved to be in the land; only those with an alien righteousness could be righteous.
Now, the Law complicates matters because the Law was specifically given as a tutor. Its purpose was to expose sin and to demonstrate outwardly God’s wrath against sin.
So from this, one might wrongly conclude that the Law was all about outward obedience corresponding to outward promises. But that was not the purpose of the Law. Its purpose was to expose inward disobedience.
—
So, clearly, you disagree with this way of cutting the cake. But why, other than that it would open the door to infant baptism?
LikeLike
But seriously RS, I realize that I was coming on very strongly. So I apologize if I made it sound like I think you personally are silly. I don’t, in the least.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: But seriously RS, I realize that I was coming on very strongly. So I apologize if I made it sound like I think you personally are silly. I don’t, in the least.
RS: But I am personally silly, so it is true whether you meant that or not. I thought you were referring to the argument. I just noted that Mark did not think you were following him and I didn’t think you were following me that well, so I thought it might be better just to focus on the one person at the moment. One only has so much time (you) and the two of you were having a good discussion that appeared to be profitable.
LikeLike
Jeff: There is one covenant, with one set of promises — all or nothing.
mark: I disagree with this for some of the same reasons that David Gordon and Charles Hodge did. I also disagree with it because of you what you said about “legal intrusions” back. Whether we agree with Kline’s language or not, there is a conditional aspect which is not simply about faith in the gospel, which is why you keep doing the dialectic. On the one hand, you say there is only one covenant with only one set of promises. But on the other hand, you also find a way to talk about “external administration”. And I would say—it’s not an “intrusion”, because it’s part of the “all or nothing” which is there.
As I read your sentence above, I am not SURE what you mean. Do you mean to say that there is one “the covenant of grace” so that all the various biblical covenants (Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, new) are all “adminstrations” of one covenant with one set of conditional grace promises? I don’t think that’s what you meant in the sentence above. Rather, I think you meant “there is one Abrahamic economy”, so that we can’t cherry-pick some things out of it, and then by inference keep what we want and modify the rest. Each covenant in its own terms is “all or nothing.”
But if you go that direction, it seems that you should agree with me that the promises to Abraham have been fullfilled, and then infer that the new covenant is not the same covenant as the Abrahamic covenant. And then you wouldn’t be able to read “child with one professing parent” back into the Abrahamic covenant.
As for your suggestion that the only reason I think about this is infant baptism, I can tell you I have as much problem with credobaptists when they go “mono-covenantal” as I do with any paedobaptist. This is not simply because I am a pacifist and a non-sabbatarian. And it’s not only because I object to the way so many credobaptists read the land promise to Abraham. To put it simply, I am way more comfortable with a paedobaptist like David Gordon(who warns against collapsing the covenants by giving careful attention to the discontinuity) than I am with many “Reformed Baptists” who use the “one covenant of grace with different administrations” language that they learned from the puritans.
Jeff: There is an outward, or physical, administration of that covenant. God decreed that those who professed faith, and their children, should be brought under the administration of that covenant unless and until they showed unbelief by egregious sin, at which point they were cut off from their people.
mark: We can (and should) say that not all Israel is Israel without needing to infer that the Abrahamic covenant has “outward and inward” adminstrations. We can (and should) say that gentiles who believe the gospel that Abraham believed are children of Abraham without needing to infer that the Abrahamic covenant has “outward and inward” adminstrations.
We can say that the justified elect “are Israel” and that “not all Israel is Israel” without at all saying that the non-elect are included in the new covenant. But the non-elect were included in the Abrahamic covenant, not simply because of inability to discern the “inward”, but because that was the nature of the Abrahamic covenant, “all or nothing” When you say “they professed faith”, do you infer this from the fact that they circumcised their children? When the Crusaders said to the barbarians, be baptised or get cut off, was the subsequent baptisms “professions of faith”?
(And btw, I am not accusing those of you say that the new covenant includes the non-elect (who are broken off), with also teaching that Jesus Christ died for the non-elect. No doubt some of you teach that lie, but it’s not anymore inherent in your notion of new covenant (larger set than election) than being Arminian is inherent in the refusal to baptize babies. Plenty of credobaptists teach that Christ died for the non-elect also.)
Jeff: So: the promise about keeping the land is grouped together with the promise about having righteousness.
mark: But here again is where you do a dialectic. You say the promise is objective, not about the persons circumcised, not about the infants baptized. And I say fine, then let’s just do everybody. But after you have said it’s not about the persons, but only a seal about the gospel itself, then you agree that only some persons get the circumcision or the baptism, so then it is also about the persons. Persons in Abraham’s family (before there is a nation-state) get into the church, and now you say these infants get baptized but not those infants. So then you end up saying–even though it’s only given to some persons and not to others, it’s still not about persons at all. And that’s a pretty tricky dialectic to play out….
Check out my listing of “five different types of seed” above.
Jeff; Now, the Law complicates matters because the Law was specifically given as a tutor. Its purpose was to expose sin and to demonstrate outwardly God’s wrath against sin.
mark: I think I know what you mean here, because I think you are talking about the Mosaic law. And I agree with the redemptive historical reading of Galatians 3 (and also of Romans 6 and 7). But what you need to acknowledge is that the other covenants also have law. I am not going to speculate about where you are, Jeff, on the law-gospel antithesis, but perhaps you are not in the same place as Mike Horton is. And of course Westminster Ca also needs to be clear (as you need to be clear) that the Abrahamic covenant has law in it. Circumcision is not only about the gospel. And circumcision is not only in the Mosaic covenant (although I acknowledge that it’s particularly associated with the Mosaic). And the new covenant has law. And God’s law changes. All the law God has given reflects His Holy moral character, but that doesn’t mean that the law given to Abraham’s family is still law for Christians today. Nor should we read the Lord Jesus as a mere exegete of the Mosaic law.
Jeff: So from this, one might wrongly conclude that the Law was all about outward obedience corresponding to outward promises. But that was not the purpose of the Law. Its purpose was to expose inward disobedience.
mark: Agreed, and this would also be true of the law given to Noah, the law given to Abraham, and the law of Christ given with the new covenant.
LikeLike
I am preparing to teach on Whitefield and the first Great Awakening tomorrow. After that I will discuss the Tennent’s and the Old-Side/New-Side split that arose in the Presbyterian Churches in reaction to the Awakening. I am using D.G.’s “Dictionary of the Presbyterian & Reformed Tradition in America” from 1999 (I think there might be a newer edition). I highly recommend it for everyone here. It is a fascinating book and very helpful. It’s cheap on Amazon or ebay, although if D.G. gets royalties I’m sure you will all want to buy it new. I hope everyone has a great Lord’s Day.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: I am preparing to teach on Whitefield and the first Great Awakening tomorrow. After that I will discuss the Tennent’s and the Old-Side/New-Side split that arose in the Presbyterian Churches in reaction to the Awakening. I am using D.G.’s “Dictionary of the Presbyterian & Reformed Tradition in America” from 1999 (I think there might be a newer edition). I highly recommend it for everyone here. It is a fascinating book and very helpful. It’s cheap on Amazon or ebay, although if D.G. gets royalties I’m sure you will all want to buy it new. I hope everyone has a great Lord’s Day.
RS: I can only hope that you have read a fair number of the sermons of Whitefield in order to teach about Whitefield. I can also recommend Dallimore’s two volume biography of Whitefield. By the way, he was converted while writing this biography and then went back and started over. You might also consider that the ministers were coming across people that would come up to them asking them what they could do to be saved. Tennent wrote a letter asking what they were to do when they came across unconverted people when they were so obviously unconverted. Were they to tell them that even though they thought they were under the wrath of God that they were not? Were they to assure these people that they were converted when they obviously were not? What should a man do if he went to another area for meetings to preach and unconverted people from another church came to him pleading for help?
LikeLike
Mark: Rather, I think you meant “there is one Abrahamic economy”, so that we can’t cherry-pick some things out of it, and then by inference keep what we want and modify the rest.
Yes.
Mark: But if you go that direction, it seems that you should agree with me that the promises to Abraham have been fullfilled, and then infer that the new covenant is not the same covenant as the Abrahamic covenant.
That would make sense, except that Paul affirms that we are children of Abraham. And that we have been ingrafted as wild olive branches into the olive tree. And that in Christ, the dividing wall that separates Jews and Gentiles has been abolished, so that we are made one people.
I can’t find a way to self-consistent way to read that except to take Paul seriously: we have been adopted into Abraham’s people.
Mark: We can (and should) say that not all Israel is Israel without needing to infer that the Abrahamic covenant has “outward and inward” adminstrations.
No,no,no. No outward and inward administrations. Rather, a covenant that is conditioned on faith, but is administered (outwardly) through family.
The “administration of the covenant” refers to the structures that God set up on our behalf to carry the covenant forward. That’s all outward. God has no need for administration on His own part!
LikeLike
Not to jump in late…
But I’m not sure that this is an intramural debate. Credobaptism has always struck me as a bit odd, especially the practice of “rebaptizing” those whose earlier baptism was not accompanied with all the proper theological accoutrements. Also, churches that practice credobaptism seem to have any unhealthy emphasis on pietism and revivalism.
LikeLike
Hi Mark,
I’m not seeing (possibly my fault?) where Gordon believes there are two covenants with Abraham. I read the essay you linked, together with TDG’s essay on Theonomy, and I’m not seeing two covenants with Abraham.
Further, from the same website comes a fairly famous essay by TDG that contrasts his own view of the covenant with Abraham with Murray’s. Abraham and Sinai Contrasted.
And while I don’t wish to take sides on the Murray/anti-Murray point, I do wish to say that TDG is speaking of the Abrahamic covenant as a unity in this essay, and he speaks (as I do) of an administration of that covenant.
I commend this essay to everyone’s attention because it draws attention to what I mentioned to RS earlier: if we start reading Law (and obedience-conditionality) back into Abraham, we will end up reading Law into the New Covenant also.
LikeLike
Jeff: Further, from the same website comes a fairly famous essay by TDG that contrasts his own view of the covenant with Abraham with Murray’s. Abraham and Sinai Contrasted.
And while I don’t wish to take sides on the Murray/anti-Murray point, I do wish to say that TDG is speaking of the Abrahamic covenant as a unity in this essay, and he speaks (as I do) of an administration of that covenant. I commend this essay to everyone’s attention because it draws attention to what I mentioned to RS earlier: if we start reading Law (and obedience-conditionality) back into Abraham, we will end up reading Law into the New Covenant also.
mark: I agree that there are a lot of good essays on David Gordon’s site, and I think that his (inamous) essay contrasting the Abrahamic and the Mosaic is an excellent indictment of John Murray’s mono-covenantalism. If you really want to say that the conditionality is limited to the Mosaic covenant, Jeff, you will need to take sides with Gordon against John Murray.
I agree with you that David Gordon speak of the Abrahamic covenant as an unity, and I agree with that, even though I think paedobaptists attempt to have it both ways when they speak of “external administration”. Why speak of “external adminstration”? Is it because you need that to talk about the conditonality and the law which is part of the Abrahamic covenant itself? (Genesis 17, circumcise or be cut off, what you have to do to prove your faith is to circumcise).
So I don’t agree with Hodge saying that there are two covenants with Abraham, one concerning the Seed bringing in the righteousness and the other about land and circumcision of children. I agree to the “unity of the Abrahamic covenant”. But then the question gets to be about the relationship between the Abrahamic covenant and the new covenant. The Abrahamic covenant is one covenant, the new covenant is one covenant, but where you (Jeff with many other paedobaptists) make the leap is to say that, since all believer in the gospel are “children of Abraham” (one of the five different senses of that phrase), then this means that the Abrahamic covenant and the new covenant are the same one covenant, and then any ” intrusive or conditonal” aspects of the Abrahamic covenant which don’t quite fit your idea of the “new covenant” simply get ignored or dismissed as accidental and not of the essence. (modifications about land or which day are merely “ceremonial” or differences about “positive law”)
Jeff, on this, I would at least like to know if I am understand you correctly. The issue is not simply the unity of the Abrahamic covenant promises. The more basic issue is that you think Galatians 3 and Romans 4 demand that the Abrahamic and new covenants are the same covenant. I have talked to David Gordon about this some (privately), especially because of his statement against collapsing covenants into “the covenant of grace” construct. But to leave Gordon out of it now, I would like to hear your argument for the identity of those two covenants. We seem to be at impasse, with you thinking–how could he not see that they are the same covenant? And me thinking, how could he think that “not all Israel is Israel” means that non-elect are now in the new covenant (as they were in the Abrahamic) for a while before they are broken off? So just assume I am either thick or very stubborn (or both!) and please patiently instruct me. If it’s as obvious as you think, surely you can show me the presupposition I am holding onto which prevents me from seeing the argument for the unity of those two covenants. (leaving the Noahic out for now)
LikeLike
Excellent.
OK, here’s the larger argument. Start with Galatians. As I read it, Paul is refuting a particular argument. It makes the most sense to believe that Galatians is responsive to that argument.
From Acts 15, we learn that the argument is, “Unless you have been circumcised and obey the Law of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
From John, we learn that the Pharisees equated being “children of Abraham” (in the flesh) with being “children of God.”
Now we come to Galatians and ask, In what way is Paul refuting the Judaizers?
First and most obviously, Paul declares that those who have the faith of Abraham have received the promise of the Spirit. They have been clothed with Christ by faith; they have become children of God by faith.
But there is more. Why do the Galatians not need circumcision? Because, says Paul, if you are in Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise. “What the Judaizers offer, you already have.”
So then, why not understand this in “purely spiritual” terms? Could it be that Paul is referring to the promise of the Holy Spirit and nothing more?
First, because if Paul were referring only to a single promise out of many in the AbCov, then the Judaizers would indeed have something to offer: “Sure, you have the Holy Spirit. But we can offer that plus the opportunity to be in Abraham’s family.”
It seems to me that for Paul to be fully responsive to the Judaizing temptation, he must be saying “What they offer, you already have.”
Second, because we have no evidence that the AbCov was divided into promises that applied to one group (“children according to the flesh”) and promises that applied to another (“children according to the Spirit”). So our default assumption should be that the promise of the Spirit entails the entire thing, unless taught otherwise elsewhere.
Third, because of Romans 4. When we consider how Paul treats the AbCov in Romans 4, he declares that Abraham “received the promise that he would inherit the world by faith.”
Immediately, the reader must ask, “Where was this promise about inheriting the world? I missed that in Gen 17.” We have three options. One possibility is that Paul really meant “the land”, and modern translators have overextended themselves (unlikely). One possibility is that Paul is referring to the promise that “out of you will come many nations.” And the third is that the promise of Canaan was typological of the promise to inherit New Heavens and New Earth.
No matter which one chooses, that promise was conditioned upon faith and not upon physical descent.
This fact strongly supports the reading of Gal 3 as entailing the entirety of the AbCov upon believers: “What the Judaizers offer, you already have in Christ.”
Two images in Scripture then support this reading. The first is the tree in Rom 11, representing God’s people. Unbelieving Jews are “broken off” of this tree, and Esau is taken as the example of such breaking-off. So we ask, What was the fate of Esau? He and his descendents were cut off of the covenant in its entirety.
Well, if breaking off means removing from the AbCov, then grafting in means inclusion into the AbCov.
The second is the building in Eph 2 – 3.
remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household…
…In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. 6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.
The key phrase here is excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of promise. If that was formerly true, then it follows that the change Paul has in mind is a reversal: you are no longer excluded from citizenship in Israel, and you are no longer foreigners to the covenants of promise.
In other words, “What the Judaizers offer, you already have in Christ.”
And then there’s Philippians: “For we are the circumcision…”
But I think that gives the meat of the argument. When Paul is speaking about being Abraham’s children, he isn’t speaking metaphorically (“sons of Abraham” meaning “people just like Abraham was”), but he is speaking of inheritance — you are the rightful heirs of the promises made to Abraham.
What was disturbing to me about being a credo- in the former days (1999 IIRC) was asking myself the question, “Well, assuming that Paul means only that we are receiving the promise of the Spirit. What would one have to do if one really wanted to be an heir of the rest of the promises? Well — according to the physical/spiritual theory, one would have to be circumcised!!”
In other words, the credo- argument had to assert that citizenship in Israel is still off-limits to Gentile believers, unless they agree to be circumcised. The dividing wall is still up, and the tree has two classes of members.
That line of thinking was very unsettling.
LikeLike
Bob: Not to jump in late…
RS: Bob, don’t read my tone as nasty or anything like that, but will simply be giving an alternative to your answers.
Bob: But I’m not sure that this is an intramural debate.
RS: You mean that it is not between Christians or????
Bob: Credobaptism has always struck me as a bit odd, especially the practice of “rebaptizing” those whose earlier baptism was not accompanied with all the proper theological accoutrements.
RS: The argument would be that infants and/or unbelievers are not truly baptized, so it is not really rebaptizing them. It is not so much as not having proper theological accoutrements, but that they are not the children of God apart from regeneration.
Bob: Also, churches that practice credobaptism seem to have any unhealthy emphasis on pietism and revivalism.
RS: But of course I would argue that churches that practice infant baptism have an unhealthy fear of biblical pietism and true revival.
LikeLike
Galatians 3:16 Now the promiseS were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to seedS,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your seed,” who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean–the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul A covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the seed should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then contrary to the promiseS of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that THE PROMISE by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to
those AS MANY AS WHO believe.
23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we would be
justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus YOU are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For AS MANY AS YOU many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise.
Jeff: Start with Galatians. Why not understand this in “purely spiritual” terms? Could it be that Paul is referring to the promise of the Holy Spirit and nothing more?
mark: I think you must be debating some other credobaptist. I am not somebody who reduces the Abrahamic promises to one promise. I am all for noting the various promises, beginning in Genesis 12. Abram will become a great nation (goy, polis), and he can’t have a great nation without land, territory for many people, mostly all biologically related to Abram, a land with no other altars allowed except to Yahweh the King. God also promises blessings for other nations based on their relation to Abram’s nation, with curses for those nations which don’t relate favorably to Abram’s nation.
So I am not the one reducing all these promises to one promise. I am not the one saying that the
Abrahamic covenant is the new covenant. I am not the one saying that the Abrahamic covenant is “the covenant of grace” or “part of the covenant of grace” or “an administration of the covenant of grace”. Since I know how to talk about the continuity of the Abrahamic covenant to the Mosaic covenant and to the new covenant without saying that they are one covenant, I very much want to notice the various promises associated with Abraham, and to see how they are fulfilled in
the circumcision of Christ on the eighth day (Luke 2).
Circumcision is not simply about “spiritual cleaning’. The sign of circumcision is not even only about pointing to the bloody sacrifice of Christ, which cuts the justified elect off from legal solidarity
with Adam. Circumcision is an initiation rite for priests, and every male in Abraham’s family (even if one parent did not go testify before the presbytery!) was obligated by Abrahamic law to be circumcised as a sign that Abraham’s family consisted of consecrated priests. So circumcision was a sign of many things, but of course not a sign to any person in particular (except Abram himself) that he is elect to justification and eternal life and faith in the gospel.
jeff: First, because if Paul were referring only to a single promise out of many in the AbCov, then the Judaizers would indeed have something to offer: “Sure, you have the Holy Spirit. But we can offer
that plus the opportunity to be in Abraham’s family.” It seems to me that for Paul to be fully responsive to the Judaizing temptation, he must be saying “What they offer, you already have.”
mark: No. What belonging to Abraham’s family means now and what it meant then is not the same. Zwingli and Jeff like to start with what they think it means now and then read that back as if that were what belonging to Abraham’s family meant then. Thus they notice the promise about the one seed which will bring in the righteousness, but they don’t notice some of the other promises.
To put it a different way, instead of saying “you already have what they offer”, better to say” what they offer, you don’t need, and couldn’t have anyway.” There is no more Abrahamic economy, and you can be children of Abraham now in only one way, not in the ways you could be before. Now that Christ has been born and circumcised, it’s not possible for every jewish male infant to be born as types of the birth to come. The land promise needed for the jewish people to remain the
genetic incubater for the Seed is now abrogated, and we need to attend to the discontinuity between the promise of the earth to those who believe the gospel and the promise back then in the Abrahamic covenant.
Jeff: Second, because we have no evidence that the AbCov was divided into promises that applied to one group (“children according to the flesh”) and promises that applied to another (“children according to the Spirit”). So our default assumption should be that the promise of
the Spirit entails the entire thing, unless taught otherwise elsewhere.
mark: All this sounds very formal and abstract. The “entire thing”, unless it’s not the entire thing? Whatever are you talking about? Jeff, this is not going to help anybody unless you get more specific. Are you talking about that bothersome “intrusive” stuff (like negative sanctions?) which otherwise don’t fit with your neat straight-line continuity? Again, I have agreed with you about the unity of the Abrahamic covenant, and it’s you who can’t stay with that, because you need to harmonize (homogenize) it so that we identify it with the new covenant (or with “the covenant of grace”)
Jeff: the reader must ask, “Where was this promise about inheriting the world? I missed that in Gen 17.” We have three options. One possibility is that Paul really meant “the land”, and modern
translators have overextended themselves (unlikely). One possibility is that Paul is referring to the promise that “out of you will come many nations.” And the third is that the promise of Canaan was
typological of the promise to inherit New Heavens and New Earth.
mark: Again, you are the one here wanting to find one promise and ignore the others. Why the either or? Sure, it’s typological. But it’s also about putting the non-Abrahamic people out of the territory
to make room for the biological-political heirs of Abraham. Why just look at Genesis 17, when you need to look back also to Genesis 12 and 15? Why not talk about all the promises, unless of course your confessions have already told you what “that one promise” is?
jeff: No matter which one chooses, that promise was conditioned upon faith and not upon physical descent.
mark: Interesting dialectic. “I don’t know what the one promise is, butI know it’s not promises plural but promise singular.” So is the “inheriting the world” promise about Christ (the one seed) bringing in
the righteousness so that the world belongs to Him and His elect? Or is “inheriting the world” about some conditional promise being made to everybody with one parent who professes to be Christian? Pick one, not two of these promises, and then explain to us how this one thing is “the entire thing”. In other words, don’t forget what you are trying to prove.
Having not attended to the plural and the singular (or any other detail) in Galatians 3, you want to rush off for other texts. But Galatians 3 speaks of a promise given to “as many as believe”, and not
about a promise given to the children of as many as who believe. Here again is where you need to notice the different “seed of Abraham” Galatians 3 talks about the one seed, not the many, but then it ends with the many who believe the gospel. So two different seeds are in Galatians. But the seed born to the seed are not in Galatians 3, and the only way they can get there is in the collective imagination of some paedobaptists (not Lutherans or Roman Catholics but Reformed)
Jeff; The first is the tree in Rom 11, representing God’s people. Unbelieving Jews are “broken off” of this tree, and Esau is taken as the example of such breaking-off. So we ask, What was the fate of
Esau? He and his descendents were cut off of the covenant in its entirety.
mark: Why would you think I disagree with any of this? I am glad to recognize (as I have many times) that the Abrahamic covenant included by design many who were non-elect. If you want to elaborate, fine with me–it seems to me that being circumcised and getting in was not the only thing one had to do to “stay in”. But, Jeff, if you want to argue that the new covenant people of God are the same set as the people who were in the Abrahamic covenant, you are going to have to
make your case and actually talk about the verses in question.
Perhaps you could back up back to the beginning, and affirm for us that Christ did not die for any non-elect people. I have been assuming that you believed that as much as I do, and I still assume it, but maybe it would be good for us to hear it from you. If’s it not Christ who kept all the conditions of the elect being in (and staying in) the new covenant, then we need to hear a lot more from you on the kind of “conditionality” involved in the new covenant. Is “election” simply a corporate thing, with which individuals to be decided later? Is the new covenant “unbreakable” only in the sense
that it stands even if no individuals do what they have to do to “get connected” (and stay connected) with Christ’s death? If water baptism has no efficacy for the non-elect, what efficacy did water baptism have for the non-elect? Does water baptism promise that anybody will believe? Does water baptism cause anybody to believe?
jeff: Eph 2 – 3. you are no longer excluded from citizenship in Israel, and you are no longer foreigners to the covenants of promise.
mark: Ephesians 2 says covenantS, plural. So this text in no way proves that the Abrahamic covenant is the new covenant, or that the Abrahamic covenant is “the covenant of grace.”. Nobody here is denying that the promise of the gospel concerning the one seed is one of the Abrahamic
promises. But Jeff you are ignoring the other promises, as you are ignoring other covenants.
When God says “not all Israel is Israel”, God is not saying “you gentiles can now be the kind of Israel you always wanted to be, the kind that there was before Christ was born”. Rather, there is only one kind of Israel now, and you can be in this Israel, and if Jews want to be in Israel now, this is the only Israel even for them now. So sure, there’s continuity, but don’t ignore the great
redemptive-historical change. Before those in the Abrahamic covenant could be in Israel and then become strangers to Israel. But now there is an Israel, the only Israel, and those in that Israel know the Lord. (Jeff, this is where you can begin to argue that the new covenant has “not yet” arrived yet, if you want to follow Gaffin and Pratt).
Jeff: When Paul is speaking about being Abraham’s children, he isn’t speaking metaphorically (“sons of Abraham” meaning “people just like Abraham was”), but he is speaking of inheritance — you are the rightful heirs of the promises made to Abraham.
mark: Agreed again. Jews who don’t believe the gospel aren’t Israel anymore. They were ( in a real sense) before Christ was born. But not anymore. Only as many as are called by the gospel (Acts 2) are now the rightful heirs. If your children are among the “as many as God shall call”, they too are rightful heirs. If not, not.
Jeff: What was disturbing to me about being a credo- in the former days (1999 IIRC) was asking myself the question, “Well, assuming that Paul means only that we are receiving the promise of the Spirit. What would one have to do if one really wanted to be an heir of the rest of the promises? Well — according to the physical/spiritual theory, one would have to be circumcised!!”
marK: It would be interesting to hear more about where you were ( I don’t know what IIRC means), but it would do us both well not to assume that persons on the other side believe wrong things that we used to believe. I am reminded of Doug Wilson’s booklet (thousand generations) in which he insists on the continuing covenantal significance of circumcision for jewish infants after the resurrection of Christ. Wilson explains how they also got water baptized at the same time to show solidarity with gentile infants. But this is not to associate where you were with where Wilson
is, Jeff, because he might very well approve the mass baptism of the Turks by the Christians.
Jeff: In other words, the credo- argument had to assert that citizenship in Israel is still off-limits to Gentile believers, unless they agree to be circumcised. The dividing wall is still up, and the
tree has two classes of members.
mark: Yes, I can see how you associate credobaptism with dispensationalism. But please do some of us the favor of not thinking that we are alll dispensationalists (who just don’t know it). There is only Israel now and it’s the churches (what you guys would call “the invisible church”). Nor am I am of the tribe (John Murray, many amills as well as postmills) that says God has promised those
with Abraham’s DNA something extra in the future. There is only one Israel, not a different second Israel which has been promised some land the others of us have not. There is only one Israel, not a
different second Israel which are children born to one professing Christian, who are not yet allowed to eat at Israel’s table. The dividing wall is gone.
Thanks Jeff. I see that Bob thinks that all credobaptists are re-baptizers. I guess that means his church doesn’t baptise any converts, but only infants.
LikeLike
Mark: So I am not the one reducing all these promises to one promise.
So this is one of our sticking points, certainly.
First, terminology. Rather than saying “reducing all of these promises to one promise”, I would say that I am “subordinating all of these promises to one promise.”
Promise of land? Presupposes that God is their God. Promise of offspring? Presupposes that God is their God. Promise of blessing? Presupposes that God is their God.
All of those promises come to those and only those for whom God is their God.
So why does Paul switch from plural promises to singular promise in Gal 3? It is because, as your reading suggests, that he forgets his subject and starts meandering?
No. Rather, he focuses in on the one promise … note that it is not explicitly mentioned in Gen 12, 15, or 17 … that makes all of the rest happen: The promise of the Spirit of adoption that makes God our God and makes us inheritors of the Abrahamic covenant.
So it’s not “reducing” but “subordinating.”
LikeLike
JRC: Eph 2 – 3. you are no longer excluded from citizenship in Israel, and you are no longer foreigners to the covenants of promise.
mark: Ephesians 2 says covenantS, plural. So this text in no way proves that the Abrahamic covenant is the new covenant…
I don’t see that your point matters. Whether
(a) The new covenant and Abrahamic are simply two administrations of the covenant of grace, OR
(b) The new and Abrahamic are two distinct covenants,
still and all, Eph 2 is teaching clearly that in Christ, we are no longer foreigners to those covenants. We are members of the Abrahamic.
I’m not amazingly particular about the precise way you want to cut the cake. I *am* particular that when Paul says “you are children of Abraham because you are in Christ”, that we not second-guess him and start reading him as “you are children-but-not-really-children of Abraham.”
LikeLike
Mark: All this sounds very formal and abstract. The “entire thing”, unless it’s not the entire thing? Whatever are you talking about? Jeff, this is not going to help anybody unless you get more specific. Are you talking about that bothersome “intrusive” stuff (like negative sanctions?) which otherwise don’t fit with your neat straight-line continuity?
This is the “moment of maximum confusion” here in our dialogue. I don’t understand what you’re talking about, either!
My phrase “legal intrusions” was strictly in reference to the Law and the Old Covenant. Not relevant here.
The Abrahamic Covenant is all-or-nothing, as far as I can tell.
LikeLike
Mark: Whether we agree with Kline’s language or not, there is a conditional aspect which is not simply about faith in the gospel, which is why you keep doing the dialectic…
Keeping just the Abrahamic Covenant in view (without the addition of the Tutor), what conditional aspect do you have in mind?
Mark: On the one hand, you say there is only one covenant with only one set of promises. But on the other hand, you also find a way to talk about “external administration”.
Yes, because the administration is not the covenant itself, just as the visible church is not the church as God sees it.
You are choking on the “external administration” idea. Why? Doesn’t it make sense that the Lord knows who are His, but we don’t?
LikeLike
Jeff: Presupposes that God is their God.
mark: Who are the they? Only the ones who believe the gospel? Only the ones who profess to believe the gospel (I mean we don’t know fur sure, but if they profess to be Muslims or atheists, we can be pretty sure that they are not justified yet,can’t we?) God is not the God of those without one parent who professes to believe the gospel? Acts 2 says “as many as the Lord shall call”, but God is the God of some of those who will not be called also, but not the God of others who won’t be called?
jeff: So why does Paul switch from plural promises to singular promise in Gal 3? It is because, as your reading suggests, that he forgets his subject and starts meandering?
mark: My reading of Galatians 3 does more than “suggest”. Galatians 3 insists that there is more than one kind of seed Abraham has, and yet you have not acknowledged the difference between jewish infants being types of the infant Messiah and the one seed who is the fulfillment of those types. Nor have you agreed to the basic difference between the biological children of those who believe and those who believe, even though the Galatians 3 text says nothing about a promise for those who don’t believe. So the problem is not “meandering” but me reminding you again that you can’t “subordinate” the other promises in such a way as to make them non-relevant.
Indeed, we are talking about two basic related but different realities. First, not to many but to one seed. Second, as many as believe the gospel are children of Abraham. There’s nothing in
Galatians 3 about the children of those who believe.
jeff: I don’t see that your point matters. Whether (a) The new covenant and Abrahamic are simply two administrations of the covenant of grace, OR (b) The new and Abrahamic are two distinct covenants, still and all, Eph 2 is teaching clearly that in Christ, we are no longer foreigners to those covenants. We are members of the Abrahamic….
mark: You say you are not “particular” about the way we cut the cake, and then–once again-you cut the cake the way you want and need to. I don’t mind your disagreeing, but it’s gets us nowhere for
you to say that only one of us is making an inference. Jeff says–we (the justified elect?, plus our children?, all for whom Christ died?, also some of the non-elect?, the “we” keeps hanging) are members of the Abrahamic covenant. And Mark says–no, we (nobody now) are NOT members
of the Abrahamic covenant. So we disagree. It won’t do to say–I don’t care, and then say–but I am correct.
If there is no more Abrahamic covenant, since that covenant has been fulfilled by Christ and the new covenant, then all of us are “strangers” to the Abrahamic covenant. And if the new covenant is a
distinct covenant, don’t say it doesn’t matter, because it means that the “we” of Ephesians 2 are now members of the new covenant. In the end, Jeff, you conclude (as we usually do) the way you began, saying that believers being children of Abraham means that they are members of the
Abrahamic covenant. Of course this doesn’t get you all the way you need to go, because it doesn’t say anything about the children of those believe, but you must say that that these new covenant believers are in the Abrahamic covenant, because if you don’t do that, you won’t be able to bring the genealogical principle along with you. (leaving the land and some other stuff behind).
Jeff: I’m not particular about the precise way you want to cut the cake. I *am* particular that when Paul says “you are children of Abraham because you are in Christ”, that we not second-guess him and start reading him as “you are children-but-not-really-children of Abraham.”
mark: You are no less precise than I am. We simply disagree, You insist that if we don’t say “in the Abrahamic covenant” then we are not “really” saying “children of Abraham”. I guess that means I may be saying it but I don’t “really” mean it. Because, you see, I am not saying it precisely as you would, in such a way as to bring the genealogical principle with us.
The Abrahamic covenant had a genealogical principle. On that we agree. All the children of Abraham
now are in that old Abrahamic covenant. On that we disagree. And then you infer that if I don’t say it the way you say it, then I am not really saying it.
jeff: Keeping just the Abrahamic Covenant in view (without the addition of the Tutor),
mark: I would love to do that, but of course you can’t and won’t do it. Not only do you think that the A covenant is part of “the covenant of grace”, but you also think all the children of Abraham in the new covenant are in the Abrahamic covenant. So for you there can never be “just the Abrahamic covenant” in your system.
jeff: what conditional aspect do you have in mind?
mark: I was pretty clear about that in my post previous to your four. Genesis 17–being not cut off is conditional on circumcision, but the chapter also indicates that some who are circumcised will be cut off. Is that not ‘conditonal” but pre-Mosaic? And then of course, going back to Genesis
12, there is land promised, and blessings for those who bless jews, and curses for those who don’t.
jeff: You are choking on the “external administration” idea. Why? Doesn’t it make sense that the Lord knows who are His, but we don’t?
mark: Actually I don’t think I have as much of a problem with the visible/invvisible idea as John Murray did, and he was fervently paedobaptist. (If I wanted to be more precise, I would contrast visible gatherings-plural-now in contrast to the one visible ecclesia then, at Christ’s coming.) So my problem is not my being “gnostic” or pietist or some such thing (nor did you suggest these things, you simply said–what’s your problem?).
I agree very much that the Lord knows who are His, although I also agree with what the WCF says about assurance, so I can’t simply say “we don’t”, because that would imply that we
ourselves can and should have no degree of assurance. But,that said, I agree that visible
congregations discern by “creditable profession of faith.’ Even though what’s in the heart tends to come out of the mouth, we judge by what comes out of the mouth.
So the problem is not “external adminstration” or creeds. Credobaptists judge by means of creeds and professions of faith. The problem is that we have different “external adminstrations” in mind.You want those with professions and their children. I want only those with professions. But we both are going by profession. My constant suggestion has been that, if you don’t like my “external
adminstration”, that you could just baptize everybody and welcome everybody to the table, and do away with discipline all together. If you think credobaptism is inherently presumptuous, don’t do it yourself, and then confine yourself to two marks of the church, Word and Sacrament, and forget
this “profession” stuff.
LikeLike
Jeff: Presupposes that God is their God.
mark: Who are the they? Only the ones who believe the gospel? Only the ones who profess to believe the gospel (I mean we don’t know fur sure, but if they profess to be Muslims or atheists, we can be pretty sure that they are not justified yet,can’t we?) God is not the God of those without one parent who professes to believe the gospel? Acts 2 says “as many as the Lord shall call”, but God is the God of some of those who will not be called also, but not the God of others who won’t be called?
RS: I might add that Ishmael was also a descendent of Abraham that God blessed, or at least blessed in some way. Ishmael was a descendent of Abraham and he was circumcised as well. Yet Abraham was told that Ishmael would be a wild donkey of a man who would live east of his brothers. In what way was Ishmael part of the covenant (he did have the sign) and how could that have been continued on with him?
Gen 17: 9 God said further to Abraham, “Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 “This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 “And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you.
RS: Circumcision was a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham (v. 11), not necessarily of what was going to happen to the infant if it had faith.
LikeLike
JRC: Presupposes that God is their God.
mark: Who are the they? Only the ones who believe the gospel?
Yes,
Mark: Only the ones who profess to believe the gospel
No, but they are included in the outward administration, and with them, God does not necessarily immediately break them off.
I want to be clear: Only those with faith are inheritors of the promises. Others might tag along, but this does not mean that they are legitimate heirs.
LikeLike
Mark: Galatians 3 insists that there is more than one kind of seed Abraham has, and yet you have not acknowledged the difference between jewish infants being types of the infant Messiah and the one seed who is the fulfillment of those types.
No, actually, the passage says this:
* There is one seed to whom the promise is made (NOT “seeds”).
* If we are in Christ, we are Abraham’s descendents and inheritors.
There is no provision in Gal 3 for physical-but-not-spiritual descendents. None at all.
LikeLike
Mark: Jeff says–we (the justified elect?, plus our children?, all for whom Christ died?, also some of the non-elect?, the “we” keeps hanging)
The justified elect.
Mark: …are members of the Abrahamic covenant. And Mark says–no, we (nobody now) are NOT members
of the Abrahamic covenant. So we disagree. It won’t do to say–I don’t care, and then say–but I am correct.
That wasn’t quite my point. My point was, Paul might be saying one of two things in Eph 2. Either one ends up with us as no longer foreigners to the Abrahamic Covenant. Take your pick, but we end up at the same place.
Mark: If there is no more Abrahamic covenant, since that covenant has been fulfilled by Christ…
If there is no more Abrahamic Covenant, then there is no point in saying that we are children of Abraham and inheritors of his promise!
Fulfillment does not mean abolition. In the case of the sacrifices, fulfillment meant abolition because the true sacrifice had come that took away the sins of the world. But in the case of the moral law, fulfillment did not mean abolition.
Likewise, in Christ, the promises made to Abraham find their fulfillment. But this does not mean abolition of those promises; nor does it mean abolition of the outward administration of those promises.
What *is* said in Gal 3 to have ended is the practice of circumcision, because all who are baptized into Christ are Abraham’s children already. This argues for the abolition of circumcision as a sign. It does not argue for abolition of the family structure as the outward administration of God’s promises.
To get there, you need to meet the burden of specific teaching of Scripture.
LikeLike
JRC: Keeping just the Abrahamic Covenant in view (without the addition of the Tutor)
mark: I would love to do that, but of course you can’t and won’t do it. Not only do you think that the A covenant is part of “the covenant of grace”, but you also think all the children of Abraham in the new covenant are in the Abrahamic covenant. So for you there can never be “just the Abrahamic covenant” in your system.
Nevertheless, we can agree to leave the Old Covenant out of this, can we not?
LikeLike
Mark: Credobaptists judge by means of creeds and professions of faith. The problem is that we have different “external adminstrations” in mind.You want those with professions and their children. I want only those with professions. But we both are going by profession. My constant suggestion has been that, if you don’t like my “external
adminstration”, that you could just baptize everybody and welcome everybody to the table, and do away with discipline all together.
The problem with that suggestion is that you would baptize people who actively demonstrate unbelief. That is quite different from baptizing infants on the basis (1) of what one believes to be God’s command, (2) on the understanding that God calls us to treat them as elect.
You are free to disagree with (1) and (2) but you can’t equate them with loading up baptizmo-trucks to patrol the neighborhoods.
LikeLike
JRC: In other words, the credo- argument had to assert that citizenship in Israel is still off-limits to Gentile believers, unless they agree to be circumcised. The dividing wall is still up, and the
tree has two classes of members.
mark: Yes, I can see how you associate credobaptism with dispensationalism. But please do some of us the favor of not thinking that we are alll dispensationalists (who just don’t know it).
Sorry, wasn’t trying to tag you as a dispie. The point is not that you are a dispensationalist, but that you are re-raising the dividing wall: There are Jewish inheritors over here, and Gentile inheritors over here.
LikeLike
Mark: Jews who don’t believe the gospel aren’t Israel anymore. They were ( in a real sense) before Christ was born. But not anymore. Only as many as are called by the gospel (Acts 2) are now the rightful heirs. If your children are among the “as many as God shall call”, they too are rightful heirs. If not, not.
No, actually. And this is why I’ve been trying to get across the distinction between the covenant and outward administration.
The Jews who didn’t believe the Gospel were never Israel. They were Lo-Ammi, Not My People. They belonged to the outward administration of Israel, but they were pruned off because of unbelief. In man’s eyes, they carried the title “Israel”, but God never knew them.
Likewise, our children are part of the outward administration. The promises are for all men, but especially towards them. But if God does not create faith in them, then they are not inheritors. God can and will break them off because of unbelief just as readily as he broke off the natural branches.
It needs to be clearly understood that the benefits of belonging to the outward administration of the covenant are outward benefits, parallel to belonging to Israel. Those benefits are effective for salvation only if faith is present.
LikeLike
jeff: I don’t see that your point matters. Whether (a) The new covenant and Abrahamic are simply two administrations of the covenant of grace, OR (b) The new and Abrahamic are two distinct covenants, still and all, Eph 2 is teaching clearly that in Christ, we are no longer foreigners to those covenants. We are members of the Abrahamic….
Mark: Jeff says–we are members of the Abrahamic covenant. And Mark says–no, we (nobody now) are NOT members of the Abrahamic covenant. So we disagree. It won’t do to say–I don’t
care, and then say–but I am correct.
jeff: That wasn’t quite my point. My point was, Paul might be sayingone of two things in Eph 2. Either one ends up with us as no longer foreigners to the Abrahamic Covenant. Take your pick, but we end up atthe same place.
mark: YOU end up in the same place either way which is your point. You jump from “we are no longer foreigners TO THOSE COVENANTS” to saying immediately (see above first quotation) “we are members of the Abrahamic covenant”. So you jump from “in the covenants” to “in the Abrahamic covenant”. But you haven’t proven that, but assumed it, from beginning to end. And the place I end up says that the children of Abraham now are in the new covenant. And your response can go
“either way”, either you think the new covenant is part of “the covenant of grace” or you agree with me that it’s distinct, but in that case you are still going to assume that the justified elect are
in both covenants of grace (even if they are distinct, even though I get the impression you might not go that way on the Mosaic covenant.)
Jeff: If there is no more Abrahamic Covenant, then there is no point in saying that we are children of Abraham and inheritors of his promise!
mark: Thus you assert. Now you need to argue for it. (And I don’t mean your earlier “they don’t really mean children of Abraham, that was very lame) God made some promises to Abraham and God has kept those promises. The fact that there are now new covenant believers in the
gospel is the point. Fulfillment is the point.
jeff: Fulfillment does not mean abolition. In the case of the sacrifices, fulfillment meant abolition….
mark: A little dialectic there! And rightly so. This is a big topic. We would need to define “fulfillment”. Also abolition. And I don’t have the time for it right now,. Although It’s important, way more
important perhaps than questions about baptism. Is there more than one kind of fulfillment? Is there an already and also at the same time a not yet? I think we could both generalize in such a way that we would agree. I mean, neither of us is premill. We could talk about sabbath, about the difference between the “moral and the ceremonial”.
But I think you have said enough just above. Fulfillment does not mean abolition. Except when it does. When’s the last time you worked your way through Matthew 5, v17 to end of chapter. Have you ever been a member of a theonomist party? And so on.
jeff: because the true sacrifice had come that took away the sins of the world. But in the case of the moral law, fulfillment did not mean abolition.
mark: for sure, the moral God gave all the law, and the Abrahamic covenant is an unity (or so I thought we agreed, all or nothing). Do you now want to cherry pick that covenant and say which is ceremonial and which is not? Is the fulfillment of one ceremony (circumcision) another
ceremony (water baptism)?
Why is it ceremonial? Because it’s now abolished or modified. And why is it now abolished or modified? Because it’s ceremonial? And around you can go.
Jeff: This argues for the abolition of circumcision as a sign. It does not argue for abolition of the family structure as the outward administration of God’s promises. To get there, you need to meet the burden of specific teaching of Scripture.
mark: Again, we both have discussed “specific teaching”. The fact that you have not responded to much of mine is no big deal. But talk about the other “bearing the burden” is premature and overconfident.
Isaiah 53:10 speaks prophetically of Christ’s reward for his self-sacrifice for the sins of His seed.. The prophet announces, “He will see His seed.” Now what is the prophet speaking about? In what sense did our Lord have seed? John 1:12 —“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name.”
“As many as do the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother” (Matthew 12:50). Christ uses this request from his covenant family to teach about his new covenant
family.. Where do children automatically become new covenant members based on their physical descent from new covenant parents? “My mother and My brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.” Christ does not say that they are “those who hear the word of God and
do it and their physical seed.”
In Luke 11:27 one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” But the Lord responded, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God.”
The Abrahamic covenant had a genealogical principle. On that we agree. All the children of Abraham now are in that old Abrahamic covenant. On that we disagree.
About those Constantinian baptism trucks—I also oppose the baptism of non-professing spouses and teenagers. And infants. Those in the present diaspora are to leave father behind, because there is one Father in heaven, and we will get back hundred fold mothers brothers sisters but no fathers. We wait for Jesus (our brother, our father also) to come back to earth, and don’t expect any place on earth which is only for Christians before Jesus Christ returns.
LikeLike
So if I understand, your argument is that not only is circumcision abolished, but the entire covenant with Abraham is abolished (because fulfilled). It was all typological, it’s all done away with, including the family structure, which was typological of the coming seed.
Counterarguments:
(1) The Abrahamic covenant had typological elements to it, but this does not entail pure typology.
(1a) Else, we would find such teaching the NT, but we don’t.
(1b) The substance of Abraham’s covenant, I will be your God and you will be my people, was not typological but real.
(2) What does it mean to be inheritors of a covenant that has passed away? I might as well sell you my title to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Which now brings us to the question: since it is certain that certain features of the Abrahamic covenant were typological and others were not, then in what category does the family structure fit as the outward administration?
We have some options:
* The New Covenant has no outward administration.
* The New Covenant has an outward administration that is different from the Abrahamic
* The New Covenant, being the fulfillment of the Abrahamic, has an identical outward administration.
The first option is Anabaptist. The second option is “Reformed Baptist”. The third option is Reformed.
The question is, where does the evidence point? I argue for the Reformed direction on these grounds:
(A) There is no announcement of a change of outward administration.
You assert verses such as ““My mother and My brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.” Christ does not say that they are “those who hear the word of God and
do it and their physical seed.”
But this was always true. God’s children were always those who heard and believed the word of the Lord, not the physical seed of Abraham.
These kinds of verses are not evidence for a change in administration; they are evidence of confusion about the original administration.
(B) Passages concerning the holiness of families of believers, and the command to “let the little children come to me” refute the notion that children of believers are to be treated exactly as if they were unbelieving teenagers.
Like it or not, credobaptism has to end up at a “vipers in diapers” theology.
(C ) Rom 9 – 11 indicates that the outward administration of the covenant now will be similar to the outward administration of the covenant in Esau’s time.
I will cheerfully admit that this is most one can say about the outward administration question. There’s no slam-dunk proof that the outward administration carries over in general.
But having admitted so, I will also press the point that there is NO evidence that the outward administration has changed. Again, passages pointing to the role of faith in the New Covenant are not pointing to anything new. Membership in the covenant was always about faith.
When I explain this issue in general, I explain that there is a major point and a minor point. The major point is that all those in Christ are Abraham’s children and inheritors according to the promise. The minor point is that baptism is now the appropriate symbol of this arrangement.
If you wish to reject the minor point, I’m not particularly distressed. My big issue is to point out that God has rolled believers into the covenant He made with Abraham. This is so clearly taught that it must be insisted upon.
LikeLike
Mark: Where do children automatically become new covenant members based on their physical descent from new covenant parents? “My mother and My brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.” Christ does not say that they are “those who hear the word of God and
do it and their physical seed.”
…The Abrahamic covenant had a genealogical principle. On that we agree.
Actually, I think this is the point at issue.
The geneological principle for Abraham (and for us) is a principle of outward administration. The physical children of Abraham received the sign of the covenant, the “oracles of God” (Rom 2), and were expected to exhibit faith.
But there was no guarantee, from Ishmael onward, that being descended from Abraham geneologically guaranteed inheritance of the promises made to Abraham. Those promises were always subordinate to the promise, I will be your God — which promise was by faith.
It was always and only the remnant that received those promises.
So when you ask, “Where do children automatically become covenant members…”, I ask, “When did children ever automatically become covenant members? Wasn’t that the mistake of the Pharisees?”
LikeLike
Mark: Jews who don’t believe the gospel aren’t Israel anymore. They were ( in a real sense) before Christ was born. But not anymore. Only as many as are called by the gospel (Acts 2) are now the rightful heirs. If your children are among the “as many as God shall call”, they too are rightful heirs. If not, not.
Jeff: No. This is why I’ve been trying to get across the distinction between the covenant and outward administration. The Jews who didn’t believe the Gospel were never Israel.
mark: Romans 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his seed, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as seed.”
Jeff’s response above is a good example of Jeff reading the new covenant into the Abrahamic covenant, and ignoring the rest. Specifically, verse 7 makes a distinction between “all the children of Abraham” and “his seed”. The verse says that some but not all of the seed are “children of Abraham”. But Jeff wants to say that there were no “seed of Abraham” except the children of Abraham
But the point of the Romans 9 is not to deny that there is a fleshly natural Israel, but rather to say that only some who were in the Abrahamic covenant were elect and in the new covenant, and justified before God and given life, cut off from the flesh.
Infants were not the only unbelievers commanded to be circumcised in the Abrahamic covenant. But since Jeff doesn’t want to baptise any unbelievers but infants now, he ignores that part of the adminstration of the Abrahamic covenant. Circumcision was not limited to the first generation in the Abrahamic covenant, but again, since Jeff no wants one parent from the previous generation to be a believer, again he ignores that adminstrative detail of the Abrahamic covenant.
Dispensationalists want to say that something remains for the fleshly biological children of Abraham, because they see that as part of the Abrahamic covenant, and they don’t see the fulfillment (and abolition) of the promises to Abraham. But paedobaptists like Jeff do even a worse job of cherry-picking what they want from the Abrahamic covenant. Instead of giving baptism to all of Abraham’s biological heirs (all jews now), they want to give baptism to THEIR OWN biological heirs.
And yet at the same Jeff wants to say that only those who became believers were really in the Abrahamic covenant. He denies what Romans 9:6 says about some of the seed not being the children. Jeff argues that only the children were ever the seed.
Where this gets interesting is when Jeff talks about the non-elect being in the new covenant. According to his logic, if baptized infants later get broken off from the new covenant, they were “never really” in the new covenant. And that makes a kind of sense, of course, since they were never “really” welcomed to the table, but it still leaves Jeff with the kind of conditionality questions he doesn’t seem to want to address.
In short, if they were never “really in”, did they really break the new covenant? But if they were in the new covenant, how can Jeff say they weren’t? And perhaps more importantly, what kind of federal head is Christ if some of His new covenant people perish?
LikeLike
Ask Neusner (Children of the Flesh, Children of the Promise) if being a Jew has anything to do with genetic inheritance.
Matthew 10:35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.
Matthew 10:37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Matthew 12:50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
Matthew 19:29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.
Luke 12:53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against
mother-in-law.”
Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
Jeff still doesn’t want to talk about the conditional or political aspects of the Abrahamic covenant. It’s as if those negative sactions were only (for Jeff) in the Mosaic covenant. Jeff doesn’t want to talk about the land, or about the second and third generations, or about holy wars. He wants to read the Abrahamic covenant as if it were the new. But he does now want to talk about ‘family structure'” Since there are no New Testament rules for infant initiation into a visible congregation, Jeff wants to
reach back into the Old Testament (ignoring the intrusions) and find an adminstration for a new covenant church. And then of course if you don’t agree that what he thinks is the proper administration for a new covenant church, then he will simply assume you that don’t have any.
Despite my previous patient clarifications about credobaptist creeds and discernment, Jeff simply assumes that–if you don’t agree with him–then you can’t have a visible church. If you don’t agree with him, then you must be a “gnostic” who only thinks of invisible individuals. It sounds like Jeff really thinks this! He needs to get out more. Maybe he should talk to some Lutheran or Roman Catholic friends and tell them that they don’t have any visible administration since their principles for inclusion are not the same as Jeff’s
Jeff: What does it mean to be inheritors of a covenant that has passed away? I might as well sell you my title to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
mark: What does it mean to be a biological child of Abraham today? I would say–nothing. I am not running for president, and I know this goes against premills but also many amills and postmills. But I argue from texts like Romans 2 and Philippians 3. We are the true circumcision, and judiasers have nothing to offer anybody. I am not going to promise people what Judiasers promise them..
What does it mean to be a “child of the promise” today? it means being a Christian, not excluded from the covenants of grace, being included forever in the new covenant?
What does it mean to be a biological child of a Christian today? It means you most likely are going to hear the gospel more than other people who don’t have Christian parents. But there is no way we should be taking promises to Abraham about his having many biological children and then one day the one seed being born, and apply those promises to ourselves. I know you can say that “every promise in the book is mine” but you are wrong if you say that. The gospel is only good news for the elect. The new covenant is only for the elect. And we need to tell our children that they can’t know if they are elect until and unless they believe the gospel.
jeff: ” The New Covenant has no outward administration. The first option is Anabaptist.”
mark: I am not going to even attempt to educate uou about this. You need to study some real anabaptists, old or new, or else be quiet about them and some supposed adminstrative difference from other credobaptists. It’s like saying that a person who won’t kill doesn’t do anything. It’s like saying that the only way to be political is to vote Republican. It’s like saying–do it the way I do it, or you are not really doing anything….
Jeff: ““My mother and My brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.” Christ does not say that they are “those who hear the word of God and do it and their physical seed.” But this was always true. God’s children were always those who heard and believed the word of
the Lord, not the physical seed of Abraham.
mark: Look above to Romans 9, or look to Galatians 3-4. The texts say that there are two kinds of Israel, two kinds of seed. Jeff says there was never really but one.
Jeff: Like it or not, credobaptism has to end up at a “vipers in diapers” theology.
mark: I never ever heard a credobaptist talk about “covenantal diapers”. But I have heard that from many paedobaptists, not all of whom can be described as new school revivalists. Of course I am
interested in hearing more about the “covenantal efficacy”. If some folks without such diapers believe the gospel (even some on this list who were not born to paedobaptist parents), then what is the efficacy of those “covenantal diapers”? If they don’t cause the faith, what is the efficacy which kicks in?
As for the vipers, I agree with what the Westminster Confession teaches about original guilt and corruption. Saying that your children are not lost doesn’t change a thing. Nobody begins saved and then loses salvation. No matter what Doug Wilson teaches.
Jeff: My big issue is to point out that God has rolled believers into the covenant He made with Abraham. This is so clearly taught that it must be insisted upon.
mark: Interesting use of the passive. You insist away. Pound on the table. Put your points in caps
Abraham is a father in more than one way. We can agree that the more important way Abraham is father is not at all about genetics (except that Jesus is genetically the seed of Abraham), without
denying that Abraham was also father to Ishmael and other children of the slave woman.
After Abraham believed the gospel, he was circumcised. Romans 4 makes much of the sequence. But Jeff wants infants to be outwardly given the sign of a covenant (like they were during the Abrahamic covenant), and then explain to them if they “break the covenant” that they were never “really in” (thus you never really broke).
In the new covenant, it’s perfectly fine for a Christian to be single and not even have a biological family.
23 And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle
than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” 26 But Jesus looked at them and said, “With the flesh this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” 27 Then Peter said in reply, “See, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?” 28 Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake,
will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.
LikeLike
McMark,
I don’t have time to read all your posts, but I do have a question based on what I have read; Do you believe in the distinction between a visible and invisible church?
LikeLike
Mark, why the third person?
—
Paul: But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his seed, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as seed.”
I want to observe what Paul actually says and how he defends it.
What he actually says is that “not the children of the flesh, but the children of the promise are counted as seed.”
That’s fairly straightforward, I think: the children according to the flesh are not counted as descendents of Abraham.
This upsets you (But Jeff wants to say that there were no “seed of Abraham” except the children of Abraham), but Paul says it right there in black and white.
Now Mark, you and RS have suggested that this is true now but was not true before Christ — you said specifically
Jews who don’t believe the gospel aren’t Israel anymore. They were ( in a real sense) before Christ was born. But not anymore.
But Paul doesn’t say this.
But perhaps he could mean it? Well, let’s look at how he defends his thesis that “only the children of the promise are counted as seed.” He appeals to Ishmael and to Isaac! He reaches back into pre-Christ Israel and uses two incontrovertible examples that show that not all physical descendents, but only children of the promise, are Abraham’s seed and inheritors of the promise.
In other words, it has always been the case that only those of faith are Israel.
If you want to show that somehow, Jesus brings about a new regime where people that formerly were Israel are not now Israel, then you need to produce something that teaches this.
Mark: He denies what Romans 9:6 says about some of the seed not being the children. Jeff argues that only the children were ever the seed.
Yes, because that’s what Paul actually says. Far from ignoring, I am paying attention to the words of the text!
Mark: Instead of giving baptism to all of Abraham’s biological heirs (all jews now), they want to give baptism to THEIR OWN biological heirs.
And yet at the same Jeff wants to say that only those who became believers were really in the Abrahamic covenant.
That’s correct. The sign of baptism belongs to the outward administration of the covenant. The reality belongs to those of faith.
Mark: You need to study some real anabaptists, old or new
I was discipled by them. Does that count?
Mark: Jeff still doesn’t want to talk about the conditional or political aspects of the Abrahamic covenant.
Well, for my part, I believe I’ve talked about and answered your questions about the conditional and political aspects of that covenant. Perhaps if you have a specific question, then we can go from there.
Mark: Where this gets interesting is when Jeff talks about the non-elect being in the new covenant. According to his logic, if baptized infants later get broken off from the new covenant, they were “never really” in the new covenant. And that makes a kind of sense, of course, since they were never “really” welcomed to the table, but it still leaves Jeff with the kind of conditionality questions he doesn’t seem to want to address.
In short, if they were never “really in”, did they really break the new covenant? But if they were in the new covenant, how can Jeff say they weren’t? And perhaps more importantly, what kind of federal head is Christ if some of His new covenant people perish?
Hm. Can you point to a place where I talk about the non-elect being in the new covenant, as opposed to the outward administration of the new covenant?
LikeLike
the third person is for the sake of our many many readers.
Paul: But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his seed, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as seed.”
Jeff: I want to observe what Paul actually says and how he defends it.
mark: Me Too. Look at verse 7. BECAUSE THEY ARE HIS SEED. You don’t want to acknowledge that Paul says this, because you only want to talk about the Israel which are elect believers. But this fails to deal with the reality of Romans 9 saying that there are two kinds of seed. In order for Paul to say that some are not the seed, he agrees that they are the seed in another sense. But more than one sense will wreck the thing you want to bring with you from the Abrahamic covenant.
I find it interesting that you have never commented on my list of five kind of seed of Abraham. You have never denied it, of course, and we can’t talk about everything. But to me it’s strange, because if all you wanted to say is that (in one sense) only believers in the gospel are children of Abraham, then we would have nothing to disagree about. But you want to say that because Abraham had unbelieving seed in that covenant, then we also have unbelieving seed in the new covenant. And yet (at the same time) you want to say that his unbelieving seed are not even his seed in any way.
The text does remind me of another possible addition to my list– there are the seed of Abraham (some unbelieving) which come through Isaac, and then there are other seed of Abraham which come through Ishmael (many of them cut off from the Abrahamic covenant). But I think this fits with the distinction I made earlier between the biological non-elect and the non-elect who follow in the line of Isaac and are part of that covenant.
Jeff: What he actually says is that “not the children of the flesh, but the children of the promise are counted as seed.”
mark: what you need to make the point you attempt to make is for Paul to explain that in no way the children of the flesh were ever (really) in the Abrahamic covenant. By way of analogy, it’s like you saying, if people are not circumcised with the circumcision of Christ, then they are not really physically circumcised either. But this is not so.
Paul’s point is that not all in the Abrahamic covenant are “children of Abraham” in the new covenant sense of which he is speaking in Romans 9. (did you ever notice that Paul doesn’t use the c word as much as we do?)
not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his seed, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.”
mark: there are two Israels but for the sake of the “belong to Israel”, Jeff simply denies that the rest are “from Israel”, There are those not descended from Israel who belong to Israel, as are there folks descended from Israel who don’t belong to Israel. But neither of these two conclusions mean that we deny that non-elect folks are descended from Israel.
But by only agreeing to one sense of seed, Jeff, that is what you keep doing. I am sorry you are upset, but maybe you need to look a little more at the black and white.
.
mark: Jews who don’t believe the gospel aren’t Israel anymore. They were ( in a real sense) before Christ was born. But not anymore.
Jeff: But Paul doesn’t say this.
mark: does
Michael Wyschogrod, Body of Faith, 256—“The circumcised body of Israel is the dark carnal presence through which redemption makes it way in history. Salvation is of the Jews because of the flesh of Israel….”
LikeLike
Thanks for the invitation to ask questions, Jeff. I will repeat some of mine.
I was discipled by anabaptists?. Does that count?
mark: Which anabaptists? Did they call themselves anabaptists? Or is that only the “swear-word” to decided to use on them after you left them? Were they dispensationalists? Did they have a creed or reject creeds? Did their elders accept folks into membership by profession of faith? if not, what did they do? Did they have no membership? Were they pacifists? Were they “Reformed baptists”?
If you don’t believe what James Jordan believes about presumptive regeneration, then it seems that not all paedobaptists are alike. Your distinction between “anabaptists’ and “reformed baptists” made no sense to me. Anabaptists are all about visibility, many of them in a very bad legalistic way. It was the “spiritualists” who went to the state church and pretended to eat the “bread-god”. Anabaptists visibly gathered apart from that.
Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion (ed Jackson and Heller, Labyrinth, 1981, 214 )—“What a monstrosity of speech this is—‘I believe I eat the sensible and bodily flesh.’ For if it is bodily, there is no need of faith, for it is perceived by sense, and things perceived by sense have no need of faith.”
LikeLike
Jeff: I believe I’ve talked about and answered your questions about the conditional and political aspects of that covenant. Perhaps if you have a specific question, then we can go from there.
mark: You haven’t addressed the basic concern that the non-elect are really circumcised and therefore really part of the Abrahamic covenant, and that it’s not only the first generation which is obligated by the commands of Genesis 17. But right now, I am going to attempt to be glad that you agree with me that only the elect are in the “real” new covenant, because I don’t know many Reformed folks who would agree to that. Mike Horton certainly wouldn’t. Anybody who agrees with Kline about new covenant curses and new covenant breaking would not.
But, like I said, we agree and then you take it back with “outward administration of the new covenant”. So let me rephrase my question about the new covenant in deference to your jargon. (Noting that you are simply wrong about the Abrahamic covenant.)
Mark: According to the Platonic (inward reality, outward form) logic, if baptized infants later get broken off from the visible adminstration of the new covenant, did those unbelieving folks really break the new covenant or were they merely “outward administration breakers”?
I am asking (have been asking) for you to talk about the negative sanctions of being in “the outward adminstration”. Talk to me about “covenant-breakers”. Is there no such a real thing? Was there never such a thing as “covenant-breaking” but only “administration breaking”? To repeat, do the infants born to credobaptist parents (who disagree about “covenant administration” or as you would have it, have none) face less, more, or the same negative sanctions as do the infants born to paedobaptist parents? What’s the consequence of “administration-breaking”?
You can start with those questions. There are plenty more.
Why is that infants welcomed to the “outward administration” of the new covenant are not welcomed to the outward table of the new covenant? I mean–the Lord knows, we don’t
Assuming that we agree that Christ is the great federal head who will never allow His real new covenant people to perish (amen to that!), is Christ the head of the outward administration also? When outward administration happens, is that Christ doing it? Watch out, because if you were to say that we ourselves did something (like take, eat), you might be discovered as a Zwinglian. Or worse.
Prior to the fifteenth century nobody used the word “religion” to talk about the propositions privately believed by an individual. “Religion” was thought of as the activities, the social practices of people who belonged to churches. The transformation of ecclesiastically formed habits of obedience into “religious worldviews” claims to allow “the spiritual to be the spiritual, without public interference, and the public be the secular, without private prejudicee.” (John Milbank, Theology and Social Theory, 10)
LikeLike
Mark: Paul’s point is that not all in the Abrahamic covenant are “children of Abraham” in the new covenant sense of which he is speaking in Romans 9.
Well, the “in the new covenant sense” is really an idea you are importing into the sentence. What he actually says is “it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.”
The meaning of the words is, “Those who are not children of the promise are not regarded as Abraham’s offspring.”
The surrounding examples make clear that this is not a New Covenant principle, but a principle that was in place since Isaac and Ishmael.
I’m not sure what you want me to do here. You insist that this is a “New Covenant” thing, but the context surrounding Rom 9.7 says otherwise.
So while you suggest that I’m pounding the table (shall I be Luther for Halloween?), perhaps we both are doing a bit of pounding?
Mark: I find it interesting that you have never commented on my list of five kind of seed of Abraham. You have never denied it, of course, and we can’t talk about everything. But to me it’s strange, because if all you wanted to say is that (in one sense) only believers in the gospel are children of Abraham, then we would have nothing to disagree about.
I found the “five types of seed” to be fairly complicated. It left me wondering what the door prize was going to be? That is, what can each type of seed expect from the Abrahamic Covenant? And how do you know this?
Mark: what you need to make the point you attempt to make is for Paul to explain that in no way the children of the flesh were ever (really) in the Abrahamic covenant.
He says exactly that: “A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code.” (Rom 2.28 – 29).
He says exactly what you want him to say. It’s not Paul’s fault that some people relegate his statements as “only applying to the new covenant era.”
Mark: Which anabaptists? Did they call themselves anabaptists? Or is that only the “swear-word” to decided to use on them after you left them? Were they dispensationalists? Did they have a creed or reject creeds? Did their elders accept folks into membership by profession of faith? if not, what did they do? Did they have no membership?
Dallas dispensationalists of the 4.5-point Calvinist variety. Principled opposition (by some of them) to church membership and creeds. Fine folk, by the way, and I will never say a word against them. They taught me how to read Scripture closely and how to care about the priority of the gospel.
So no swear-words here.
Mark: If you don’t believe what James Jordan believes about presumptive regeneration, then it seems that not all paedobaptists are alike.
Right. Jordan and Federal Visionaries in general take an approach quite different from mine. In their view, we should attribute spiritual reality to the visible church in terms of Shepherd’s “Covenantal Perspective.” So they would say that visible church members partake of the reality, and not just the outward administration, of the New Covenant.
I think this is a confused error and bound to head towards “pragmatic Arminianism.”
But they didn’t ask me.
Mark: You haven’t addressed the basic concern that the non-elect are really circumcised and therefore really part of the Abrahamic covenant, and that it’s not only the first generation which is obligated by the commands of Genesis 17.
I can address that, then. As I read Paul, he is affirming that the non-elect are not really part of the Abrahamic covenant and are not reckoned as Abraham’s children, starting with Ishmael and Esau. Only the remnant qualifies or has ever qualified as counting as Abraham’s seed.
I know you don’t like that answer, but that’s my current view of things until convinced by Scripture otherwise.
Mark: Mike Horton certainly wouldn’t. Anybody who agrees with Kline about new covenant curses and new covenant breaking would not.
I’m not so sure. I’ve carefully distinguished between the reality of the covenant and its outward administration. However, I will admit that the Scripture the covenant language to describe that outward administration. So for example, in Gen 17, God announces circumcision with “This is My covenant…”
Well, does He really mean that circumcision is the substance of the covenant?! That’s clearly absurd.
So I’m not so sure that Horton or Murray would disagree with what I’ve written here.
Mark: According to the Platonic (inward reality, outward form) logic, if baptized infants later get broken off from the visible adminstration of the new covenant, did those unbelieving folks really break the new covenant or were they merely “outward administration breakers”?
I am asking (have been asking) for you to talk about the negative sanctions of being in “the outward adminstration”. Talk to me about “covenant-breakers”.
I take those who are under the adminstration of the covenant to have greater obligations than those outside. I ground this in Rom 2 (whole chapter) and esp. Heb 10.29.
The outward administration of the covenant sets apart (“sanctifies”) those under its administration to be, in the eyes of men, the Lord’s. If the inward reality does not obtain, then it is fair to call those unbelievers “covenant breakers.”
NOT “You were in the covenant, now you’re not.” (Arminianism)
BUT “You were included in the administration of the covenant; you knew its requirement; you flouted it. You are like Esau.”
To be a “covenant breaker” is to reject the Gospel while having been entrusted with the oracles of God.
Mark: To repeat, do the infants born to credobaptist parents (who disagree about “covenant administration” or as you would have it, have none) face less, more, or the same negative sanctions as do the infants born to paedobaptist parents?
In my view, credobaptist’s children are still covenant children whether their parents know it or not. But their wing of the visible church is “less visible” because of the improper administration of sacraments.
(Note again: “covenant children” has reference to outward administration)
Mark: Why is that infants welcomed to the “outward administration” of the new covenant are not welcomed to the outward table of the new covenant?
1 Cor 11.28. That’s the primary Scriptural reason.
Mark: Assuming that we agree that Christ is the great federal head who will never allow His real new covenant people to perish (amen to that!), is Christ the head of the outward administration also? When outward administration happens, is that Christ doing it?
This is a big question. Let me answer it with some of my own.
* Is excommunication real?
* Can Christ cut off churches? If so, then were they ever churches to begin with?
LikeLike
Jeff: The surrounding examples make clear that this is not (only?) a New Covenant principle, but a principle that was in place since Isaac and Ishmael. I’m not sure what you want me to do here. You insist that this is a “New Covenant” thing, but the context surrounding Rom 9.7 says otherwise.
mark: well, I wanted you to do was agree with me! I agree with you that the words “new covenant” are not in the text, but I stand with my inferences. It seems (to me of course) that what you are saying amounts to saying that on the basis of Romans 9 alone, we would not even know that there was a “visible administration” to the Abrahamic covenant which included non-believers. if you press your point (not about the new, about it as it was then), then it seems you leave Romans 9 without a clue that unbelievers were ever in or cut off from anything even related to the Abrahamic covenant.
Even though the Romans 9 text says stuff like “not all the seed is the seed”, you would have no notion from Romans 9 that there were any other kind of “.seed” The only seed then were believers. Since I say that the only seed now is believers, we would be fine. But somehow you do get to another kind of seed, even if you claim it’s not in Romans 9. Because you think non-believers are in the visible administration, but it sounds to me like you don’t think we could even know that from Romans 9.
I went back and read some of our earlier posts.
jeff wrote: We agree that there are two types of descendents. But I do not agree that there were two types of promises.
mark: This is confusing. You agree that there are two types of seed, but you don’t agree that you could know that from Romans 9? So how do you know that?
I wrote:.
1. There are children with Abraham’s DNA who do not seem to have been justified and elect (Ishmael, Esau)
2. There are children with Abraham’s DNA who do seem to have been justified and elect (see Hebrews 11)
3. There are children without Abraham’s DNA who come into the Abrahamic covenant (see Ruth, see Hebrews 11)
4. There are “gentile” children without Abraham’s DNA who are children of Abraham but who never come into the Abrahamic covenant, because the Abrahamic covenant (minus certain redemptive historical discontinuities and intrusions aspects) is not identical with the new covenant. (see you and me and most everybody who reads old life)
5. And most important, there is Adam’s one seed, Christ, concerning whom the central promise to Abraham was good news.
mark: I might add another, between 1 and 2, There are children with Abraham’s DNA who are born in the line of Isaac’s children, who are in the Abrahamic covenant but who do not seem to have been justified and elect (call them natural but special, even if non-elect)
Jeff: I found the “five types of seed” to be fairly complicated. It left me wondering what the door prize was going to be? That is, what can each type of seed expect from the Abrahamic Covenant? And how do you know this?
mark: I agree to the complexity, and I would not be dogmatic about the number or even my descriptions. I am not a dispensationalist looking to divide everything up and put it on a study-chart. as the “central key” which will unlock everything. But my main point is that we should not say “seed” in an univocal way. You should not say, Paul said not with seeds but with seed, so it’s Christ and there are no other meanings to “seed”.
Isaiah 53–He shall see His seed. When we say Christ is the seed, we mean also His elect seed. But do we mean His decretally elect seed (the seed He purchased with His death) or do
we mean his “covenantal” seed or do we mean his “visible administration” seed?
In other words, we can continue to talk about how many covenants (we haven’t talked about Noah yet) but we should already agree to more than one “the covenant”. And we should, simply by reading Romans 9, agree that “seed” has more than one meaning.
Jeff: Mark: what you need to make the point you attempt to make is for Paul to explain that in no way the children of the flesh were ever (really) in the Abrahamic covenant.
He says exactly that: “A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision
of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code.” (Rom 2.28 – 29). He says exactly what you want him to say. It’s not Paul’s fault that some people relegate his statements as “only applying to the new covenant era.”
mark: No, we are both doing interpretation. Your allegiance to the (revised) WCF makes you think there’s a double standard, where the credobaptist alone is making inferences. But you still need to show that those persons who are not “Jews” or who are “merely outward jews” were not in the Abrahamic covenant. You assume it. But what you say is NOT “exactly” what Paul is saying in Romans 2, or in Philippians 3. And there could be many more references. It’s not Paul’s fault that
some people only pay attention to some of what he says in a context and then ignore the rest.
Consider for example John 8: 39 They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, 40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. 41 You are doing the works your father did.”
Now, how would you interpret this, Jeff. Hey, it’s exactly what Mark is asking for. Jesus is telling them that they aren’t real jews and that they never were in the Abrahamic covenant. Jesus is telling them that their fathers weren’t really jews either and weren’t in in the Abrahamic covenant either. Do I interpret correctly how you would interpret John 8, Jeff? if I am not misunderstanding or
misrepresenting what you say about these texts, Jeff, then there’s a question left—- if all these texts are saying there is one and only one uncomplicated meaning for “seed”, then where do you find your “visible administration includes the seed of the real seed” principle?
It’s a real question. If we are to read all these NT texts back into the OT, and if none of these NT texts are even talking about your “visible adminstration” principle, where is that principle to be found?
Mark: Which anabaptists? Did they call themselves anabaptists? Or is that only the “swear-word” to decided to use on them after you left them? Were they dispensationalists? Did they have a creed or reject creeds? Did their elders accept folks into membership by profession of
faith? if not, what did they do? Did they have no membership?
jeff: Dallas dispensationalists of the 4.5-point Calvinist variety. Principled opposition (by some of them) to church membership and creeds. Fine folk, by the way, and I will never say a word against
them. They taught me how to read Scripture closely and how to care about the priority of the gospel.
mark: As I thought, I grew up somewhat the same, but without the eschatology and without the Plymouth Brethren view of ecclesiology. But my guess was right–they never called themselves anabaptists, but it’s what you choose to call them, maybe not for swearing purposes but for lumping
together keeping it simple purposes. Maybe they didn’t even call themselves Baptists but “bible church” but you call them anabaptists. They never heard of Grebel or Sattler.
The big point is that you accused “anabaptists” of having no visible administration, as if they did not accept members by profession. But this is not so of many credobaptists, and not inherently so of any credobaptist (or anabaptist).
jeff: In their view, we should attribute spiritual reality to the visible church in terms of Shepherd’s “Covenantal Perspective.” So they would say that visible church members partake of the reality, and
not just the outward administration, of the New Covenant. I think this is a confused error and bound to head towards “pragmatic Arminianism.”
mark: We agree on this, except I would not say “headed toward”. Instead of arguing that Shepherd’s theology is inherent in the argument from circumcision, instead I want to talk about Kline and Horton and negative sanctions Was it only the first generation which was obligated by the commands of Genesis 17? Why do you ask for a profession from one parent before giving the sign to the next generation? For those of who got Roman Catholic infant baptism, was one of your Roman Catholic parents a Christian at the time?.
Mark: Mike Horton certainly would not limit the new covenant to the elect. Anybody who agrees with Kline about new covenant curses and new covenant breaking would not.
Jeff: I’m not so sure. I’ve carefully distinguished between the reality of the covenant and its outward administration. However, I will admit that the Scripture uses covenant language to describe that
outward administration. So for example, in Gen 17, God announces circumcision with “This is My covenant…” Well, does He really mean that circumcision is the substance of the covenant?! That’s clearly absurd.
mark: but Genesis plainly says….I agree that we are both doing inferences. Let me quote a bit of Kline and save the Horton for later.
Kline writes (By Oath Consigned, 34) that ‘the proper purpose of the covenant in the salvation of the elect.” . But he also cautions that “we are not to reduce the redemptive covenant to that proper
purpose.” Those who don’t continue to believe the gospel are condemned. (John 3:18).
mark: So far I agree. Despite inability,all sinners have a duty to believe the gospel. All have a duty to come into the new covenant in which “all know the Lord “. But this is something different from Kline saying that some of the non-elect ARE IN the new covenant, and will be cursed and broken off if they don’t continue to believe. So Jeff would not agree with Kline.
Those we baptize with water we do so NOT to put into a conditional visible administration but on their profession of bankruptcy which rules out any future covenant keeping as a basis for blessing.
But Kline resists the “bent toward such a reduction of covenant to election. To do so is to substitute a logical abstraction for the historical reality…” The historical reality for Kline is the reality
of covenant threats and “actual divine vengeance against disobedience as covenantal”. I agree about divine vengeance but question if this wrath is “covenantal”. Perhaps Jeff would say that the wrath is “not covenantal but visibly administrative.”
LikeLike
jeff: (Note again: “covenant children” has reference to outward administration)
mark: got it. So I should say that infants (you exclude unbelieving teenagers also) born to credobaptist parents are “covenant children” who have not been baptized but rather that these infants are “visibly administrative children” who have not been baptized (but who are still in the visible administration” of the new covenant).
Mark: Assuming that we agree that Christ is the great federal head who will never allow His real new covenant people to perish (amen to that!), is Christ the head of the outward administration also? When outward administration happens, is that Christ doing it?
jeff: This is a big question. Let me answer it with some of my own.
mark: no, questions are not answers, so that leaves me to do the work. First I answer my own questions, and then yours.
I am not going to take the time however tonight to work my way through the “what you bind will have been bound” texts. Given the distinction I made between present visible congregations and the one future gathering of the justified elect, yes, Christ is the head of visible churches. But that’s not saying that churches are visible in the way you assume. Professions only. Not professions plus their infants.
Is God doing it? “Sacrament” was something a Roman soldier did. There is a difference between the baptism that saves (not water) and the appeal of a good conscience. Short answer: when we do it wrong, God can and does sometime kill us for doing it wrong. 1. By kill us, I mean first death. 2. Many folks assume that if God kills about the doing of it, this means that God is doing it. But to me, that means the opposite. Some did it wrong, and then God punished them for it. And if you don’t like the word “punish” when it comes to Christians, then say ‘disciplined them for it (with death). I am talking in short hand, and I need fuller answers, but I want to see my wife before she goes to bed, and this will be enough to get your started.
Jeff: * Is excommunication real?
mark: i must say that I am not a Platonist or a nominalist, and the word “real” bothers me just as much as the word “inward”. I don’t see the real inside, and forensic justification is the most “real” thing I know. I am tempted to paraphrase MarK Twain—is baby baptism real? Sure, I have seen it.
But to answer directly but briefly, sure excommunication is real. We deal with people who profess to belong to us differently than we deal with people who never professed to belong to us. Anabaptists don’t think the two marks are enough to have a “real” church. We think there’s need to be discipline, discernment, judging, excommunication. You didn’t ask if God is excommunicating when we excommunicating, but I guess my answer would be—sometimes perhaps. Is God preaching when Norman Shepherd is preaching?
Jeff: * Can Christ cut off churches? If so, then were they ever churches to begin with?
mark: I really like these two questions. I wish there were on another thread, where other folks would talk about them, folks like the unitarian guy (his blog is all about discipline) , and the rest of the gang. But my answer to both is yes. I am not so much into restitution or even reform, as in the idea that a church which has become not a church then goes back to being a church. Maybe it happens, but I don’t see it in history. But of course I am a separatist. New wineskins you know.
I don’t think a church which has its confession the justification and atonement sections of the WCF is necessarily a church because it has that confession. Surely those paragraphs are a good start, but if the people in the church all deny the bodily resurrection or deny the importance of the bodily resurrection, then they are not a church, no matter what the confession says. Call me a fundy.
I do want to talk this more if we can. Maybe on another thread. It might be a way to move on pass our differences on “visible administration”. Or maybe not.
LikeLike
Mark: Maybe they didn’t even call themselves Baptists but “bible church” but you call them anabaptists. They never heard of Grebel or Sattler.
Er, no. ‘Nuff on the speculating.
Mark: But Kline resists the “bent toward such a reduction of covenant to election. To do so is to substitute a logical abstraction for the historical reality…” The historical reality for Kline is the reality
of covenant threats and “actual divine vengeance against disobedience as covenantal”
I’d have to go back and re-read BOC, but I would say that my terminology is aimed at clearing away a misconception, that one can have salvation by anything other than faith.
As I mentioned earlier, the Scripture often uses the word “covenant” to refer to the outward administration thereof. I would imagine Kline is doing the same.
LikeLike
Gen 17:9 And God said to Abraham: “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations.”
Gen 18:19 “For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep the way of the Lord, that the Lord may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him.”
Jeremiah 31: My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. but this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after those days, says the Lord: ‘I will put My law in their minds, and write in on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying ‘Know the Lord’, for they all shall know me…”
Will all in the new covenant know the Lord, or only those who keep the covenant? Jeff seems to agree with me that all in the new covenant will stay in the new covenant, despite our sins.
When Jeremiah contrasts the new covenant with the one made with the fathers, the contrast is to the Mosaic covenant and not to the Abraham covenant. But neither is it accurate to say that the new covenant is only a renewal of the Abrahamic covenant. The Abrahamic covenant also had its “conditional” aspects.
One way some people put this all together is to say that the unconditional aspect of covenants only refers to God’s promise to save a people, but that which INDIVIDUALS are part of the people is conditioned on covenant obedience. I refer not only to Arminians who say that Jesus died for everybody and that the difference is their faith. I refer also to some “ catholic Calvinists”.
Instead of saying that all blessing is conditioned only on the imputed righteousness, these “conditionality Calvinists” bring into the picture the sovereign grace of God which enables the elect to meet the conditions of the covenant. This failure to glory only in the cross is supported by a view of the new covenant which separates “covenant” from election. Abraham stayed in because he was enabled to obey, but some who are in the new covenant get broken off the new coveant because they do not obey. Or so we are told.
But the “covenant status” of those in the new covenant does not depend on our conduct and walk. Those who try to walk to life will never arrive there. The Christian walk is a fruit and a result of life given through Christ’s finished work.
Kline very much wanted to hold the line on the law/gospel antithesis, but I think that his reading of the covenants makes it difficult for him to talk about God meeting all the conditions for the salvation of an INDIVIDUAL. Kline teaches that water baptism puts individuals into a conditional covenant and introduces them to potential curse.
I certainly agree with Kline about the need for Jesus Christ to keep the new covenant. As he puts it: “the covenant concept has law as its foundation and makes its promises dependent on the obedience of a federal representative. ” p 35 I agree that the blessing of the new covenant comes through covenant curse on Jesus Christ.
But if Christ has kept covenant for all those in the new covenant, then how can Kline speak of “dual sanctions” for those in the new covenant? Kline thinks that those for whom Jesus never died can be initiated into the new covenant. And his pattern for this is not only the Mosaic covenant but the Abrahamic covenant. Kline thinks it was possible to be in that covenant but not be justified like Abraham was. And I agree. But not about this being true of the new covenant.
Kline agrees that Jeremiah 31 sounds like “discontinuity” with earlier covenants. “Jeremiah speaks, to be sure, only of a consummation of grace; he does not mention a consummation of curses in the new Covenant.” p76. But Kline maintains this is only a matter of focus— the emphasis is on eschatological blessing but curse is not denied. “But the theologian of today ought not to impose on himself the visionary limitations of an Old Testament prophet.”
But why should we take this (dispensational?) attitude to Jeremiah? Perhaps the prophet really is seeing a new covenant which has no “dual sanctions” because it is altogether conditioned on the obedience of Christ.
Yes, there is real excommunication in the New Testament. But what Kline needs to show is that those judgments are exclusions of those who are in the new covenant. Otherwise we simply assume the paradigm with which Kline begins.
I John 2:19 says that those who went out “were not of us.” But John 15 says that those who do not abide in the vine are thrown away. Is the right exegesis here that those who began to abide were later broken off from “the covenant”?
As for me, I don’t see how saying that the vine is the covenant fits with Christ saying He is the true vine. Certainly there is such a thing as a false profession and assurance about Christ, but is it a satisfactory explanation to introduce into John 15 a covenant with dual sanctions? I don’t think so.
But Kline argues that the new covenant of Jeremiah 31 is ultimately not about now but about after the second coming. Thus he says that we who say that only the elect are now in the new covenant “prematurely precipitate the age to come.” (p77, footnote about Jewett). In other words, Kline does the already/ not yet number, with an emphasis on the not yet. The new covenant is really not yet, he thinks, because now there are those in it who do not know the Lord.
Kline argues from Romans 11:17-21. If gentiles in the new covenant are grafted into the Abrahamic covenant, then we must not say that the new convent is unconditional because the Abrahamic covenant was not unconditional. Verse 21: “he may not spare you either”.
Of course we have the promise of Romans 8:32 that all those for whom God did not spare His Son will be spared. The condition of this blessing is Christ’s obedience (even to death) . So I think it is possible to warn folks ( he may not spare you either) without telling them that they are initiated into the new covenant.
I even think Kline would agree—not all are in the new covenant. But are there some in the new covenant who will not be spared? What good would it do to warn people in the new covenant about this if it were not possible for them to be broken off? Then again, what good would it do to warn people about any disobedience if they are so reckless as to put all their hope in Christ as the only condition of blessing?
LikeLike
dgh: I don’t pine for the days of Calvin’s Geneva when civil magistrates would have run out of town priests and pastors who had come ministering without an invitation.
Oh by the way, I thought of two more questions. Are there any orthodox presbyterian congregations that do NOT have a pca nearby competing for the same customers?
Are the “ruling elders” of a local congregation (defacto, the elders who don’t preach and who aren’t paid) also part of the presbytery? If not, why not?
when protestants deny that each atom of the bread
contains God completely,
the priests explain that it makes no difference
what gnostic separatists think is happening
because history already tells us
how the story goes
(not for the sectarians, they don’t count as church)
tell us that Christ is fully present in the bread
the chaplains defend the narrative
and hart should pray for a new constantine
who will decide which church is church
thus making it possible for us to worship in peace
constantinian soldiers are cheap, their lives also,
they kill for peace so that we
privately don’t have to
the priests cost more but you can’t just have anybody
doing what God does
and telling you what God meant
the sacrament are liminal
miracles here and now, so of course they can’t be explained
we need one constantine so we can locate the one church
in this times and place,.
to tell us which churches are only posing as churches
LikeLike
McMark,
I’m not sure about the proximity of PCA and OPC congregations. But overlap exists and rules of comity don’t seem to be followed.
Elders are not members of presbytery because the Bible says so. (Best I could do, but it’s a good question.)
Question for you, how do you know Constantine would make the right choice? Is he infallible?
LikeLike
As you know, I am being sarcastic about old Constantine or a new one. But if I can imagine the answer of those nostalgic for the good old days of an unrevised WCF, they would say that at least that way you have an authority and a decision to go by. And even if Constantine’s technocrats pick the wrong congregation or clergyman, at least you will all have the same prayerbook and confession. And that’s what counts.
It’s like your duty to vote for one of the two shape-shifters. No choice but to choose, and even if you choose the wrong one, at least you have a President.
So is one difference between congregationalists and presbyterians that all presbyterians make a distinction between elders, so that some elders are less equal than others, and therefore not on the presbytery? I ask without any agenda, because I simply don’t know.
LikeLike
McMark, but the odd thing is that some communions do achieve unity on prayer book and confession without Constantine’s aid. So why pine for the state to help us? Why not appreciate the liberty given by constitutional republicanism?
Not all Presbyterians are three-office. Some are even four-office. But in the logic of three-office, and the distinction between pastors and elders is the difference between presbyteries and sessions (I think).
LikeLike
Beza: “The contention that heretics should not be punished is as monstrous as the contention that patricides and matricides should not be put to death; for heretics are a thousandfold worse criminals than these.”
Stefan Zweig, The Right to Heresy: Castellio Against Calvin
LikeLike
Mark: One way some people put this all together is to say that the unconditional aspect of covenants only refers to God’s promise to save a people, but that which INDIVIDUALS are part of the people is conditioned on covenant obedience…I refer not only to Arminians who say that Jesus died for everybody and that the difference is their faith. I refer also to some “ catholic Calvinists”.
That’s a very good observation. For those people, “the church” or “the covenant community” is a container (Catholics would say, “an ark”), and the promises are made to “whosoever resides in the container.” Christ died for “the sins of those residing in the container.”
I utterly reject this notion, as do you.
Mark: The Abrahamic covenant also had its “conditional” aspects.
OK, spell those out.
—
For review: My way of cutting the cake is, Partaking of the promises of the covenant (in particular, I will be your God, and the promise of inheriting the world) is and was conditioned upon faith. The full realization (or awarding) of those promises occurs in the eschaton. Those with faith (Isaac, Ruth) are the true sons of Abraham and will receive the promises made.
That covenant continues, and we who are of faith are in that covenant.
Additionally, there was an outward administration of the covenant, or “The covenant as man sees it.” The outward condition corresponding to faith was obedience. A male who refused circumcision was outwardly cut off from the people of God because he had shown dispostive evidence of rejecting faith.
The outward sign of the covenant was circumcision, symbolizing the righteousness that is obtained by faith. The outward promise of the covenant was the land of Canaan, which symbolized both the eternal rest and also the New Heavens and New Earth.
Those included into the adminstration of the covenant were all those who embraced the faith of Abraham, together with their households. Why? Only because God said so.
When the Law comes, the outward administration tacks on a new feature: a republication of the covenant of works as a new condition for living in the land.
Strictly enforced (and God in His patience did *not* strictly enforce it), the Law required perfect obedience as a condition for obtaining the outward promise. So even some of those with faith, such as Moses, failed to live in the land because of their disobedience. (This is a point worth meditating on.) The Law thus served as a type of the covenant of works, pointing backwards to Adam and forwards to Christ: Disobey and die, obey and live.
The sacrifices then served a dual purpose. Typologically, they pointed to the coming sacrifice that takes away the sins of the world. But also, in terms of outward administration, they served to provide a means of mercy: by placing the sins on the sacrifice, the Israelites outwardly avoided the strict enforcement of the Law.
Now, when Christ comes, some things change about the outward administration. Circumcision gives way to baptism, for the Promised Seed has come and with Him comes the Holy Spirit. This is implied in Gal 3. Why don’t the Galatians need circumcision? Because they have been baptized into Christ.
Likewise, the purpose of the Law has been substantially fulfilled. Hence, both the sacrifices and also the judicial laws expire.
Some things do not change about this outward administration. The structure of the covenant community does not change (for God did not tell us to change it). Accordingly, our children are holy (“sanctified”, “set apart”) just as Abraham’s were.
What are we to call this outward administration? Because it is the covenant as man sees it, we can reasonably call it “the covenant” for short. This is what, I believe, Kline and Horton are doing, as well Calvin and O. Palmer Robertson (and even Hodge). But in calling it “the covenant”, we must be clear that belonging to the covenant (“as man sees it”) conveys NOTHING eternally unless there is faith.
So while I do not fault Kline for talking about “the covenant”, I mentally translate him to mean “the outward administration of the covenant”, which is what I believe he means.
—
OK, so that’s my position in short. What is yours, and specifically how does it differ and why? To be really specific,
* What are the conditions you see in the Abrahamic Covenant?
* How do you account for men such as Moses who had faith, but were denied entrance into Canaan?
* What does it mean that the Law was not in operation from Abraham to Moses?
* What change does the Law bring?
* What does it mean that we are “children of Abraham”, “inheritors according to the promise”, and this:
For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith … That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham
Do you agree that the promise of inheritance of the world is to all of us believers?
LikeLike
Mark and DGH,
On balance, I believe that it is correct that the magistrate should not enforce the first table. It seems to me that this is not within his proper scope.
But I am very struck by Calvin’s reason for assigning first table duties to the magistrate: That God is a person, whose rights should be observed like any other.
What is striking about that reason is that I can observe in our (Euro-American, Asian) society a loss of sense that God is a person corresponding to a loss of respecting His rights in our judicial system.
Having a “secular” government might be good, on balance. But it carries a cost.
LikeLike
Jeff, do you have a reference or quote for Calvin on God as a person with rights? That sounds remarkably loose and capable of abuse (not to say you are guilty of such). I am troubled by the construction since I think it needs a lot of qualification, some of which having to do with God’s character as transcendent. I don’t look at him as a fellow member of the realm.
LikeLike
Thanks, Jeff. For one thing, you make me glad that I don’t have to translate the Confession (or Kline and Horton) into meaning to say what I mean (when it sounds different from what I say). It’s not just that I like disagreeing (that too!) but it gives me a freedom to be non-partisan in reporting the diversity among people who all call themselves “conenant theologians.
Jeff: Likewise, the purpose of the Law has been substantially fulfilled. Hence, both the sacrifices and also the judicial laws expire. Some things do not change about this outward administration. The structure of the covenant community does not change (for God did not tell us to change it). Accordingly, our children are holy (“sanctified”, “set apart”) just as Abraham’s were.
mark: how do you know which things change and which don’t? Cherry-picking. But I have discussed this before. It’s “ceremonial” and not of the “moral” essence, even though God commanded it. How do it know it’s ceremonial? Well, it’s now abolished. How do you know it’s abolished? Well, it’s abolished. But the Abrahamic covenant is an unity, an entire package, take it or leave, say it’s fulfilled or not…..and so on. But it turns out that, for Jeff, saying it’s an unity is not quite as simple as it seemed, because along side the covenant is this “visible administration” which is not the covenant but which changes, or some of it changes, and some of it doesn’t change….
Jeff: What are we to call this outward administration? Because it is the covenant as man sees it, we can reasonably call it “the covenant” for short. But in calling it “the covenant”, we must be clear that belonging to the covenant (“as man sees it”) conveys NOTHING eternally unless there is faith. So while I do not fault Kline for talking about “the covenant”, I mentally translate him to mean “the outward administration of the covenant”, which is what I believe he means.
mark: I think you are going to need to discuss faith as a condition or a result of the covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, new). Surely you must agree with me that faith in the gospel is a sovereign gift of God. But that still leaves diverse ways of talking about faith and covenants. Did Christ meet all the conditions of the new covenant so that all in the new covenant will have faith in the gospel? I think so, and you might agree with that since you agree that only the elect are in the new covenant (unlike Kline and Horton and Hodge). But then again, you might speak of grace as enabling the elect to meet the conditions. I am not going to speculate about where you are on this, Jeff, but I would commend the Westminster Ca collection of essays The Law is Not of Faith.
Jeffl OK, so that’s my position in short. What is yours, and specifically how does it differ and why? To be really specific,
* What are the conditions you see in the Abrahamic Covenant?
mark: To be specific, I would need to know if you want me to talk about the covenant (Genesis 17) of the “visible administration of the Abrahamic covenant.
* How do you account for men such as Moses who had faith, but were denied entrance into Canaan?
mark: I am not sure what’s implied in this question. Is the idea that I would have more trouble explaining that people were under the Mosaic covenant than you or others would. Some people under the Mosaic covenant were people who believed the gospel and some people under the Mosaic covenant did not believe the gospel. But even the believers were under the obligations of the Mosaic law. To some extent, we could talk about Christ Himself coming under the curse of the Mosaic covenant, but I think that would get a bit more complicated. One, Christ came to save some who were never under the Mosaic covenant. Two, there is an unique arrangement (covenant of redemption, a covenant of works between the Trinity and Christ with specific tasks which transcend anything the first Adam was obligated to do). Interesting topic, but I guess I am left wondering why you think we would differ on this.
* What does it mean that the Law was not in operation from Abraham to Moses?
mark: Do you really want me to exegete two chapters of Galatians for you? I might give you a taste in another post. But short answer: there are different laws associated with different covenants, as Hebrews reminds us, and it will not do to simply say some laws are “ceremonial” or “political” because there are different covenantal economies and therefore different laws. For example, the law given to Adam (do not eat from that one tree) is not the Mosaic law. So the Mosaic law is not in operation until the Mosaic covenant is “cut” in history. See Exodus 24. This seems so obvious that I must have missed your question. My wife keeps telling me—just because somebody asks your opinion doesn’t mean that you have to give it.
* What change does the Law bring?
mark: I assume that when you say “the law” you mean the Mosaic law. Where there is no law, there can be no sin imputed. But Romans 5:12-14 is pretty convincing that there was law before the Mosaic law. There was law for Adam, and all those without law to them are imputed with the guilt of
Adam’s sin against law.
* What does it mean that we are “children of Abraham”, “inheritors according to the promise”, and this:
mark: Before I rush in to repeat all that I have said about distinctions about the word “seed” (still waiting your response on texts like John 8), I guess I should simply repeat my question above. Are we talking about the Abrahamic covenant now, or about its “visible adminstration”, or about the new covenant. You have assured me that Romans 9 isn’t talking about the new covenant. So which promiseS are we talking about? The promise made to Abraham about him having many children and a nation and a land? Or some “visible aministrative” promises made to somebody other than Abraham?
jeff: Do you agree that the promise of inheritance of the world is to all of us believers?
mark: I am not so much a fan o “us believers” because that sometimes takes in Mormons and Arminians. But if you mean is that promise (along with promise about the Seed who will bring in righteousness) made to those who believe God’s gospel, yes of course. The justified elect are children of Abraham, and have no need of being put into the covenant God made with Abraham (or some of its “visible administration”). The justified elect do not need what the Judiazers offered, not even if they could get it without being circumcised.
LikeLike
Romans 9:32–”Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling-stone.”
In order to perform its killing function, the Mosaic covenant was law demanding perfection with the power to condemn. Law is not only a tutor that “reveals” sin or makes people aware of sin. Romans 5:20 says that the law entered that sin would increase, not simply knowledge about sin would increase.
The law does not only kill by making us think of things to do that we would not have thought of before. The main way that the law kills is being used by idolaters (all of us by nature) to try to justify ourselves before God. We think–I did it, or I did enough of it.
The law kills, leads to death, and if no gospel, only that. But the elect under the law are taught by the gospel to SEE that they are dead.
Romans 7 verse 9: “I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.” We were dead by nature, and already sinners. This “I died” is something besides the death we were born with under the law.
It’s life to see that you are dead and to see that any and all righteousness found BY US in the law (Phil 3:9) is insufficient to stand before God. Only Christ by Has death for the elect has satisfied the requirements of law and obtained a righteousness for the elect, so that the law now demands that the elect be given every blessing of salvation.
But did the Mosaic law-covenant announce clearly that it was a “killing instrument” and not the gospel? If it did not, who could blame any Jew for using the law wrong , attempting to be saved by keeping it?
The central text discussed in this connection is Romans 9:32–”They did not seek if by faith, as if it were by works of law.”
Some who focus only on redemptive history say that there is no difference between law and gospel, but only a right way and a wrong way of pursuing the law, and that the gospel is the right way of pursuing the law.
LikeLike
McMark,
I’m trying, honest, but this still sounds like tensions over the visible/invisible distinction. It also seems an overwrought attempt to view this primarily from the point of God’s elective action and not from how we receive it and understand it as creatures; faith, confession and participation. This doesn’t mean I see Jeff’s points all the way through either, but I see in Jeff the distinction between the visible/invisible in talking about ‘administrations’ and the familial solidarity inherent in the continuity or fulfillment, if you will, of the Abrahamic in the NC.
BTW, wasn’t the point of Rom 5:12-14 not that their wasn’t lawful breaking beyond just Adam’s guilt, Rom 2:15, but the mosaic brought it into greater relief and increased the visibility of it, in the attempt to keep it(tutoring).
LikeLike
Federal visionists (along with Dan Fuller, and except for two of his books, John Piper) tell us that obeying the gospel (works of faith) is the right way of pursuing the law. (Piper’s Future Grace is where he most agrees with Fuller, and his The Future of Justification response to NT Wright is where he most disagrees with Fuller)
One of the best rebuttals to this federal visionist idea is an older essay by David Gordon in WTJ (Spring 1992): “Why Israel did not obtain Torah Righteousness; A note on Romans 9:32.”
Gordon writes that the verse should be translated not “as if it were”, but “because the law is not of faith” in line with Gal 3:12. “The qualification works-and-not faith in Gal 3:10-13 is parallel to the qualification works and not faith in Romans 9:32.”
“If one group attained what the other did not, the difference between them might lie in the manner in which they pursued it. This is now what Paul says however. The two groups did not pursue the same thing (the gentiles pursued nothing). Paul’s point therefore is NOT that the Gentiles pursued righteousness in a better manner (by faith) than the Jews. Rather, God’s mercy gives what is not even pursued.”
“When Paul asks why the Jews did not attain unto the Torah, his answer addressed the NATURE of the law- covenant (Torah demands perfect obedience), not the nature of the PURSUIT of the law-covenant.”
Those who say “we cause the death of Jesus to save us, and we do it the right way, with the faith and not works” do not understand the gospel. We and our “covenant-keeping” don’t do it ANY way. God did it. God did it at the cross, for the elect. God imputes that cross-work to the elect, and the elect believe this gospel.
LikeLike
Mark: To be specific, I would need to know if you want me to talk about the covenant (Genesis 17) of the “visible administration of the Abrahamic covenant.
I would like for you to lay out your own understanding of the situation. I anticipate that your answer will not include a “visible administration”, since you don’t (appear to) believe in one.
How do you, Mark, cut the cake?
Feel free to refer to my answer for purposes of contrast, but do not feel constrained to use my categories.
LikeLike
McMark,
Nevermind the last bit on Rom 5, you clarified it later. At least what I read of it. I think.
LikeLike
Sean, we don’t disagree that there is a distinction to be made between God’s decretal election and visible churches. It’s not in question that there is a distinction. The difference between Jeff and me is about the nature of the visibility. (I think he’s 1.dividing “visible administration” off from “covenant” in a way which is not consistent with the Bible, or with the WCF, or with Kline/Horton. and 2. I think he’s cherry-picking what he keeps–if sacrifices get dropped after the Sacrifice, why don’t the circumcisions get stopped after Christ’s circumcision?).
Of course I would be delighted to hear more about how you track differently than Jeff on the use of the c word. Jeff is taking a somewhat minority position, and good for him. But I also would imagine that you and Jeff would agree with me (and David Gordon) in disagreeing with how the federal visionists (Doug Wilson) talk about the elect become non-elect.
I even think, Sean, you might not agree with Kline that it’s premature to talk about decretal election as long as the conditions of the new covenant have “not yet” been fulfilled. Someday we need to get back to those essays by Pratt and Niell about the “newness of the new covenant” (Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism) It’s ironic to me that both Kline and Shepherd don’t think pastors should be talking about decretal election when they talk about covenants. (Or the gospel, in Shepherd’s case)
LikeLike
DGH,
That it extends to both tables of the law, did Scripture not teach, we might learn from profane writers; for no man has discoursed of the duty of magistrates, the enacting of laws, and the common weal, without beginning with religion and divine worship. Thus all have confessed that no polity can be successfully established unless piety be its first care, and that those laws are absurd which disregard the rights of God, and consult only for men. — Calv Inst 4.20.9
LikeLike
McMark,
If I go back to Jeff’s 10:45 post, I don’t see much light between us on the covenant score, and the neonomians are right out. Can you explain # 1 on your issue with Jeff(succinctly)? On # 2, that makes me think your conflating Mosaic with Abrah.(you may not, it just reads that way) and what’s cherry-picking or unbiblical about replacing circumcision with baptism(NC sacrament of initiation) if Paul does it.
I’m a touch rusty on my Kline, but I would think he’s honoring the the creator/creature distinction, pretty boilerplate reformed better done with the lutherans.
LikeLike
sb; better done BY the Lutherans
LikeLike
Jeff, Thanks. Not working for me.
LikeLike
DGH: “Not working” meaning, You disagree with me that “Calvin thinks God is a person whose rights are to be respected”, OR you disagree with Calvin that God’s rights need to be respected judicially?
LikeLike
Jeff, I don’t like Calvin’s construction without some explanation. I’m ambivalent about rights talk generally. It doesn’t sit well describing God, as if he’s a citizen.
LikeLike
Back to the original subject of this post (sort of). I watched Wilson’s Clearnote sponsored lecture at the U of Indiana. The lecture about put me to sleep (the protesters antics were humorous), but the 2 hours of Q&A between gay, bisexual, queer, trans, etc. etc. as well as various theological liberals and Wilson was priceless. Wilson did a pretty good job. Some of the questions were pretty good, too.
LikeLike