Jody Bottom (thanks to our Pennsylvania correspondent)?
Western disenchantment was a complicated phenomenon. The general rejection of sacraments in Protestant religious sensibility acted as only one of what Weber (borrowing from Goethe) called the “elective affinities” of modernity. The bureaucratization required by the powerful new nation-states is another of those affinities that helped produce the modern world — as are the prestige of mathematical science (particularly after Descartes), the new social relations created by the rise of the middle class, the enthusiasm for democracy, and the hatred of Catholic religious authority implicit in Enlightenment philosophy. (And often explicit; notice, for instance, the affinities of democracy and anti-Catholicism blending indistinguishably in Diderot’s oft-quoted philosophe epigram, “Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”)
Still, the disenchantment of the world quickly came to define the powerful Protestant cultures of Western civilization, and it infected far too many of the Catholic cultures, as well. The “great enchanted garden” of traditional societies, as Weber called it, withered to small growths on the verges and glebes. . . .
Come, leave the city, walk out in the fields, and see the night’s vast planetarium for what it is — the stars dancing in their formal Newtonian quadrillions, in honor of God’s order, even while Aries fears for his golden fleece and Andromeda longs for rescue. The world is graced with magic and wonder, Christ’s sacrifice pours through creation, and infinity lives in a grain of sand. All truths blend toward the one truth. Come, we were blind, but now, if only we open our eyes, we see.
(sort of puts a crimp in Keller’s Holy Urbanism)
Or Paul, the apostle?
7 But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us. 8 We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; 9 persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; 10 always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. 11 For we who live are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. 12 So death is at work in us, but life in you.
13 Since we have the same spirit of faith according to what has been written, “I believed, and so I spoke,” we also believe, and so we also speak, 14 knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence. 15 For it is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God.
16 So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self his being renewed day by day. 17 For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, 18 as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.
You don’t need to turn the world into a sacrament to avoid fleeing it. (By the way, are not Scripture and Tradition supposed to cohere?)
Old Life 
the lone ranger:—All of us Christians must blame ourselves for the problems we encounter in our political and cultural situation.
tonto–why must it always be “ourselves” and not yourselves?
The enchanted killing of Servetus is not to be judged by the standards of some later age. The killing of Servetus is to be condemned by the standards of the anabaptists of Calvin’s age. The killing of the unitarian medical student is to be judged by the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.
The standard of later ages is what’s good for the “secular” economies. The killings do not have to be “sacraments” if they are a means for the “public good”. Thank you for your service.
LikeLike
So I learned yesterday that my sister is attending a PCA in the Kansas City area that practices paedocommunion and intinction. What other bombshells do I need to be prepared for at the Holiday get together?
My impression of Kansas City is that it is an area that has been so burned over by Pentecostalism and Revivalism that it is a difficult place to do a conservative P&R church straight-up.
Talk me off the ledge here.
LikeLike
And then there are the p and r congregations which are conserving revivalism. But when a pca pushes revivalism, the Reformation is not to blame. It’s somebody else’s fault. And at least it still has the right kind of Confession.
I wonder what “market share” all the pcas in kansas city have. I wonder what the selling point of this pca was for your sister, if not the accepting of all covenant members to the sacrament.
Why revise Confessions, if they are still enchanting?
I look forward to duke showing kansas how to play basketball tonight.
LikeLike
dgh: You don’t need to turn the world into a sacrament to avoid fleeing it.
mark: You don’t need to ever say the word “sacrament” to avoid being docetic and gnostic.
You don’t need to add the word “water” to make baptism real in Romans 6.
It is an enchantment of the Romans 6 text to assume that church water is an instrument by which God places the elect into the death of Christ.
Once there are two “sacraments”, that opens up the way for everything to become “sacramental”.
Once the list of the “means of grace” expands, there will be no stopping. Even a blog can become a “means of grace”.
But the sacraments should never be “church dividing”, since paedos do everything that baptists do, and more. Even what baptists do is valid and paedos accept it, so why won’t baptists accept what paedos do? Therefore all “church dividing” is the fault of the baptists.
A covenant is a relationship between two parties, therefore we all agree that ultimately the efficacy of sacraments depends on God’s effectual call of the sinners, but we must be careful not to make God’s effectual call the primary thing, because we still want to say that God’s promise of grace to everybody in the covenant is the first and more important thing, even if God does not later effectually call every individual to WHOM God pledges covenant love.
LikeLike
And I hope Michigan State does the same to Kentucky, ie show them how to play basketball. Two very good games back to back in this early NCAA basketball season. I know where I will be tonight. I will be very careful not to cross the line into hedonism and maintain my self-control by the power of the Spirit while watching the games. I will be calling on the powers that be for an extra dose of infusion of righteousness-perhaps the sacramental feeding I participated in on Sunday will do the trick (please no accusations of off-topic). I’m bracing myself for a retort but will probably be met with that Calvinist ignore tactic. Or, the fine senses of humor of many at oldlife will surprise me. I know I am not that important and my narcissism is probably revealing itself.
LikeLike
May bad – it’s not a PCA, it’s EPC.
http://www.epc.org/
About the EPC
UnityOur name describes us well. The EPC is both evangelical and Presbyterian. We are evangelical in our zeal for the Gospel, as well as, evangelism, missions and living obediently as followers of Jesus. At the same time, we are rooted deeply in the Protestant Reformation and especially the theological and pastoral work of John Calvin. We embrace the Westminster Confession of Faith as our doctrinal standard and the rule of spiritually mature elders linked together regionally as the best way to guide local congregations.
Liberty – hands-libertyWhen the EPC started in 1981 we determined that on the basic essentials of the Christian faith, we would not disagree, but on anything that was not essential, such as the issue of ordaining women as officers or practicing charismatic gifts, we would give each other liberty. Above all, we committed ourselves to loving each other and not engaging in quarrels and strife. The result is that when we get together in our regional and national meetings, we spend most of our time in worship and fellowship and almost none in arguing with each other.
Charity – hands-charityThe EPC consists of more than 400 churches and 135,000 members. We have a world missions program with a priority on sending missionaries to unreached people groups. We are eager to plant churches across the United States and especially in urban communities and college towns. Our desire is that every one of our congregations will be an outpost of the Kingdom in post-Christian America with every member viewing himself or herself as a missionary on a mission.
If you are interested in helping us be more faithful and more fruitful as Christ’s disciples, check us out further on this website. Even better, visit one of our churches near you.
LikeLike
What’s bad about that Erik is that I didn’t even flinch when you said it was a PCA. Instead I tried to calculate the miles from CTS to Kansas City.
LikeLike
Erik, you already have it figured out. Pentecostalism and revivalism explain a lot. Go easy on sis but let her know her church is novel.
LikeLike
McMark, so how do we follow the Great Commission if we don’t baptize? Are you advocating a dirt bath? Sure, it’s a spiritual endeavor, so is faith, but it does come ordinarily by hearing words communicated by vocal chords that make sound waves.
Don’t go fanatical on us.
LikeLike
Erik, it’s still novel.
LikeLike
Erik, my condolences, we were given sisters in order to have someone to annoy us over whom we have no control or persuasion at all.
LikeLike
1. Calvin and other reformers told us that the Great Commission was not now for us all. But most of us agree that this was a mistake, as was using magistrates to enforce both tables of the Mosaic covenant.
2. I am not denying that there is water baptism in the New Testament. I am denying that there is water in Romans 6. Ironically, many sacerdotalists argue from the fact that there is no “look, here is water” in Romans 6 to the conclusion that Romans 6 must be water. They presuppose that all baptism has water as its instrument. For most, this includes Christ’s baptism with the Holy Spirit. (The denial of ex opere operato is no exemption from sacrerdotalism.)
3. Using the word “spiritual” here is not my idea, and I certainly don’t think it’s the Zwinglians who confuse God’s placing the elect legally into Christ’s death (Romans 6) with the new birth given by the Holy Spirit.
A A Hodge: “It does not do to say this presence is only spiritual. If it means that the presence of Christ is not something objective…., then it is false. If it means that Christ is present only by His Spirit, it is not true, because Christ is one person and the Holy Spirit is another person…It is a great mistake to confuse the idea of presence with nearness in space…Presence is not a question of space. Presence is a relation.” (Theology, Banner of Truth, p 356)
mark: You don’t need to ever say the word “sacrament” to avoid being a dualist docetic “spiritualizing” enthusiast.
You don’t need to add the word “water” to make baptism legally real in Romans 6.
It is an enchantment of the Romans 6 text to assume that church water is an instrument by which God places the elect into the death of Christ.
LikeLike
Above all, we committed ourselves to loving each other and not engaging in quarrels and strife.
Lifted right out of the Old Life mission statement. I hate mission statements. Vision statements are even worse.
LikeLike
McMark, you lost me at #1. I don’t baptize. The Great Commission is not about me (or you).
LikeLike
Gotta love the EPC.
They left the PCUSA because they wanted another go at what the PCUSA became.
And they’re right on schedule.
Betcha they won’t argue about lesbians in office when the time comes.
It’s not loving.
LikeLike
Mark, you need to get together with Jason.
Baptism is what it signifies. It’s all good.
Come home to mama and listen to little papa.
LikeLike
dgh: McMark, you lost me at #1. I don’t baptize. The Great Commission is not about me (or you).
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.
mark: if you are lost, you must have “excluded yourself”. If you are not commanded to do what Christ says here, then who is? Them?
But even if the Great Commission does not command human obedience, that is no reason for you to ignore my points against elevating sacramental ecclesiology to the level of the gospel.
2. Romans 6 is not about water (yours or mine) . I am not denying that there is water baptism in the New Testament. I am denying that there is water in Romans 6. Ironically, many sacerdotalists argue from the fact that there is no “look, here is water” in Romans 6 to the conclusion that Romans 6 must be water. They presuppose that all baptism has water as its instrument. For most, this includes Christ’s baptism with the Holy Spirit. (The denial of ex opere operato is no exemption from sacrerdotalism.)
3. It’s not the Zwinglians who confuse God’s placing the elect legally into Christ’s death (Romans 6) with the new birth given by the Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
robert: Mark, you need to get together with Jason.
Baptism is what it signifies. It’s all good.
mark: because we have common enemies. Jason has sacraments. I don’t. So why and how would we get together? There are a lot of folks in the “not Reformed” club.
It seems that even asking what baptism is has become a “prying question”. Are we talking about water baptism, or baptism with the Holy Spirit, or being baptized into Christ’s death?
Baptism signifies what it is. Very deep. But what is it? Whatever it is, well, that it also signifies.
Is baptism a covenant promise? Is covenant a partnership where the efficacy of its promise depends on human receiving? Does baptism promise effectual calling? All the elect are effectually called, so this means that covenant is not about God’s effectual call but about if one of the parents between you and your grandparents professes to be a Christian?
Most of the Reformed to be saying something like this—A covenant is a relationship between two parties, therefore we all agree that ultimately the efficacy of sacraments depends on God’s effectual call of the sinners, but we must be careful not to make God’s effectual call the primary thing, because we still want to say that God’s promise of grace to everybody in the covenant is the first and more important thing, even if God does not later effectually call every individual to WHOM God pledges covenant love.
LikeLike
dgh: don’t go fanatical on us.
goldilocks—The trick, I suppose, is to get just the right amount of enchantment.
Mike Horton, People and Place, p 228—“Barth seems to assume that ‘secularity’ is neutral, objective, and descriptive, when in fact the human sciences often exhibit a naturalistic bias that insists on reducing the church to of pure immanence.”
mark: Is the church only enchanted (in a moderate way) when the church meets for worship? If so, does this mean that the church is what it eats when it assembles? If we deny that Christians who are not assembled for visible holy work are the church, this means that the church is not what Christians eat outside of church. What Christians eat in church is what makes the church exist (not mere well-being).
But 2k does not translate into 2c (two churches). Two kingdoms for Augustine meant that Christians were only in one kingdom, but for the Reformed, it means they participate in both kingdoms. And the visible church and the invisible church, for the Reformed, are not two churches but one.
Instead of tolerating Zwingli’s attention to the absent and invisible, the Reformed want to to see Christ’s sacramental presence in things visible, but not too many things, not everything.
Anything to avoid the fanaticism of Zwingli. Not to overlook the moderation of Zwingli himself who at least killed those more fanatical about water than himself.
Some fanatics seem to think you could be elect without having been born in the covenant.
Some fanatics seem to think you can embrace the promise of the gospel without having first been promised objectively (covenantally) that you will embrace the promise.
LikeLike
McMark, men ordained to baptize baptize. Why is that so hard?
LikeLike
McMark, if assembling with saints and angels in the Holy of Holies on the Lord’s Day is enchanted, so let it be enchanted. Christians meeting for snacks? Not really.
LikeLike
Being Campbellites all the cast members of Duck Dynasty, the darlings of the evanjellyfish retail sea, baptize. Sometimes in hot tubs.
LikeLike
dgh: so let it be enchanted
A A Hodge: “It does not do to say this presence is only spiritual. If it means that the presence of Christ is not something objective…., then it is false. If it means that Christ is present only by His Spirit, it is not true, because Christ is one person and the Holy Spirit is another person…It is a great mistake to confuse the idea of presence with nearness in space…Presence is not a question of space. Presence is a relation.” (Theology, Banner of Truth, p 356)
mark: Why remember until He comes, when Christ has to show up here and now when and where “ordained” confessionally Reformed men proclaim a covenant promise that those who embrace the covenant they are already in will receive the efficacy of the promise? Or do the keys include also the promise that those in the covenant will embrace and receive it?
An enchanting advantage (to sola gospel) in every way, except when it isn’t. The covenant curses for those who don’t meet the conditions are also a kind of enchantment…
LikeLike