Evangelical Bona Fides
May 1, 2007 at 12:48 pm (Church-Baptism, Federal Vision)
Wilson’s thesis for chapter three is to establish “the nature and necessity of new birth” (p. 33). In other words, “growing in our covenant understanding does not entail abandoning historic Calvinism, nor does it mean jettisoning the historical evangelical faith or the historic Reformed faith.” Wilson does not see himself as abandoning the “born-again” theology of evangelicalism, although he certainly sees himself as discarding forms of “self-birth” evident in much of “evangelicalism” today. I am reminded of his scathing and perfectly accurate descriptions of the “axis of treacle” in The Serrated Edge. In other words, Wilson intends to describe his position as having solidarity with historic evangelicalism, not the “big umbrella” description of evangelicalism that is practically meaningless today.
The point is put even more sharply in this statement: “Simply put, the objectivity of the covenant does not mean that a man does not have to be born again. And this means we must consider the nature of the new birth” (p. 33). For Wilson, this means that, ultimately speaking, there are only two kinds of people: regenerate and unregenerate, “the inhabitants of heaven and hell respectively” (p. 33.
However, the picture is complicated by the introduction of the covenant. There are covenant breakers and covenant keepers. And, furthermore, there are those who believe but are not part of the covenant. He provides a handy chart on p. 34. Then follows what gives me a first check:
The modern evangelical tendency is to assume that we have the ability to see the heart, and we then look at covenant membership through the lens of that mysterious ability. But we cannot see the heart. We cannot see regeneration, where it comes from, or where it goes. Our Lord taught us that we cannot see the wind blowing. We can have some idea of its effects, but this is not the same thing (p. 34).
I call this a check, because this might be the first substantive disagreement I have with the book. He says further, on p. 36: “To be reborn of water and the Spirit is not something we have the ability to label and track.” Let me be clear. I agree that one cannot see into another person’s heart. However, I wonder if Wilson’s formulations have enough qualifications such that it doesn’t run counter to Matthew 7:15-20. Regarding this text, it cannot be asserted that Jesus is only dealing with the false teachers, and how to know them. That is the main point, yes. However, the scope of the passage cannot be limited to that, because of its very terms, which explicitly say that we can know healthy trees by their fruit. Let me be clear again. The way we know this is by a posteriori reasoning. That is, we argue from the effect to the cause. This is the entire reasoning upon which all science is based: science looks at phenomena, and comes up with a theory to explain what we see. Strictly speaking, it is a logical fallacy to claim that since a healthy tree bears good fruit, and we see good fruit, that therefore the tree is healthy. It is an example of affirming the consequent. However, it is no fallacy at all to say that the presence of good fruit is very good evidence of a healthy root. Can we know whether someone else is regenerated? Not if we require proof. However, we can certainly point to evidence, and in this way, we can know. Jesus tells us that there is a close relationship between the health of the tree and the quality of its fruit. It is not a loose relationship. And this passage occurs soon after the “Do not judge” passage! Jesus is not telling us never to exercise discernment, but rather to exercise cautious discernment. The first 6 verses of the passage are telling us about petty things. We are talking about “specks” in verse 3. But in verse 15, we are talking about ravening wolves, hardly a speck. It also takes discernment to tell the difference between the “speck” situation and the “wolf” situation. But how are we supposed to do something about the wolf if the fruit has only the loosest possible connection to the state of the heart? Church discipline would be impossible!
So, where does this rubber hit the road? I would argue that the church’s responsibility, when considering its members, is certainly to ascertain, by this a posterior reasoning, the regeneration of individuals in the church. Is this not how the elders are to admit people into membership? The elders cannot use the ignorance-of-%100-proof argument to excuse themselves from admitting a wolf into their church. “Yes, I see that their lives are being lived in complete rebellion against God, but since I cannot know their heart, I am going to admit them into the church, because they say that they are regenerated.” I am quite confident that Wilson would never use such a tactic in his church, by the way. However, I am not sure that his formulations have ruled this out. We, the leaders of the church, are supposed to discern, as best as we are able, the spiritual condition (i.e., regenerated or not) of a person before admitting them to the Lord’s Table. I take great pains to spell out this argument, and I hope sincerely that I have not misrepresented Wilson’s position here. And I am not even sure that he would deny the arguments I have made here. It is impossible always to say everything that needs to be said. But I do think that regeneration can be “tracked” by its fruit.
Wilson goes on to talk about corporate regeneration, about which I agree with him, especially since Wilson does not vitiate individual regeneration in his talk about the corporate aspects of God’s work. As he so eloquently says, “How could a call for omelettes be taken as opposition to eggs?” (p. 35).
I also like his affirmation of passivity in regeneration:
Modern evangelicals write books on How to Be Born Again, which betrays the fact that they are not grasping the Lord’s teaching in the third chapter of John. Does anyone write books on how to be born the first time? Who would buy it? (p. 35). Man is altogether passive until after the gift is given (p. 37).
It seems to me that more clarification is needed with regard to Calvin’s position on baptism. It must be mentioned here that the quotation in Schenk is available in volume 3 of the 7-volume Selected Works of Calvin, p. 74. If you don’t have a hard-copy of it, it is available on the Ages version of Calvin’s works. Is this statement of Calvin’s not to be interpreted in the light of Inst. 4.15.15, which says that “But from this sacrament, as from all others, we obtain only as much as we receive in faith.” In other words, I would agree that the forgiveness of sins can happen at baptism. But it only happens if faith is present. I did not find this qualification clearly stated in this chapter, and it is a crucial qualification. Wilson does say, “Many have been baptized and have not known the reality offered in that baptism. The problem is not that they have the baptism, but rather that they do not have the faith.” What is not clear about this statement is its relationship to the word “offers” in the first full paragraph of p. 40. Is Wilson arguing for this limited sense of baptismal regeneration in Calvin’s theology irrespective of faith? I would say categorically that Calvin would never say that a child is regenerated at baptism without faith being present. So, regeneration does not happen in any sense at baptism for the apostate.
tim prussic said,
May 1, 2007 at 1:50 pm
First, thanks, GB for your thoughtful reviews. I think they’re helpful and I hope they continue to be.
Second, maybe this is just a difference in terminology (or possibly emphasis), but I wasn’t aware that the church was ever to judge the regeneration of anyone *directly*. I think the elders are to judge the accuracy of the profession of faith and the credibility of that profession. If he accuracy of the profession passes the test, but the fruit doesn’t match, then the profession is incredible (that is, not believable). As you’ve written above, we can reason (fallibly, of course) from fruit to root, but the root is not the thing under direct scrutiny, the fruit is. In the final analysis, however, the church would pronounce the excommunicant to be an unbeliever, so, as I said, maybe this is just a difference of terminology.
Thirdly, sweet, sweet Calvin. I just published a small article on Calvin’s doctrine of infant baptism in my seminary’s journal:
http://www.wrs.edu/journals/volume_14-1.htm
The article’s called “Engraved upon the Bodies of Their Children: Calvin on Infant Baptism.”
With regard to baptized infants, Calvin asserts that God can work in them we know not how. But, what’s more, that He does work in them - and why shouldn’t we expect Him to do so for our children of promise. You’re right, GB, that Calvin holds that the benefits of baptism are not received but by faith. God, however, is not limited in giving that faith, neither by time nor circumstance, but is completely sovereign.
I found Calvin to be provocative and wonderful on infant baptism. He’s certainly worth of much study.
Keith LaMothe said,
May 1, 2007 at 4:11 pm
I echo Tom’s gratitude.
Your thoughts on the comparison with Matthew 7:15-20 are interesting. I don’t have a copy of RINE on hand at the moment, so I don’t know how much he said in that chapter, but in his “State of the church” sermon (which functioned as a kind of big new members class) at the beginning of this year he explicitly stated that their “bounds of membership” are:
- the person confesses that Jesus is Lord (in a Biblical, non-cultic fashion)
- they’re not living a scandalous lifestyle
- they want to join
I thought that might give some context to his words in this chapter.
Thanks again,
Keith
Lee said,
May 1, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Lane,
There is a tension between omelettes and eggs. They are in opposition in a very real way. Mainly you have to break the eggs to make an omelette. That was the point of Vladimir Lenin when he came up with the omelette/egg metaphor. I worry that this is part of Wilson’s point as well. The collective over the individual. What does he mean by ‘corporate regeneration’? This needs to be defined.
Wilson is slowly turning up the rhetoric to come to a conclusion about the church that will place it in the role of mediator. He redefined Christian to mean anyone baptized into the church, defined covenant of grace to be between anyone who is baptized and God, denied being able to see the individual/subjective evidence of regeneration. Do not forget these points as he progress into the next chapter where he will deny that “man is not defined by his internal essence” (58).
tim prussic said,
May 1, 2007 at 6:47 pm
It seems like GB’s done what Lee’s either unwilling or unable to do - read Doug Wilson with a significant ammount of objectivity. I don’t think we have to worry about linking Wilson with Lenin (though the Moscow connection is there… hmmm). BREAKING eggs to make an omlet is Lenin’s metaphor for hurting or killing individuals for the greater good. Wilson’s point is quite different than Lenin’s. Wilson is saying that eggs MAKE the omlet. He’s saying that we can distinguish individuals from the covenantal communities, but that covenant communities are made of individuals. Honesly, Lee, what’s the problem here?
As I understand Pastor Wilson, corporate regeneration has to do with a group of people marked out by God as his regenerated people over against everyone else. Thus, one can speak of corporate election, regeneration, justification, sanctification - these are distinct from an individual’s election, regeneration, etc. With that definition, do you still find the idea objectionable, Lee? Consequently, one can be corporately regenerate without being individually regenerate. Such a person is hell-bound and will be held accountable in judgment for trampling the blood of the covenant, by which he was sanctified, under foot.
David Gadbois said,
May 1, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Lane, something that may illumine Wilson’s understanding here is the fact that he would regard Romanists as Christians. Apparently the covenant of grace is SO objective that water baptism can mark a person as a Christian even without a credible profession of faith. This, alone, should be a red flag that something crazy is going on here in regard to the hyper-covenantal force that drives FV doctrine.
Not to mention that such an ecumenism goes against historic Reformed view of Rome in practice and in the confessions. This ecumenical streak in FV (along with their first cousins, the Anglo-Papist “Reformed Catholics”
should concern the orthodox Reformed.
Also, I asked Wilson (over on his blog) whether he would commune, say, a person like Dominic Crossan. Unfortunately, I didn’t get a straight answer. Wilson said he would excommunicate Crossan if he was in his church. What he DIDN’T say was the obvious that we should all agree on: that if Crossan were to visit our church we should refuse to commune him even if he has been baptized with the trinitarian formula and has not been excommunicated by his “church.” We should all agree on this because to commune such a man would be NUTTY. But I also don’t see how Wilson’s model would lead us anywhere else.
Rick Phillips I believe also posed a similar question to Wilson concerning (if I recall accurately) the BTK killer, as an un-excommunicated, baptized Lutheran.
Does anyone else smell nominalism around here?
Of course, the WCF ends up being “subjective” about the covenant under the FV understanding since it demands that members of the visible church “profess the true religion.”
Anne Ivy said,
May 1, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Tim, I’m not terribly familiar with the concept “corporate regeneration.” Is the idea that a specific group - such as the members of a particular denomination - is expected to be regenerate, or at least composed of more regenerate individuals than not? So that by virtue of being a member of that group, one possesses whatever temporal benefits (not sure that’s the best term) or distinctives that the group possesses, even though one might not be individually regenerate?
tim prussic said,
May 1, 2007 at 7:45 pm
I guess the “historic Reformed view” is always one’s own, Mr. Gadbois? No? Couldn’t find any leading lights (and not just off in a corner in places like Mosow) in Reformed history that have received Roman Catholic baptism, could ya? That type of talk is just a misleading as painting it all the other direction. I’m not saying your side on what to do with Papists don’t have a case, but why couldn’t you extend the same courtesy?
How about this: I won’t write Southern Presbyterians out of the Reformed family, out of discussions around the (Lord’s) dinner table, if you don’t write the Princeton boys out, deal?
Why’s it so hard to make this a discussion between confessional Reformed brethren? Why can’t we do what our father’s have done?
Andy Dollahite said,
May 1, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Anne Ivy,
Regarding corporate election, consider Moses and the Israelites? Clearly they were corporately elected as God’s chosen people, yet not all were individually elected unto salvation. All Israelites has access to the promises of God’s covenant with them, yet not all partook by faith of those benefits, and thus some perished in unbelief. In Wilson’s view, members of the visible church (having been baptized into the Trinity) are corporately elected, yet this does not deny the reality of individual election within the Church, such that some will benefit by faith, and others will perish in unbelief.
Anne Ivy said,
May 1, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Ah. Got it. Thanks ever so. ;^)
David Gadbois said,
May 1, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Tim, unfortunately that (the Reformed rejection of rebaptism) is the usual “trump” card Wilson and others take in regard to Romanists. Yes, our Reformed forefathers accepted RCC baptism, but not because they thought the RCC was a true church (to use the continental Reformed/Belgic terminology; who thought that Rome didn’t have any of the 3 Marks of a true church) or because they thought that Romanists could have a credible profession of faith.
What Wilson and others miss is that neither the continental Reformed nor the British/Westminster Reformed communed Romanists. In fact, WCF includes them along with other “idolaters” whom Christians were forbidden to marry.
Andrew Sandlin, for one, thinks that WCF “blunders badly” here. In one of the more egregious displays of FV wonkery, he even officiated the wedding of a Protestant bride and Roman Catholic groom. Welcome, everyone, to the practical outworkings of the Federal Vision. How spectacularly awful and telling.
So now this puts the lie to FV’s claim that its system is the same as WCF’s, just using different terms.
The Reformed did not rebaptize Romanists because, well, they weren’t re-baptizers. Not because they thought Romanists should be regarded as brothers and sisters in Christ (although they admitted that there were some truly regenerate and converted folks in their midst). A baptism (while perhaps being an irregular baptism) was still valid if it was done in the Triune Name even if done in a church which denied the Gospel. The Reformed were not Donatists, so they didn’t link the efficacy to the orthodoxy of those administering it.
But these “idolaters” not only weren’t communed (if a Romanist were to visit a Reformed church) but anyone holding to distinctively Romish doctrines were excommunicated. I trust I don’t have to rehearse the history here on these points. So, no, our Reformed forefathers did not regard RCC members as having credible professions of faith (individually) or being in a true church (corporately).
Xon said,
May 1, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Right, efficacious despite unorthodoxy of those administering it. And so what exactly is it that is efficaciously accomplished by RC baptism?
Lee said,
May 1, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Tim,
I don’t think you have any reason to think that I am not being objective. The simple fact that you and I disagree does not prove that I am not objective.
If Doug Wilson is saying that individuals make a covenant community, I do not have much of a problem, but his language goes to far against individualism, in my opinion. And by this I mean more than just a call for omelettes (if you can make an omelette without breaking an egg, let me know). Lane’s ‘check’ is a good example of a place where Wilson makes individual regeneration a nebulous thing that one cannot know.
As for corporate regeneration, I have a problem seeing the need for such language. What benefit does it bring? If being corporately regenerated does not mean you are really regenerated have we not equivocated on the definition of regeneration? If all it means is those who are called Christians (using his definition, ie. those who are baptized by an authorized representative of the church) then why not just say Christian? Why not just say, Baptized Persons?
David Gadbois said,
May 2, 2007 at 12:11 am
“And so what exactly is it that is efficaciously accomplished by RC baptism?”
Nothing, in and of itself. When those people come to faith, they receive what is signed and sealed in their baptism.
To put it another way, baptism is a necessary yet insufficient pre-condition of being in the visible church. A credible profession of faith, coupled with baptism, puts one into the visible church.
Tim Wilder said,
May 2, 2007 at 6:53 am
Re: 10
“Andrew Sandlin, for one, thinks that WCF “blunders badly” here. In one of the more egregious displays of FV wonkery, he even officiated the wedding of a Protestant bride and Roman Catholic groom. Welcome, everyone, to the practical outworkings of the Federal Vision. How spectacularly awful and telling.”
Andrew Sandlin is opposed to the Federal Vision, especially to its view of the church.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
May 2, 2007 at 9:06 am
Lane
I would like to see Doug and the other FVers address that they think are the dangers of sacramentalism- they are conspicuously silent on the subject, but given the departure of atleast one of their number(Steele) over to that camp, it ought to be a concern.
Keith LaMothe said,
May 2, 2007 at 9:29 am
Gary,
I think that would be interesting. Listening to various of Doug’s sermons I have heard him preach against sacerdotalism and RC “baptismal regeneration”, but a restatement at the present time might do some good.
Similarly, I would find it interesting if the anti-FV folks would give their answer to “How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?” and address what they think are the dangers (if any) of answering “They don’t.”
But, of course, there are many questions we’d all like answered by various people and not always enough time.
Xon said,
May 2, 2007 at 9:48 am
So baptized infants are not in the visible church?
Xon said,
May 2, 2007 at 10:26 am
Necessary conditions are not effectual, David. So I think your view is out of accord with Westminster.
tim prussic said,
May 2, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Anne Ivy (#6) - I think Andy did a pretty good job with the question. The issues is predicating things to and about God’s covenant people. We can speak of individuals within (or without) that group and their individual election, regeneration, etc. Further, speaking of individual soteriology is necessary and important. I think, however, that the Scripture speaks both corporately and individually and (LEE #12) that’s why we use the terminology. Did Paul engage in equivication in saying that not all Israel are of Israel? Or, does Paul have specific definitions in mind that he’s holding consistently? We must be careful not to use words in a sloppy manner (FV guys have certainly been guilty of this), but to define and use them carefully.
As to GLWJ (#15), I agree. I’d like to hear more teaching from the FVers on the dangers of sacerdotalism and the like.
Not much left of baptism when Mr. Gadbois (#13) gets done with it. Baptism, the solemn admission into the visible church, isn’t even that after he puts down his scalpel.
David Gadbois said,
May 2, 2007 at 2:09 pm
“So baptized infants are not in the visible church?”
WCF says those who profess the true religion along with their children.
“Necessary conditions are not effectual, David. So I think your view is out of accord with Westminster.”
Necessary conditions may or may not be effectual.
” Baptism, the solemn admission into the visible church, isn’t even that after he puts down his scalpel.”
Baptism is the solemn admission into the visible church, but for adults this presupposes a credible profession of faith (”those who profess the true religion”, as WCF says).
David Gadbois said,
May 2, 2007 at 2:15 pm
T. Wilder said “Andrew Sandlin is opposed to the Federal Vision, especially to its view of the church.”
Sandlin is sort of a low-church form of FV. His ecumenism, monocovenentalism, support of Shepherd, and Backbone of the Bible show that there is a great deal of overlap. I would say fundamental overlap, even, with the central hyper-covenental thrust of the FV guys.
Tim Wilder said,
May 2, 2007 at 2:26 pm
“Sandlin is sort of a low-church form of FV. His ecumenism, monocovenentalism, support of Shepherd, and Backbone of the Bible show that there is a great deal of overlap. I would say fundamental overlap, even, with the central hyper-covenental thrust of the FV guys.”
Shepherd isn’t Federal Vision either. As for hyper-covenantalism, the FV guys don’t really even believe in covenants. A covenant is a type of agreement, whereas they like to make the word refer to a sort of organic relationship, like a family.
tim prussic said,
May 2, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Mr. Gadbois, it seems that you’ve engaged in a bit of double talk. First (and in caps so none will miss it), BAPTISM IS THE SOLEMN ADMISSION INTO THE VISIBLE CHURCH.
Now, you’ve said, and I quote, “[B]aptism is a necessary yet insufficient pre-condition of being in the visible church.” Then you go on to say that a credible profession coupled with baptism “puts” one in the visible church. I dare say you’re a little confused.
I think what you might be trying to say is that, in the case of adults, a credible profession is a necessary precursor to baptism which (again in caps) IS THE SOLEMN ADMISSION INTO THE VISIBLE CHURCH.
Once a person is thus “put” into the church, the church must “put” them back out if that what’s biblically required. You don’t get to do that, I don’t get to do that, not even John Robbins himself gets to do that. (I wish someone would inform him of that!) You see, now we deal with the baptized person AS A MEMBER of the visible church. The keys given to the church must be used to remove any member from the rolls.
Are we in agreement at least up to this point, Mr. Gadbois?
If so, then we can begin to talk about how we are to deal with people who’ve been “put” into the visible church, but have incredible professions, either because of false belief or unrepented-of sin. Once we do that, then we can talk about how to deal with large groups of them that are in one or both of those deplorable positions.
Tim Wilder said,
May 2, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Re: 21
Here is Sandlin’s view:
“Dear Tim,
I’ve seen some of your comments when folks ask about my views. Thank you for trying to be fair and honest in representing my views.
You are right - I am not FV and never have been. I don’t think these men are heretics, but often their ecclesiology seems virtually Anglo-Catholic. Mine most certainly is not. Actually, their ecclesiology is closer to Westminster West’s than to mine. I deplore These men from the FV and WW would all consider me a deplorably low-churchman.
I am not an advocate of the NPP and never have been, but I am open to any argument based in a careful historical reading of the text. The NPP has not convinced me.
You are also right that I am not an epistemic foundationalist (thus “postmodern” in some sense).
I know that you don’t agree with me, but thank you again for trying to be accurate and not succumbing to guilt by association arguments.
You may post this anywhere if you think it will help.
With kind regards,
P. Andrew Sandlin”
Take the “formalism, sacerdotalism, ritualism, baptismal regeneration, etc.” away from the Federal Vision, and what is left? Just miscellaneous errors that they have no more core reason to hold to.
Tim Wilder said,
May 2, 2007 at 5:02 pm
I mashed up the quote above #24, making my requote in the last paragraph. Here it is:
“I’ve seen some of your comments when folks ask about my views. Thank you for trying to be fair and honest in representing my views.
You are right - I am not FV and never have been. I don’t think these men are heretics, but often their ecclesiology seems virtually Anglo-Catholic. Mine most certainly is not. Actually, their ecclesiology is closer to Westminster West’s than to mine. I deplore formalism, sacerdotalism, ritualism, baptismal regeneration, etc. These men from the FV and WW would all consider me a deplorably low-churchman.
I am not an advocate of the NPP and never have been, but I am open to any argument based in a careful historical reading of the text. The NPP has not convinced me.
You are also right that I am not an epistemic foundationalist (thus “postmodern” in some sense).
I know that you don’t agree with me, but thank you again for trying to be accurate and not succumbing to guilt by association arguments.
You may post this anywhere if you think it will help.
With kind regards,
P. Andrew Sandlin
Craig Phelps said,
May 2, 2007 at 5:09 pm
“I would say categorically that Calvin would never say that a child is regenerated at baptism without faith being present. So, regeneration does not happen in any sense at baptism for the apostate.”
Bingo. A cigar(and scotch) for the blogger at this here blog.
Xon said,
May 2, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Unless “regeneration” is defined as participation in the new world inaugurated by Christ. In that sense, we can certainly say that apostates are “regenerated” at baptism. But they are not “regenerated” in the sense of “having their individual nature irrevocably transformed into a disposition to follow Christ.”
David Gadbois said,
May 2, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Tim P. said “I think what you might be trying to say is that, in the case of adults, a credible profession is a necessary precursor to baptism which (again in caps) IS THE SOLEMN ADMISSION INTO THE VISIBLE CHURCH.”
I think the misunderstanding is that you take the statement “baptism is the solemn admission into the visible church” to mean that baptism is DEFINED as “solemn admission into the visible church”, which I would deny. Baptism and “solemn admission” aren’t the same thing. I would say that the latter is normally the function of the former, but not in an absolute or unqualified way (where there is no profession of faith in the case of an adult).
Let me try to put it this way, when someone is baptized in the RCC, they aren’t included in the visible church, but this does not mean that the baptism was invalid as a sacrament or ordinance. So it does not need to be repeated. But it does need to be accompanied by a credible profession of faith.
Perhaps the French Confession will explain this better than me:
In this belief we declare that, properly speaking, there can be no Church where the Word of God is not received, nor profession made of subjection to it, nor use of the sacraments. Therefore we condemn the papal assemblies, as the pure Word of God is banished from them, their sacraments are corrupted, or falsified, or destroyed, and all superstitions and idolatries are in them. We hold, then, that all who take part in those acts, and commune in that Church, separate and cut themselves off from the body of Christ. Nevertheless, as some trace of the Church is left in the papacy, and the virtue and substance of baptism remain, and
as the efficacy of baptism does not depend upon the person who administers it, we confess that those baptized in it do not need a second baptism.
“Once a person is thus “put” into the church, the church must “put” them back out if that what’s biblically required. You don’t get to do that, I don’t get to do that, not even John Robbins himself gets to do that.”
You are confusing the biblical mandate for excommunication which applies to true churches with the position of someone who is in a false church like Rome (which, by definition, have neither a pure Gospel nor church discipline) who will never be excommunicated for his hypocrisy or heresy. Those in such “churches” are not submitting to the true church who has the keys to the kingdom.
tim prussic said,
May 3, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Mr. Gadbois, baptism is defined as the washing with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We’re not discussing the definition (at least I haven’t been), but it’s function. The person bapitzed is baptized into something (or Someone). Into what, do you say, are folks baptized?
Further, does valid baptism “function” to admit the baptized person into the visible church or not? We’re talking about solemn admission here, not the conferring of Christ and his spiritual blessings signified and sealed in the sacrament ex op op. What I mean specifically is this: Baptism is a visible, external sign that is, in part, to designate that the person receiving it is to be counted among the baptized people. That is, it’s their solemn admission into the visible church. What is the problem here?
If RC (for instance) baptism is valid, then those baptized are baptized into the visible church and are responsible for keeping covenant. If RC is invalid, then they’ve not been admitted to the visible church.
The idea of my confusion ‘twixt the biblical mandate and an apostate body is compelling and I must, as Huck Finn says, turn it over in my mind some and see if there’s anything in it.
David Gadbois said,
May 3, 2007 at 7:29 pm
“Further, does valid baptism “function” to admit the baptized person into the visible church or not? ”
As I said, that is baptism’s normal function, but not absolutely or without qualification. It is an efficient cause of admission into the church, but not sufficient by itself.
“If RC is invalid, then they’ve not been admitted to the visible church.”
I think this right here is a source of some of the controversy. RCC baptism is not “invalid” in the sense that the baptism itself was not done right. If it was with water in the triune name, it WAS done right and so does not need to be repeated. Although in this case the baptism did not serve its normal FUNCTION, admitting the person into the church, there was nothing wrong with the baptism itself.
“If RC (for instance) baptism is valid, then those baptized are baptized into the visible church and are responsible for keeping covenant.”
People who don’t profess the true Gospel need to be converted, not to “keep covenant.” They need to be evangelized and told to repent and believe in Christ.
I appreciate your willingness to chat about these things, Tim, and I must apologize for my unreasonably harsh tone earlier. You aren’t Doug Wilson, after all (who should know better by now but continues to publically teach otherwise). I would say this, though: even if I am mistaken on a few points in the course of my explanation here, I think the overwhelming evidence is that the Reformed view is NOT to view Romanists as fellow Christians. This view of Wilson’s is absolutely a recipe for nominalism, Tim, and I hope you don’t end up buying it. Why else would we end up with the Crossan situation (from post #5 above)?
Perhaps you won’t fully agree with my description of what baptism is and does, and perhaps my explanation is partially mistaken. But I think it is established that:
1. The historic presbyterian policy has been to only admit members to the church and people to the Table who have a credible profession of faith. Whether Romanists fall into that category or not is a distinct issue, but already we see that baptism, by itself, is not sufficient.
2. And, indeed, historically both the continental Reformed and British presbyterianism did not commune Romanists.
3. Historically, those holding to Romish views in Reformed bodies were excommunicated.
4. On the presbyterian side, the WCF refers to Romanists as “idolaters.”
5. On the continental Reformed side, the French Confession says that Romanists have “cut themselves off from the body of Christ.”
However you end up parsing your doctrine of baptism, I don’t believe that the fact that the Reformed did not re-baptize can trump these facts and lead one to conclude that the Reformed regarded Roman Catholics as Christians in the visible church.
You know how you sometimes stumble across a point you think is really clever and obscure, and then rush ahead proselytizing others to believe it, only to realize that you didn’t think things through fully or didn’t fully do your “homework” on it? Unfortunately, it seems that this is what happened when Wilson found out, after years of being an Arminian Baptist pastor, that the Reformers did not rebaptize and considered baptism to be an objective mark setting apart the visible church, and unfortunately ended up using these facts to come to a nominalistic conclusion. The only difference is that he may not realize it, and seems self-satisfied enough about his position since his debate with James White (a baptist!) even though half of the Reformed world has been screaming at him for his various errors these past few years.
Ben said,
May 4, 2007 at 9:53 am
It seems odd to me to say that there is nothing wrong with RC baptism except that it doesn’t work.
David Gadbois said,
May 4, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Ben, we don’t say that there is something wrong (or invalid) with a perfectly fine-running car engine, or say that it doesn’t work simply because the engine wasn’t able to get me from here to around the block without wheels, a gas tank, seats, and the rest of the car.
Brian said,
May 4, 2007 at 10:41 pm
David, if a baptism is valid then it has been administered within the visible church. If a baptism is administered outside of the visible church, such as mormon baptism, then it is invalid. I believe there is no reason at all to assert a third position of valid baptisms outside of the visible church.
I found while writing this comment the PCA report on baptism. What’s interesting is that it leaves the validity of RC baptism to the local session. The majority report recommends not receiving RC baptism because it is not a true church. The minority report recommends receiving RC baptism despite the manifest apostasy of the RCC. Both reports are accepted and the decisions left to the lower church courts.
I disagree with both reports because the RCC retains sufficient creedal orthodoxy to be considered a part of the Church and therefore Roman Catholics are Christians in the outward sense and may be true Christians as well.
tim prussic said,
May 5, 2007 at 11:08 am
Mr. Gadbois, thanks for the apology, though I don’t think you’ve taken a harsh tone with me. But, to the point:
Can you show me an example in the Bible where baptism or circumcision does not serve its normal function (admission to cov’t community)? I ain’t no baptist and don’t want employ their hermeneutics, but what you’re asserting seems out of keeping with the universal testimony in Scripture. You’re accomplishing that by way of rational abstraction (which is a fair, nay, necessary process, but ought to be curtailed when it exceeds it bounds), not exegetically nor by appeal to Scripture.
A further point that comes from your position is this: INTO WHAT are the papists (and other non-Reformed folk) baptized? If not into the visible church of Christ on earth (mixed body that it is), then what? Usually your type of analysis comes to bear on the spiritual benefits signified and sealed in baptism, not upon the function aspect we’re talking about.
One more thing, since when are wicked unbelievers no included in the covenant? I’m honest about that question. I agree that we need to call people within the covenant (and without) to repent and believe - that’s what the prophets spend MOST of their time doing! I agree that we need to call covenant members to call upon God that He should circumcise the foreskins of their hearts - remember, that’s what Moses did to the covenant people of God just before entering into the land. This, it seems to me, it something that separates us from the Baptists who try to have ONLY a fully sifted congregation. We know that operates covenantally within a mixed and visible body.
I’m all ears (or, eyes).
Xon said,
May 5, 2007 at 12:11 pm
I’m not sure, Tim, but I think what David is saying is that RC baptism does not baptize the person “into” anything per se. It rather acts as a sort of “set up” for a possible entry into the visible church at a later time. For adults at least,
Baptism + credible profession = entrance into visible church.
When baptism is not accompanied by a credible profession, as is the case with an adult RC (acc. to David), then the person has not really been entered into anything at all. But, if that person later makes a credible profession (by getting interested in theology and becoming Reformed and talking to the session of a PCA congregation, say), then AT THAT POINT the person enters into the visible church. There is no need to redo the baptism at this point, because the original baptism was “done” the right way and so it still “counts” as half the formula (baptism + credible profession).
Baptism, without a credible profession, is sort of a “set up” that sits and waits for the credible profession to be added later. When that happens, then the baptism itself becomes “effectual” at bringing the person into the visible church (i.e., the formula for visible church entrance of which baptism is a part is realized).
Something like this??
David Gadbois said,
May 5, 2007 at 2:33 pm
“David, if a baptism is valid then it has been administered within the visible church.”
That’s not necessarily true. Again, I appeal to the French Confession. It does not depend on the orthodoxy of the one administering the sacrament.
Mormon baptism is not valid because it is not a Trinitarian baptism.
But we would even accept, say, a Campus Crusade baptism, although CC is not a church (nor has ordained elders). We would regard it as “irregular”, but we would not rebaptize.
“Both reports are accepted and the decisions left to the lower church courts.”
Yes, I’ve read both the majority and minority reports here before. Although I would be against the majority report (arguing for rebaptism) neither side wanders into the strange ecumenical and nominalist territory that Wilson/FV/Reformed Catholic folks have.
“I disagree with both reports because the RCC retains sufficient creedal orthodoxy”
There is nothing to justify this idea, either from our confessions or from historical Reformed practice, that the 3 Ecumenical Creeds are a sufficient bar of orthodoxy to jump over. It was universally accepted by the Reformed that Rome was apostate because of their denial of the Gospel at Trent. At least, I can’t think of anyone before the revisionists and ecumenists of the last century.
The only reason why folks could consider a body that holds to Tridentine doctrines as having “sufficient orthodoxy” is because, quite simply, they don’t believe sola fide is all that important.
“Can you show me an example in the Bible where baptism or circumcision does not serve its normal function (admission to cov’t community)?”
This is going to lead us down a similar path as the old credo/paedo debate, simply because we don’t have an apostate or false church in the primitive church of the NT. It does mention a handful of heretical teachers here and there, but it doesn’t tell us much about them beyond “they went out from us” and that Christians were not supposed to commune them to the Supper.
“One more thing, since when are wicked unbelievers no included in the covenant?”
Sure there are wicked unbelievers in the covenant, but people with a credible profession of faith may well be hypocrites and, thus, “wicked unbelievers.”
“INTO WHAT are the papists (and other non-Reformed folk) baptized?”
They are only baptized into water, I’d say.
BTW, historically the Reformed have not seen themselves to be the only true church. This is why we normally commune Lutherans, Anglicans, and other confessional evangelicals.
“I agree that we need to call people within the covenant (and without) to repent and believe - that’s what the prophets spend MOST of their time doing!”
But there is a difference between calling on people to “repent and believe” unto conversion , to receive Christ by faith unto justification, and the repentance and faith required in our lives for sanctification as justified people. FV doesn’t like making distinctions like that, even though this confusion makes for fairly fundamental pastoral blunders here.
“something that separates us from the Baptists who try to have ONLY a fully sifted congregation. We know that operates covenantally within a mixed and visible body.”
The latter statement is true, but it doesn’t lead us to believe the first sentence. As a matter of fact, Lane’s comments in this very article are illuminating on the matter of regenerate church membership. Why else do we have church discipline? To sift the wheat from the tares as responsibly as we can.
David Gadbois said,
May 5, 2007 at 2:38 pm
“Baptism + credible profession = entrance into visible church.”
Xon, you have it right in your last post. Thanks. Although I would emphasize, again, that this is the case for adults. For those adults who have a credible profession of the “true religion”, their children are included in the visible church as well.
Xon said,
May 5, 2007 at 6:46 pm
David, I’m still a bit puzzled, though, as to what happens (in your estimation) to these children if they grow up to lack a credible profession of faith. Does this mean that they are now out of the visible church? Can this happen without formally excommunicating them? Or is the Church supposed to excommunicate them? How do we avoid “halfway covennat” sorts of errors here, or are they not errors?
N Harper said,
May 5, 2007 at 10:21 pm
If being born again is a mysterious work of God and we cannot see in a person’s heart, then how can we presume that a child born into a covenant family is regenerate? How can we presume that they are regenerate at baptism? We can’t see the work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts. Why is it that we feel so confidant in assuming a covenant child is regenerate when we supposedly can’t see into their hearts?
I know I am saved - born again - God’s Word says so and I have the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. Praise God for the work of grace in my heart! When you have been brought from darkness into light, you should know it. Being born again means being made a new creature. Does a butterfly still act like a caterpillar and crawl? It flys! Regeneration leads to a changed life. Christ alone - not Christ plus the church.
Corporate regeneration!!?? READ HEBREWS 3:7-19 Here we have the visible community who saw God’s works for forty years but never entered His rest because of hard hearts of unbelief. What shall we call this? “Corporate Unbelief”?
tim prussic said,
May 6, 2007 at 12:28 am
N Harper, No. We shall call the unbelief of the “corporately regenerate” sin. The visible body of Christ is “corporately regenerate” because God calls his people that. (Not too often does God call his people “lo ami,” or “not my people.”
When his people disobey, they incur covenant discipline or even the curses of the covenant. After all, if wicked and unbelieving folk aren’t REALLY in covenant with God, then what of the curses?
Mr. Gadbois, we don’t have an example of an apostate bunch in the NT? Both the scandalous church at Corinth (really, really bad fruit) and the judiazed churches in Galatia are examples, I think. One church may have their creed just right, but can’t seem to stay sober and away from prostitutes. The other church has reverted to a gospel of faith in Christ + circumcision (and who know what else). How do you think such churches fit into our discussion? If John Robbins were Paul, the churches of Galatia would have found a prominent spot in the Horror Files and been consigned to hell, may God have mercy on their souls. Paul, praise God, however, calls them to repentance based upon the covenant they’re in. This is just like the OT prophets.
Regarding church discipline, we want a sifted body, you’re right. We deal with sinners in the covenant community as real members of Christ’s real visible church. Doesn’t discipline PRESUPPOSE membership? Do you discipline someone who’s not a part of the visible church?
Also, you’re answer to my question, “into what are papists baptized” is quite telling to me. Quite honestly, it sounds just like a separated baptist. So, quite naturally, I recoil. I will, however, press through my revulsion and try to think it over some.
N Harper said,
May 6, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Read Ezekiel 14:12-20 What gets repeated in this passage?
“these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job would deliver ONLY themselves by THEIR righteousness…”
“they would deliver NEITHER sons nor daughters; ONLY they THEMSELVES would be delivered…”
Back to Hebrews 3:7-4:3
Who hardened their hearts?
Those in the visible covenant community
Who tested and tried God?
Those in the visible covenant community
Who saw God’s works for forty years?
Those in the visible covenant community
Who was God angry with?
Those in the visible covenant community
Who ALWAYS went astray in their heart?
Those in the visible covenant community
Who did not know God’s ways?
Those in the visible covenant community
Who did God swear would not enter His rest?
Those in the visible covenant community
Who, having heard the gospel, and had come out of Egypt, died in their sins in the wilderness?
Those in the visible covenant community
Who did not profit from hearing the Word because of unbelief?
Those in the visible covenant community
Considering these two passages, in what way is a visible church “corporately born again”? What does a “corporately born again” church look like? And, please give me specific Scripture, not just your own wild imagination.
David Gadbois said,
May 6, 2007 at 4:44 pm
“David, I’m still a bit puzzled, though, as to what happens (in your estimation) to these children if they grow up to lack a credible profession of faith. Does this mean that they are now out of the visible church?”
If the parents of such a person, professing the true religion, and belong to a true church then such a person will, of course, by excommunicated and put out of the visible church since church discipline is one of the 3 Marks of the Church. But false churches, by definition, don’t practice church discipline and excommunicate as they should.
“Mr. Gadbois, we don’t have an example of an apostate bunch in the NT? Both the scandalous church at Corinth (really, really bad fruit) and the judiazed churches in Galatia are examples, I think.”
Neither of those churches were considered apostate. They had big, big problems for sure, but, for instance, the anathemas of Galatians were only applied to those who were teaching the false Gospel. Most people miss the distinction in Paul’s language between the second person references (the Galatian church) and the third person. Calvin’s commentary on Galatians 1 is especially helpful here in distinguishing this.
Of the heretics that the NT mentions, it only says that the NT churches should have known better and avoided them (rejecting their teaching and refusing communion). Not because of any formal excommunication (which would not be possible since they “went out from us” and did not submit themselves to a true chruch, the Body of Christ who holds the Keys of the Kingdom), but because of their anti-apostolic teaching.
The closest thing we get in the NT to a corporate body being apostate are the threatenings to the church in Revelation (”removing lampstand”). They weren’t there yet, of course, although they were headed that way quickly (and it didn’t seem to much matter that they were all a baptized body). And yet we are to believe that even though God has been calling Rome to repentance through the voice of the reformational churches for 500 years that their lampstand hasn’t been taken away? Gimme a break.
“Doesn’t discipline PRESUPPOSE membership? Do you discipline someone who’s not a part of the visible church?”
Yes, it does presuppose membership. I’m not sure what the thrust of this paragraph is here. I’d just add that since membership presupposes a credible profession of faith, we aren’t talking about disciplining anybody. We are talking about disciplining hypocrites - those who profess the true religion but manifestly do not hold to it. So I would argue that church discipline presupposes a credible profession of faith.
“Quite honestly, it sounds just like a separated baptist. So, quite naturally, I recoil. I will, however, press through my revulsion and try to think it over some.”
I’m not following. It seems like fairly standard Reformed fare to confess, against the baptists, that the sacraments are effectual while at the same time denying, against Rome, that the sacraments are effectual ex opere operato.
Todd said,
May 6, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Neil, do you believe that baptism is a sign and seal of regeneration?
N Harper said,
May 6, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Many Reformed people have really messed up baptism, in my opinion. Baptism is a sign and seal of regeneration. For the most part, baptism is administered BEFORE the child comes to faith in Jesus Christ. That is why some denominations such as the Free Presbyterian do not baptize infants. The outward act of baptism itself, like all other outward ceremonies, does not regenerate a person. For, the Bible clearly states that one must be born again of the Spirit – not by the will of man. You cannot restrict the work of the Spirit to one outward ceremony. People are born again in elevators, in foxholes, in airplanes, in dorm rooms, in the church, even at a Billy Graham crusade!
If baptism alone regenerates, then grab all the babies in the hospital nurseries and baptize them. Since the visible church possesses so-called “corporate regeneration”, let’s just grab everybody off the streets and bring them by the busloads into the church and baptize them!
Infant baptism, I believe, has brought a lot of confusion and false teaching into the church because it reverses the order of repentance and baptism. Baptism without repentance is empty ritual.
Todd said,
May 6, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Neil, are you a Presbyterian? Are you a member of a local church?
tim prussic said,
May 7, 2007 at 11:17 am
Alright, Mr. Gadbois, so do I understand you correctly? I’ll put it in the form of a story, so it’s a little more fun. I’m into fun.
Bob’s baptized in the RCC and he holds, generally speaking, the faith of that church, though he’s confused about some points in doctrine. His baptism (in your view) valid, but effectual in no way whatever - it does nothing and he’s baptized only into water.
Bob having some beers with a Protestant buddy who discusses the gospel with him. What his buddy said makes a heckuva lot more sense than what he’s heard before. He’s always loved Christ, but the nature of salvation hadn’t clicked until that beer conversation. Bob becomes convicted that, for quite a few reasons, he needs to leave the RCC and join his friend’s church. His friend’s church is Reformed and he’s not rebaptized. Bob gives a credible account of his faith in Christ and is received into the church.
Is it at that point that he baptism becomes effectual simply for marking him out as a member of the visible church? Before he was baptized into water, but now he’s baptized into Christ?
Have I misunderstood your position, or did I nail it?
Don Jones said,
May 7, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Many of the earlier comments revolved around the individual vs “collective.” That particular aspect has gotten lost in the debate over baptism.
While we all come to faith as individuals, what happens once we come to faith? Are we not incorporated into the church, the people of God, the Bride of Christ? Scripture consistently talks about the people (plural) of God. We live in a culture that has a strong emphasis on, one might almost say cult of, the individual.
Is this a topic where our culture has supplanted the biblical concept of community?
Don Jones said,
May 8, 2007 at 12:03 am
DG rightly states (#37) that children become part of the visible church when their parents believe and are baptized (WCF 25.2). In exactly what way do children become part of the church? Are they members of the covenant or not?
If yes, does that imply that they are saved, even if too young to make a profession of faith? If they belong to the Church, then why do many reformed churches deny them communion, which is the sign of their membership therein? WCF 27.1 states that communion is “to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world.”
If not, then what is conferred on them by baptism? By being part of the visible church? Should we treat our children as pagans until they make a profession of faith? To do so would put us in the same camp as the Baptists.
Approach the question from another angle: A couple’s infant child, who has been baptized, dies. Can we offer comfort to the parents on their child’s eternal well being? If so, which is the usual answer within reformed communities, then what does that imply about the covenant membership of the children of believing parents?
Our problem is we want our cake and eat it to. We want to say children of believers belong to the church, but are uncomfortable with the implication therein that one can be a member of the covenant without having to express faith. The overwhelming evidence of scripture is that God includes the children of believers in the covenant (eg, see the passages quoted to support WCF 25.2). The presumption appears to be that children will grow up and claim the faith as their own. Sadly, most of us are familiar with examples where that does not occur, in which case the warning about trampling the blood of Christ comes into play.
tim prussic said,
May 8, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Good words, Don Jones.
I think something that you’ve touched on is the centrality of covenant, divine promises (to us and our kiddies), and rearing our children in faith.
American evangelicalism is baptistic and revivalistic through and through. This effects the Reformed churches here, too. The FV recognition of this and emphasis on covenant has been its greatest attraction to me.
We do not, however, want to throw babies out with bath water (but rather bring them in with baptismal water!). That is, we certainly don’t want to REACT to encroaching errors, but deal with them directly and biblically. I do think that some FV guys have reacted and over-reacted in this regard.
My thinking, along your lines, is that our covenant thinking has to be just that. We think of being in covenant with God as “being saved.” This thinking is highly baptistic. A covenant is a relationship with clear stipulations and sanctions. One can be in covenant with God, break the stipulations of that covenant, and incur the curses of it. Arminianism, I think, derives ALL of his exegetical basis from misunderstanding just this. They predicate “really saved” status to those who are “covenantally saved,” that is, joined to the saved people of God.
Covenantal curses being real and true, we should take the promises of God within the covenant context just as seriously. We should always believe the promises (both for ourselves and our children) and train our children to believe them. We should start with faith. God has made covenant with his people IN ORDER TO bless them, not curse them. Meanwhile, we should also warn ourselves and our children that our sins will find us out. All the while, our trust is in Christ to save us, to cleanse us, and to preserve us.
The difference ‘twixt a covenant keeper, who is blessed in his covenant keeping, and a covenant breaker, who is cursed in his covenant breaking, is divine grace. God most graciously makes us to trust in Christ and keep his commandments unto stipluated covenantal blessing. Thus, soli deo gloria.
Todd said,
May 8, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Tim, how about an example of two of places in which some FV guys have reacted and over-reacted? I suspect I’ll agree with you, but I’d love to hear just what you’re thinking of when you write that.
David Gadbois said,
May 8, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Don Jones said:
“If yes, does that imply that they are saved, even if too young to make a profession of faith? ”
It does not imply that.
“If they belong to the Church, then why do many reformed churches deny them communion, which is the sign of their membership therein?”
Baptism is the sign. WCF says that communion is only “a” form of visible difference, not the definitive form.
And, as our 3 Forms of Unity teach, communicants partake of Christ in the Supper spiritually by faith, not ex opere operato.
“Should we treat our children as pagans until they make a profession of faith?”
Of course not.
Tim P. said:
“Is it at that point that he baptism becomes effectual simply for marking him out as a member of the visible church? Before he was baptized into water, but now he’s baptized into Christ?”
That soundsabout right, although I’m not sure I’d be too strict about the timing of baptismal efficacy in this sort of irregular situation. I’m not sure we can have too much insight into spiritual metaphysics of that sort.
“A covenant is a relationship with clear stipulations and sanctions. One can be in covenant with God, break the stipulations of that covenant, and incur the curses of it.”
Some covenants are conditional, others unconditional. The historic distinction has been made in regard to the CoG that, externally and legally, the condition is faith in Christ. But for those in the CoG inwardly, and have received Christ by faith, Believers are children of Abraham and thus inherit the Abrahamic promise of salvation unconditionally.
tim prussic said,
May 8, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Todd, FV over-reactions, eh?
Well, we have the problem of defining “FV”, but I think it’s fair to say that some FV proponents have tended to react to revivalism by stressing the objectivity of the covenant and sacraments to the detriment of the necessity of conversion, or even denying the experiential nature of it. Now, conversion don’t always look the same - one can’t pinpoint the new birth every time with certain specifics, but one MUST be converted (even if it’s in the womb).
Another area that there’s been a jumble of confusion on is the doctrine of justification. I’ve read Lusk make false dichotomies of a) forensic justification based upon the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and b) union with Christ. He wrote he’d rather have B than A and that A was unnecessary. These two things are far from enemies! I’ve listened to Ralph Smith (in a sermon in formal worship at a church that I really like) rework the doctrine of justificaiton to include sanctification and eschatological justification - as if we can’t distinguish between those things. If I’ve learn anything from the NT, it’s that we must distinguish between those different parts of salvation! I guess I don’t know if that’s an over-reaction, or just plain ignorance of the historic doctrine. In any event, I didn’t like it none too much.
I’m sure there is more, but I’m done for now. Whaddewe think, Todd?
tim prussic said,
May 8, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Mr. Gadbois, I’m thinkin’ ’bout that historical distinction. I’m also gunna check out yer web site.
Todd said,
May 8, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Tim, good stuff.
Don Jones said,
May 8, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Re DG #51: So in exactly what way are children of believers part of the church? If they are not saved and not pagan, which would imply that they are neither in nor out of the covenant, exactly what state are they in? Some nebulous hyper-land that is neither betwixt nor between? What does the WCF intend by stating that they are part of the church?
Re TP #49: Stated much more eloquently than I stated it.
tim prussic said,
May 9, 2007 at 1:03 am
Mr. Gadbois, yer web site is good. I was particularly pumped that you and your boys all like “the hammer of the gods.” I’m a big fan myself.
I’ve been thinking. First off, I’ve not read some of the historic federal theologians (Wistius, et al), so I’m a bit ashamed by that. Thus, my ideas are not formulated the best as they’ve not been sharpened by these men. It seems to me that we have, in Christ, the absolute covenant keeper. Those united to him by faith possess, in him, all the blessings of the covenant of grace absolutely. Now, the same people united to him are called by God in covenant to faithfulness unto covenantal rewards. By his grace, they obey his commandments and are thus blessed in accordance with the covenant. So, a man is, at once, both in absolute possession of Christ and all his benefits and also growing in those benefits in accordance with his God-given faithfulness.
tim prussic said,
May 9, 2007 at 11:20 am
Todd, I’m still quite intersted in your thoughts on FV weaknesses or over-reactions.
Todd said,
May 9, 2007 at 11:37 am
OK. I believe that some in the FV over-emphasize the “ALLS” of the way the NT addresses Christian congregations, and under-emphasize the “IFS.” Romans 8:9 is the easiest example: “You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.”
The first part is where some FV guys want to put their emphasis–this is the way Paul addresses whole congregations, head for head: You are not in the flesh but in the Spirit!
But Paul’s qualification — if in fact the Spirit dwells in you — needs its emphasis as well. And the singular, individual nature of the last sentence is not a typical FV emphasis.
I am also no fan of saying that union with Christ makes imputation redundant.
tim prussic said,
May 9, 2007 at 12:45 pm
dope.