Sacerdotalism, part 2 « Green Baggins

Sacerdotalism, part 2

July 2, 2007 at 1:28 pm (Federal Vision)

Here I began my critique of chapter 10 of RINE. One note must be appended to that post: it will be observed that my tone became quite a bit more critical in that post. I must say that I found rather a lot with which I disagreed in that chapter. However, I am steadfastly keeping to the issues in hand, and am making no move to attack Wilson himself.

I believe that the chapter is really misnamed. The chapter is not really about a system of priests that gets in the way of God and man in the church today. The chapter is really about sacramentalism, his definition of it, and why he differs from some definitions of it, and what his view of the sacraments actually is.

Let’s start this critique with noting Wilson’s definition of the purpose of a sacrament:

A sacrament is placed upon a particular individual in order to establish a link between the promises of the covenant and that person (p. 89, emphasis original).

This definition of purpose is vague enough to be acceptable to many people. He goes on to note a further purpose, which is to distinguish between the Church and the world. His point there is that it is visible. But more important is his discussion of WCF 27.2:

This is something we understand quite well in other realsm, and it is not hard to master. “With this ring, I thee wed.” Really? The water cleanses us and washes our sins away. But only a doofus would think that water all by itself would wash away sins. Moderns who are stuck with the language of Westminster want to say that we actaully have to understand this as a sacramental union, with the word sacramental being understood as some sort of diluting agent. But I want to say that it is a sacramental union, with union meaning union (p. 89, emphasis original).

What is important to emphasize here is the connection that Wilson makes with this understanding of WCF 27.2 and his understanding of the objective character of baptism: “The applications of the sacraments are objective, meaning that the Spirit is at work in the words of institution. This is what brings about the resultant blessings (or curses), as covenant members are faithful or faithless” (p. 90, emphasis original). In other words, for Wilson, the objective nature of baptism means that all people who are baptized come into the same relationship to the covenant, in this sense: that they are all under the same sanctions of the covenant, either for cursing, or for blessing. In fact, he identifies the sacrament with the blessings and curses of the covenant (p. 90). What I would ask is this: what kind of union does he mean? Saving union? Unsaving union? The union of a branch, or the union of a parasite? This brings us to another quotation, which I confess has me puzzled a bit:

A true son is brought into the covenant and is nourished there. A false son is brought into the covenant and by his unbelief incurs the chastisements of that covenant. Objectively, both the true and false son are brought into the same relation. But because one of them is elect and the other not, the former is faithful and the latter is faithless. (p. 96).

This begs the question: does one stay in the covenant by works or by grace? See Iain Duguid’s excellent article in CJPM proving that the OT religion is not what Sanders said it was. The OT religion is that God preserves His people despite their unfaithfulness. If staying in the covenant depended on works, then Israel would have been exiled long before they actually were exiled. Wilson qualifies this statement with the following qualification of Calvin’s quotation:

What we need to say is that the nonelecdt do not receive what the sacraments signify for blessing. They do taste and participate, and they taste Christ as their covenant Lord and Judge. They do come in contact with the blood of the covenant, but this happens because they have trampled it. (p. 97).

So, what I think he is saying is that the elect and the non-elect do not participate in the Sacraments in the same way, although they both participate. Maybe he is reading the “promise of benefit to worthy receivers” (WCF 27.3) to include an implication of “promise of curse to unworthy receivers.” I think that would be a fair summary of Wilson’s position. But if that is the case, then I have this question: how can the thing signified in the sacrament (which I do not believe is the sanctions, but rather the promise of benefit) be said to be given to the non-elect? How do we define the thing signified? Well, the water of baptism signifies Christ’s blood, which washes away sin. The bread and the wine signify Christ’s body and blood, and to participate in the thing signified seems to me to reside on the positive side of things. I realize that the waters that baptized the Israelites into Moses were the same waters that drowned the Egyptians (cf. the same issue with Noah’s flood). And I realize the danger of inappropriate partaking of the Lord’s Supper (see 1 Corinthians 11:27). But does this constitute part of the essence of the Sacrament? Or is it a distortion of the Sacrament? I have seen many FV writers say that the Sacraments convey blessings. I understand what they’re saying here. However, does that also include the threats? To me that makes the Sacraments into much more scary things than they are meant to be. I realize that baptism conveys judgment to someone who apostatizes. But is that the essence of the Sacrament? For some reason, that doesn’t fell right to me. The thing signified is a positive thing, not a negative one.

14 Comments

David Gadbois said,

July 2, 2007 at 6:55 pm

Lane,

Two issues spring to my mind here.

1. Is it really any better to say (as FV does) that baptism regenerates some (or most) of the time rather than hold the ex opere operato position? Would we allow a similar view of the Arminian decisional regeneration?

And while many of our Lutheran and Anglican friends have historically held to varying forms of baptismal regeneration, we don’t let them into our pulpits do we? Lutherans, for instance, have had a hard time squaring Luther’s doctrine of baptism with sola fide (I think, in the final analysis, it is an impossible feat of logic), but FV doesn’t even see the need of such an explanation in the first place. That is because the sacraments, not the Gospel, is their first love.

2. Couldn’t the Judaizers also have made a similar claim as baptismal regeneration folks in defending their addition of circumcision to justification by faith? How is it any better to say that baptism+faith justifies as it was for them to claim that circumcision+faith justifies?
Seth Fuller said,

July 2, 2007 at 8:23 pm

Gene,

Very sharp writing. I think you hit at the heart of the problem with the FV. That is, that when all of the eloquence and scholarship are stripped away to reveal the fundamental elements of the FV position, what is left is a works-based salvation. You asked the question yourself, “does one stay in the covenant by works or by grace?”. It’s no wonder that Catholicism, the FV, and the NPP, go so well together, because they trample the free grace of the gospel. I’m sure that Douglas Wilson is a great person, but as a Baptist, the PCA really renewed my respect for them when they so strongly rejected his false teaching.

Seth
http://www.whatum.com
Theological Satire
pduggie said,

July 2, 2007 at 11:29 pm

“The OT religion is that God preserves His people despite their unfaithfulness.”

Except in Kline’s typology, where typologically, he didn’t and they weren’t, because they didn’t do enough works
pduggie said,

July 2, 2007 at 11:31 pm

“Well, the water of baptism signifies Christ’s blood, which washes away sin.”

I’m still waiting for anyone, FV or otherwise, to tell me how christ’s blood *washes* away sin. What happens to us when that happens. I can understand imputed merits. I can’t understand washing sins with human blood.
pduggie said,

July 2, 2007 at 11:34 pm

The sacraments are illocutionarily blessings, but may perlocutionarily be judgments. They have to be illocutionarily blessings to BE judgments perlocutionary though
thomasgoodwin said,

July 2, 2007 at 11:48 pm

Pduggie,

Lucid brevity! Stop the pedantic, pontificating, pretentious, perfunctory, verbage.

Mark
greenbaggins said,

July 3, 2007 at 7:44 am

Paul, you are not making any difference in Kline’s theology from pre-fall to post-fall. Do you really think that Kline is a works-based theologian when it comes to requirements of human beings *after* the Fall? If any works are required, they are Christ’s!
Tim Wilder said,

July 3, 2007 at 8:11 am

“Well, the water of baptism signifies Christ’s blood, which washes away sin. … I realize that the waters that baptized the Israelites into Moses were the same waters that drowned the Egyptians (cf. the same issue with Noah’s flood). And I realize the danger of inappropriate partaking of the Lord’s Supper (see 1 Corinthians 11:27). But does this constitute part of the essence of the Sacrament? Or is it a distortion of the Sacrament?”

In the Old Covenant the one time rite of entry, like the repeated rite (passover), is a bloody sign of judgment. In the New Covenant the passover imagery is kept for the repeated rite, but by using vegetarian symbols (for there is no longer a need for sacrifice, nor can nothing be added to increase or renew the sacrifice, not even a Covenant Renewal Service).

In the rite of entry, however, there is a complete change out of the ritual. The bloody rite of circumcision is replaced by the secondary, and frequently repeated, rite of baptism (in the Old Covenant), to be come a one time only washing in the New Covenant.

Instead of living under the threat of the rite of circumcision of a conditional covenant that must be kept by Israel and the seed (and which can only be kept messianically the True Israel), we now live under a cleansing that is once for all and cannot be added to, nor does it need suplimentation. The change from circumcision to washing is the removal of the element of threat. Some Shepherdites want to put the threat back.
tim prussic said,

July 3, 2007 at 11:47 am

Pastor Lane, I think “begging the question” has to do with presupposing an answer when framing a question. It does not mean “gives rise to.” I learned that from John Robbins!
tim prussic said,

July 3, 2007 at 11:57 am

Mr. Wilder, the NC sign of baptism symbolizes no threats? What does water over the head symbolize in Scripture? It symbolizes judgement just as much as it does cleansing. I think of the Psalmist: The waters were almost over my head, until Yahweh pulled me out and set my feet upon the rock. Does baptism not capture that symbolism?
Further, the idea that the NC doesn’t involve curses, but that the old did is completely illegitimate. In order to hold such a position, one would have to jettison 1 Cor 10, a handful of chapters of Romans and almost the whole of Hebrews. This don’t have anything to do with Shepherd or his ites.
tim prussic said,

July 3, 2007 at 12:57 pm

David G., overlooking your rather childish ad hominem at the end of point 1, have you EVER read any FV proponent teaching forensic justification = faith + baptism? Honestly, it seems there’s enough error the ranks of the FV proponents that you don’t need to fabricate blatant misrepresentations. If you have read that, please direct me to it and I’ll be happy to retract.
David Gadbois said,

July 3, 2007 at 1:56 pm

“overlooking your rather childish ad hominem at the end of point 1, have you EVER read any FV proponent teaching forensic justification = faith + baptism?”

Actually, I had in mind quite explicitly Rich Lusk when I wrote that. I would quote the relevant portions of his “Faith, Baptism, and Justification”, “The Tenses of Justification”, and “Future Justification to the Doers of the Law”, which can normally be found here.

Unfortunately those articles, normally hosted by Mark Horne, are all now broken links. Either Mark hasn’t been maintaining the articles he was hosting, or one can hope that Mark has finally become embarrassed by the heterodoxy contained in those articles.
David Gadbois said,

July 3, 2007 at 1:58 pm

But really, Tim, I’ve seen the most amusing dances done by Lutherans and Anglicans in trying to square up baptismal regeneration and sola fide. What else is baptismal regeneration other than faith +baptism = justification? I know that some try to differentiate between baptismal regeneration and baptismal justification, but then you have the difficult task of explaining how regeneration doesn’t result in justification. You are welcome to take a crack at it, though, Tim. Good luck.
tim prussic said,

July 3, 2007 at 4:19 pm

David, I’m not worried about taking a crack at it, for I don’t believe in baptismal regeneration. I think we can speak of corporate/covenantal efficacy of baptism. If we couple with a roubust notion of covenantal working (that is, sanctions), then we can have both our decretal theology and apostasy. We can have have both corporate sacramental language applied to all the visible church and the salvific blessings of the covenant reserved for the eternally elect.

Thus, I can speak of someone being baptized into the elect, regernate, justified people of God. I can also speak of the eternally elect, the inwardly regenerate, and the ordo salutis justified at el.

Not sure how FV that makes me - it seems that distinguishing ‘twixt corporate election (and benefits) and eternal election (and benefits) can be found from the magisterial Reformers right on down to the present day. These ideas, therefore, don’t seem to be the property of the FV. Would you agree?

I’m quite pleased to see that you and your buds like the mighty Zeppelin. I’m a big fan, too.

Green Baggins