Blessings and Curses
November 9, 2007 at 11:07 am (Federal Vision)
Chapter 19 of RINE is entitled “Blessings and Curses.” There are several helpful things in here I want to point out. However, before I get to that, I have to point out something with which I have “issues.”
Wilson’s very first sentence reads like this: “We must learn how to speak with scriptural lnaguage, rather than with the misleading language that comes from our feeble efforts at reasoning” (pg. 157). Now, in context, Wilson is dealing with the makeup of blessings and curses in the covenant. Wilson’s point seems to be that some things are meant for blessing (such as the cup of communion), and not for blessing and cursing both. However, as he will say later on, for covenant breakers, the covenant has curses in store. However, my problem lies with the fact that his first sentence appears to be a general principle. This is indicated by the “for example” at the beginning of the second sentence, which indicates that he has stated a broad principle, which he then goes on to illustrate. Let me be clear: my problem is not with using Scriptural language. By all means, let us do so. However, Scriptural language needs always to be interpreted. Just “using Scriptural language” begs the question of whether we are using it correctly. This will always involve, as Wilson says, “our feeble efforts at reasoning.” Any heretic can use the ipsissima verba of Scripture. Not every heretic uses it correctly. In fact, in the matter in which they are heretics, they are using it wrongly. Wilson seems to be implying here that it is possible to use Scriptural language correctly without interpretation (since interpretation always involves our reasoning). Is Wilson ignoring the fact that the Holy Spirit blesses those “feeble reasoning efforts,” such that the church is guided into all truth? Is Wilson disparaging systematic theology here? Maybe this is reading too much into one sentence. Clarification would be helpful here.
That being said, the rest of chapter has many helpful things in it. His illustration with David Hume I found to be helpful. His conclusion about saying that we can never draw conclusions about why something is happening: “This means they cannot interpret how their life is going at all” (pg. 158). Indeed. Wilson takes the middle path of avoiding presumptive knowledge of the will of God, and, on the other hand, not knowing anything about the will of God. We can draw some conclusions. We can know by faith whether something is a blessing or not. Wilson offers a helpful caution as well: “We have to take care that we do not make any of these evaluations on the basis of short term thinking” (pg. 159). A great example: “Those who taunted Jesus on the cross were three days off in their calculations” (pg. 159), a great way of putting that.
The only other issue I would raise here is the issue of who belongs to the covenant. Wilson’s paradigm seems to be that all baptized people are in the covenant, some for blessing (the elect), and some for cursing (the non-elect), although I’m sure that Wilson would add that some of what the non-elect receive is blessing for a time, which only turns out for their greater condemnation later on. Would Wilson be willing to say that the blessing side equals the essence of the covenant, such that there is rapprochement between the “outer/inner” distinction so normative in Reformed circles, and the blessing/cursing paradigm that marks Wilson’s (and several other, though by no means all, FV’ers)?
rjs1 said,
November 9, 2007 at 11:11 am
Have you critiqued the “objective covenant” and “corporate justification”?
greenbaggins said,
November 9, 2007 at 11:16 am
The latter I have not critiqued with regard to Wilson. I’m not sure that he teaches it. The former has been on the radar screen all along the review/critique. I have dealt with corporate justification in my critique of N.T. Wright.
David McCrory said,
November 9, 2007 at 11:28 am
Lane,
I was wondering if you’d give me your thoughts as to whom you believe is in the New Covenant? Is it believers only, or are other included?
Thanks,
David
greenbaggins said,
November 9, 2007 at 11:44 am
David, my position is that there is a distinction within the covenant between those who possess the substance of the covenant (which IS salvation), and those who are under the administration, but do not partake of the essence of the covenant. These latter may be truly said to be part of the covenant (the administration of the covenant being not a false aspect of the covenant, but a true one) in one sense, but *not* part of the covenant as to the essence of the covenant, which is salvation.
David McCrory said,
November 9, 2007 at 11:48 am
So, you say the New Covenant is open to those that are not true believers? Though they do not receive the full benefit and blessing of the covenant?
Aren’t there those who say the Covenant is with believers only? Maybe Twisse?
greenbaggins said,
November 9, 2007 at 11:56 am
The essence of the New Covenant is only possessed by believers, since the essence of the covenant is salvation itself. However, unbelievers who are part of the church possess the outward elements and administration of the covenant. Turretin calls this distinction the covenant properly called, and the covenant improperly called. Baptists will deny that there is an administrative element of the covenant that can apply to non-believers. I am not familiar enough with Twisse on this subject to comment. Maybe someone else can help out with his views?
Keith LaMothe said,
November 9, 2007 at 11:56 am
Lane,
So you agree that there are elect covenant members and non-elect covenant members, and that the non-elect covenant members *really are* in the covenant. But this is a temporary membership, with only some of the blessings of the covenant, and none of the salvific ones (or, as you say, the ordo salutis benefits).
Given the context of that definition, do you think it is acceptable to say that there are faithful members of the covenant and unfaithful members of the covenant? Would those two groups correspond (respectively) to the ECM and the NECM?
Is it fair to say that your disagreement with Wilson (if any) or Wilkins (at least some) on this point is whether there is a “covenental” middle-ground sort of “salvific” (in the sense of “baptism now saves you”
blessing that is more than the common operations of the spirit but not actually regenerative or “salvific” in the usual sense of the term? The next step after that, of course, is that some (all?) NECM’s partake of said conveniently-categorized blessings.
Sorry if that didn’t make much sense.
Thanks,
Keith
David McCrory said,
November 9, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Lane,
Would you please define “administrative element” ?
Baptist would not deny elements of the covenant are administered to unbelievers (many non-elect people are baptized, etc.).
So could you please clarify what you mean by this phrase?
The reason I’m asking is I am more and more persuaded the New Covenant is with believers only.
greenbaggins said,
November 9, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Non-elect partipants in the administration of the covenant have no benefits that could be called by any of the names of the ordo salutis benefits. Heb 10:29 does not constitute an exception to this. Non-elect people *never* possess justification in any way, shape, or form. They never possess adoption as sons (since they will, in fact, NOT inherit). They never truly come to Christ, as the WS say. Non-elect members of the *administration* of the covenant do not possess the substance of the covenant. Faithful members of the covenant are elect, and the non-faithful members of the administration of the covenant are non-elect. I do not believe that there is any such thing as a non-faithful member of the substance of the covenant.
That being said, I do think that it is fair to say that our disagreement is over whether there is such a thing as a tertium quid such as you are describing. I would say no. There are the common operations, and there are the saving operations of the Holy Spirit. There is nothing in-between.
greenbaggins said,
November 9, 2007 at 12:10 pm
The administrative elements of the covenant are baptism, the preaching of the Word, the Lord’s Supper (basically, access to the means of grace). Non-believers have access to these, but cannot make proper use of them, since they are unregenerate.
David McCrory said,
November 9, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Given what you’ve just said then, can unbelievers really be in the covenant, especially considering Jer. 31 which describes the attrributes of the New Covenant adminstration including such things as forgivness and salvation?
In other words, is partaking of the elements what puts one in the New Covenant?
greenbaggins said,
November 9, 2007 at 12:21 pm
I think you’re getting at the real reason why Turretin used the terminology of “properly” and “improperly.” Even the people who are “improperly” members of the covenant (the non-elect) have great benefits. They have something that pagans do not have. Those benefits are described in Hebrews 6 and Hebrews 10 in the apostasy passages. It is from this access to the means of grace that such apostatize. I believe that the outward elements of the covenant are in view in Hebrews 6 and 10. However, they cannot apostatize from the substance of the covenant, which, as Jer 31 points out, is salvation itself. Of course, if we say that there are no outward elements of the covenant, and that the entirety of the covenant (see, I don’t think that Jer 31 exhausts the description of the New Covenant) is inward, then there is no basis whatsoever for infant baptism. Part of what is going on here is that God sees all, and we only see part. That is why there is a proper sense of belonging to the covenant, and an improper sense. Or you can say outward and outward/inward (since it is quite true that the elect have possession not only of the substance, but also of the administration, or outward elements).
David McCrory said,
November 9, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Thanks for your replies. They were helpful.
greenbaggins said,
November 9, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Thanks for your questions. They were good.
Keith LaMothe said,
November 9, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Lane,
I think “no benefits that could be called by any of the names of the ordo salutis benefits” summarizes the point of disagreement.
Some FV folks want to say that passages like 1 Peter 3:21 mean that baptism “saves” *in some sense of the word*. Are you saying that there is no legitimate sense of the word “saves” that could be used in the phrase “baptism saves”? There are other passages that might serve as better examples, that’s just the one that comes to mind and I think some FVers have used it.
Thanks,
Keith
greenbaggins said,
November 9, 2007 at 1:12 pm
1 Peter 3:21 is so incredibly wrapped up in interpretive nightmares that it is astonishing to me that anyone would use that passage to say, “We can say that baptism saves,” without any qualification whatsoever, as Leithart has done. Indeed, in his book, he shows no awareness whatsoever of the interpretive difficulties of the verse, which occurs in what is probably the most difficult text in the entire Bible to interpret. I ought to know. I spent hours upon hours reading three entire books and countless articles and commentaries on it. See this post for my take:
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2006/11/29/the-spirits-in-prison/
Keith LaMothe said,
November 9, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Lane,
I suspected I was stepping on a land mine
So, if I may summarize, your view is that the passage is describing baptism as delivering the believer from the dominion of demons (probably-off-topic: does this happen at the time of baptism, or is it just symbolizing this deliverance?). So, with the context of a long and arduous exegetical argument, you are will to say that baptism “saves” *in the sense* of deliverance from the dominion of demons? Does this apply in any way to the NECMs?
Thanks,
Keith
greenbaggins said,
November 9, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Keith, the question of whether it applies to non-elect covenant administration members (just to distinguish the manner of participation in the covenant that they have improperly with the membership that the elect have properly) depends on whether Peter is using the language sacramentally or not (see WCF 27.2). I’m not sure that there is any way to determine that. If it is being used sacramentally (and I personally lean this way), then it can apply only to the elect, since the typological connection with Noah indicates that Peter is speaking directly to the elect (with judgment of charity extended to the others). In other words, it is not the bare water, but rather that to which baptism points that gives us a clean conscience. These are all questions which Leithart woefully failed to address in his book.
Roger Mann said,
November 9, 2007 at 4:07 pm
10: The administrative elements of the covenant are baptism, the preaching of the Word, the Lord’s Supper (basically, access to the means of grace).
Lane, if “the preaching of the Word” is one of the administrative elements of the covenant, then wouldn’t all people who hear the gospel message be members of the covenant in the “improper” or “outward” sense that you are referring to — whether they profess to believe or join a local church body or not? After all, WCF 7.3 clearly teaches that the “outward call” of the gospel is part of the administration of the covenant of grace: “…wherein He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved…” Thus, if the distinction you are drawing is correct, then wouldn’t everyone who hears the gospel message be covenant “members” in an outward or improper sense?
Also, Jeremiah 31:33-43, 32:40, Ezekiel 36:25-27, Hebrews 8:10-12, WCF 7.3, WLC 32, 59 (to name just few) clearly teach that saving faith is an unconditional blessing of the covenant granted solely to those who were represented by Christ in the covenant — the elect (Rom. 5:15-19; WLC 31). But if that is the case, then how can the non-elect (who never receive the covenant gift of saving faith) be genuine covenant members? In other words, if Christ didn’t represent the non-elect in the covenant, and the Holy Spirit doesn’t grant the covenant gift of saving faith to the non-elect, then how can the non-elect be genuine covenant members in any sense?
Keith LaMothe said,
November 9, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Roger,
Just to clarify, would you consider the children of believers to be in the covenant?
Lane,
Thanks, I see the issue is more complex than suits my desire for an example
I was trying to home in on your denial that the ordo salutis *terminology* could be applied *in any sense whatsoever* to the NECMs.
Thanks,
Keith
David McCrory said,
November 9, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Roger,
That’s right. It has become more apparent to me that only the elect are represented in the NC, based upon what the content of the NC entails. The NC is for those who are saved by faith alone. Therefore no faith, no covenant. “Those that are of faith are the seed of Abraham” and as a result in covenant with God.
greenbaggins said,
November 9, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Roger, you raise some good questions there. I would say that the means of grace *as they are part of the administration of the covenant* are not separable. Furthermore, with the Word, people who do not regularly go to church are not likely to be constantly hearing the Gospel. But you cannot separate the means of grace. To have access to all of them implies membership in the church. To echo Paul, not all who are Israel are of Israel; not all who are church are of the church. Here the visible/invisible church distinction comes in handy.
Let me ask you a counter question: how can you make sense of the apostasy passages without saying that the people who apostatized are nominally connected to the covenant? From what did they fall? They have to be connected to the covenant in some way. After all, the entire background for Hebrews is the wandering people of God in the wilderness situation. In no sense do apostates ever have the substance of the covenant. However, they are connected to the covenant externally as long as they are part of the church.
Keith, the only way to apply ordo salutis terms to those who are not elect is to do one of several things: 1. assume that when Paul addresses the Ephesians, that the terms he uses *actually* describe, head for head, all to whom he is writing (i.e., deny the judgment of charity); 2. be Arminian. Where else do you see ordo salutis terms applied to the non-elect? The traditional Reformed position explains absolutely every one of those occurrences without messing with the definitions of justification, sanctification, etc. Why does the FV have to complicate every issue to the point of unintelligibility?
Mark T. said,
November 9, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Green Baggins writes,
ReformedMusings writes,
Mark T. writes, Thank you.
David Gadbois said,
November 9, 2007 at 11:25 pm
testing (web site ate ALL of my comments from today)
ian robertson said,
November 10, 2007 at 1:46 am
Who is in the New Covenant and who is not has been frequently asked. My question, do your arguments hold water when the Holy Spirit is taken into consideration. For the Holy Spirit is given to the people of the NC. How can you belong to that NC if you are unregenerate? Or are we saying that people do lose the Holy Spirit if they apostasise.
rjs1 said,
November 10, 2007 at 4:47 am
David,
The Westminster Larger Catechism teaches thus:
Question 31: With whom was the covenant of grace made?
Answer: The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.
The covenant of grace is made solely with the elect, these are both externally and internally in the covenant. The reprobate however can belong to the covenant externally but they are never covenant members as such. They belong to the covenant’s administration but do not receive its spiritual blessings.
Question 32: How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant?
Answer: The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provides and offers to sinners a Mediator, and life and salvation by him; and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him, promises and gives his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces; and to enable them unto all holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he has appointed them to salvation.
Question 33: Was the covenant of grace always administered after one and the same manner?
Answer: The covenant of grace was not always administered after the same manner, but the administrations of it under the Old Testament were different from those under the New.
Question 34: How was the covenant of grace administered under the Old Testament?
Answer: The covenant of grace was administered under the Old Testament, by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the passover, and other types and ordinances, which did all foresignify Christ then to come, and were for that time sufficient to build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they then had full remission of sin, and eternal salvation.
Question 35: How is the covenant of grace administered under the New Testament?
Answer: Under the New Testament, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the same covenant of grace was and still is to be administered in the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; in which grace and salvation are held forth in more fullness, evidence, and efficacy, to all nations.
Roger Mann said,
November 10, 2007 at 9:25 am
20: Just to clarify, would you consider the children of believers to be in the covenant?
I believe that God has always included the children of believers in the covenant: “And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you” (Gen. 17:7; cf. Acts 2:39). But this in no way means that God “establishes” His covenant with all of Abraham’s descendants (to include the non-elect). Scripture makes it abundantly clear that Abraham’s non-elect seed were not included in the covenant promise: “And Abraham said to God, ‘Oh, that Ishmael might live before You!’ Then God said: ‘No…I will establish My covenant with [Isaac] for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him.’” (Gen. 17:18-19). Thus, non-elect Ishmael was specifically excluded from the covenant promise — “for in Isaac your seed shall be called” (Gen. 21:12; cf. Rom. 9:6-9). Nevertheless, he was still to be regarded by Abraham as being within the covenant and to receive the covenant sign of circumcision (see Gen. 17:23). The same is true of our children today: they are to be regarded by us as being within the covenant and to receive the covenant sign of baptism, even though some of them may eventually prove to be non-elect — “illegitimate and not sons” (Heb. 12:8; cf. 1 Jn. 2:19) — and excluded from genuine covenant membership.
In other words, the children of believers to whom God graciously promises membership in the covenant are not all of the physical offspring of believers — “those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God” (Rom. 9:8). Rather they are the “children of God” among our offspring — those who are “chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4). These are the ones whom God counts for the covenant seed when he says, “I will be the God of your seed.” These, and these only, are “the children of the promise” — for “the children of the promise [the elect] are counted as the [covenant] seed” (Rom. 9:8). It doesn’t get any clearer than that. To them, and to them only, is the promise given. And in every one of them is the covenant promise effectual to work faith in Jesus Christ. That’s why Scripture plainly states: “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus…And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:26-29; cf. v. 16). Thus, only the elect are truly Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the covenant promise.
Hopefully that clarifies where I’m coming from.
Roger Mann said,
November 10, 2007 at 9:33 am
22: Let me ask you a counter question: how can you make sense of the apostasy passages without saying that the people who apostatized are nominally connected to the covenant?
I have no problem in saying that non-elect people can be “nominal” (in name only) members of the covenant or “nominal” (in name only) Christians — and it is only these “nominal” members of the visible church (tares among the wheat) that apostatize. That distinction is clearly Biblical and Confessional. It just seemed as if you were saying slightly more than that in your earlier comments. Perhaps I just misunderstood you. Check out my comments in post #26 to see if you agree or disagree with where I’m coming from on this.
I would say that the means of grace *as they are part of the administration of the covenant* are not separable. Furthermore, with the Word, people who do not regularly go to church are not likely to be constantly hearing the Gospel. But you cannot separate the means of grace. To have access to all of them implies membership in the church. To echo Paul, not all who are Israel are of Israel; not all who are church are of the church. Here the visible/invisible church distinction comes in handy.
The point I was trying to make probably didn’t come across very well in the questions that I asked. Let me restate what I was trying to get at in a different way. WCF 7.3 seems to clearly teach that the “administration of the covenant” includes both the outward and inward call of the gospel: “…wherein He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved [the outward call], and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe [the inward call].” Thus, it would seem, that only those who experience both the outward and inward call of the gospel (i.e., the elect) are genuine covenant members — for the gift of saving faith is one of the primary blessings of the covenant promise. In other words, those who merely “hear” the preaching of the gospel (the non-elect) are not true covenant members (whether they profess faith or are attached to the visible church or not), but only those who actually “receive” the promised Holy Spirit and the covenant gift of saving faith (the elect) are true covenant members. The non-elect in the visible church are merely “nominal” (in name only) members of the covenant, having never been blessed with the promised Holy Spirit and the covenant gift of saving faith. They are “of Israel” (in name only), but they are not true “Israel.”
Hopefully that clarifies the point I was trying to make.
greenbaggins said,
November 10, 2007 at 10:39 am
Ian, welcome to my blog. I would answer by saying (along with the Westminster Confession 10.4) that there are common operations of the Spirit that are not saving, but do benefit the recipients. An example would be the calling of the ministry of the Word, which often restrains sin.
David, I rescued all your comments from my dumb spam filter, which cannot seem to recognize friend from foe at the moment. I sincerely apologize.
Roger, I think we are on the same page. I can agree with all that you are saying. I think your distinction between being included versus being established is a very helpful way of putting.
Roger Mann said,
November 10, 2007 at 11:57 am
I think your distinction between being included versus being established is a very helpful way of putting.
Actually, Lane, I think you misunderstood me there. If you re-read the first paragraph of post #27 I think you’ll see that I was using the terms “included” and “established” as synonyms. So does that mean we disagree again?
Ed Barrett said,
November 10, 2007 at 1:51 pm
1 Peter 3:21 presents no difficulty for those who practice believers’ baptism. For the person who is born again and is a new creation in Christ Jesus truly experiences the cleansing of his conscience at his baptism along with what you call the “essence” of the covenant.
The paedobaptist runs the danger of having to construct all of these subsets of the covenant -subsets that are often based on presumptions and guesses which for the most part are unscriptural.
Paul reminds us in Galatians 6:15-16 that “in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them.” The same holds true for the outward sign of baptism. It avails nothing for the sinner who is outside Jesus Christ - who has not been made a new creation in Him. There are no benefits that avail anything for those who possess only the outward sign of the covenant. For, there is no peace and mercy for those who are not born again - who are not in Jesus Christ. That includes those who have been only outwardly baptized into the covenant but do not possess its “essence”. So, I ask, if there is no peace and mercy for those who have been only outwardly baptized into the covenant, what possible benefits would they enjoy outside of God’s peace and mercy? What other benefits and blessings are there outside of Jesus Christ?
The FV folks have to ignore the truths concerning the invisible church and focus only on the visible church - the outward signs. In reality, they want to replace the invisible church with the visible church. That’s like trying to replace the corn with the husk. The husk is the sign of the substance that is on the inside - corn - but the husk is not and never will be the corn.
They try to build their theology with the outward sign of baptism as their foundation. Outward Baptism = membership into the covenant community = membership into the church = union with Christ’s body = union with Christ = justification = salvation. But once you put the sign of baptism in its proper biblical context alongside Galatians 6:15-16, the FV house of cards falls.
Travis said,
November 10, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Would Wilson be willing to say that the blessing side equals the essence of the covenant, such that there is rapprochement between the “outer/inner” distinction so normative in Reformed circles, and the blessing/cursing paradigm that marks Wilson’s (and several other, though by no means all, FV’ers)?
Here’s my take on the malediction//benediction aspect of the sacraments.
Travis said,
November 10, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Testing……
http://postdeliberatuslux.wordpress.com/2007/10/26/water-water-everywhere/
Travis said,
November 10, 2007 at 6:36 pm
test
Travis said,
November 10, 2007 at 8:32 pm
#16
I humbly disagree.
[My wife is laughing right now, "Look at you, being humble!!" She wants to know if you are related to Bilbo and if you have the "w"ing. lol]
Anyway, cursorily speaking, here is where I will begin:
13 Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? 14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, 15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, 16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. 17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.
Here the focus is on unjust suffering and not reviling in return. Peter is calling his readers to holy responses and, indeed, holy precipitation to persecution. A good conscience is the result of good behaviour in Christ. This leads into an illustration par excellence.
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.
Here is the meaning of this passage:
Christ is indeed our example of not returning evil for evil and for suffering righteously. Yes, the atonement is appealed to but this is really to serve as an analogy to Noah. Rather, Noah is type and Christ is antitype. How so? Noah’s righteousness is the basis for the salvation of the eight souls. Likewise, Jesus’ righteousness is the basis for the salvation of the unrighteous. But further, as Noah endured ridicule and suffered for his righteousness, so, too, Jesus endured ridicule and suffered for his righteousness; as the waters of God’s judgement upon the wicked was also the salvation of the righteous, so too, God’s judgement upon sin [by the waters] is the salvation of us.
Again, the point of the passage is to exalt Christ in his demonstration of godlyness in suffering wherein he was exalted. Peter is calling his hearers to imitate this life that they too, might be exhonorated.
Consider the fourth chapter,
12 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. 13 But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. 14 If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory [2] and of God rests upon you. 15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler. 16 Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. 17 For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? 18 And
“If the righteous is scarcely saved,
what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?” [3]
19 Therefore let those who suffer according to God’s will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good.
I Peter 3.21 is couched within a talk on suffering for God’s glory which continues in chapter 5:
So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, [1] not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; [2] not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. 5 Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”
6 Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, 7 casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you. 8 Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. 9 Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world. 10 And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you. 11 To him be the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
Even here, Peter continues to encourage his readers to look for exaltation in humiliation. Who is the exemplar? The Good Shepherd (No, not Edward Wilson).
Travis said,
November 10, 2007 at 9:19 pm
I humbly disagree.
[My wife is laughing right now, "Look at you, being humble!!" She wants to know if you are related to Bilbo and if you have the "w"ing. lol]
Anyway, cursorily speaking, here is where I will begin:
13 Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? 14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, 15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, 16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. 17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.
Here the focus is on unjust suffering and not reviling in return. Peter is calling his readers to holy responses and, indeed, holy precipitation to persecution. A good conscience is the result of good behaviour in Christ. This leads into an illustration par excellence.
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.
Here is the meaning of this passage:
Christ is indeed our example of not returning evil for evil and for suffering righteously. Yes, the atonement is appealed to but this is really to serve as an analogy to Noah. Rather, Noah is type and Christ is antitype. How so? Noah’s righteousness is the basis for the salvation of the eight souls. Likewise, Jesus’ righteousness is the basis for the salvation of the unrighteous. But further, as Noah endured ridicule and suffered for his righteousness, so, too, Jesus endured ridicule and suffered for his righteousness; as the waters of God’s judgement upon the wicked was also the salvation of the righteous, so too, God’s judgement upon sin [by the waters] is the salvation of us.
Again, the point of the passage is to exalt Christ in his demonstration of godlyness in suffering wherein he was exalted. Peter is calling his hearers to imitate this life that they too, might be exhonorated.
Consider the fourth chapter,
12 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. 13 But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. 14 If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory [2] and of God rests upon you. 15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler. 16 Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. 17 For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? 18 And
“If the righteous is scarcely saved,
what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?” [3]
19 Therefore let those who suffer according to God’s will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good.
I Peter 3.21 is couched within a talk on suffering for God’s glory which continues in chapter 5:
So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, [1] not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; [2] not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. 5 Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”
6 Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, 7 casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you. 8 Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. 9 Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world. 10 And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you. 11 To him be the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
Even here, Peter continues to encourage his readers to look for exaltation in humiliation. Who is the exemplar? The Good Shepherd (No, not Edward Wilson).
Travis said,
November 11, 2007 at 7:07 am
testing
Travis said,
November 11, 2007 at 7:07 am
whatever
I humbly disagree.
[My wife is laughing right now, "Look at you, being humble!!" She wants to know if you are related to Bilbo and if you have the "w"ing. lol]
Anyway, cursorily speaking, here is where I will begin:
13 Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? 14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, 15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, 16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. 17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.
Here the focus is on unjust suffering and not reviling in return. Peter is calling his readers to holy responses and, indeed, holy precipitation to persecution. A good conscience is the result of good behaviour in Christ. This leads into an illustration par excellence.
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.
Here is the meaning of this passage:
Christ is indeed our example of not returning evil for evil and for suffering righteously. Yes, the atonement is appealed to but this is really to serve as an analogy to Noah. Rather, Noah is type and Christ is antitype. How so? Noah’s righteousness is the basis for the salvation of the eight souls. Likewise, Jesus’ righteousness is the basis for the salvation of the unrighteous. But further, as Noah endured ridicule and suffered for his righteousness, so, too, Jesus endured ridicule and suffered for his righteousness; as the waters of God’s judgement upon the wicked was also the salvation of the righteous, so too, God’s judgement upon sin [by the waters] is the salvation of us.
Again, the point of the passage is to exalt Christ in his demonstration of godlyness in suffering wherein he was exalted. Peter is calling his hearers to imitate this life that they too, might be exhonorated.
Consider the fourth chapter,
12 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. 13 But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. 14 If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory [2] and of God rests upon you. 15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler. 16 Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. 17 For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? 18 And
“If the righteous is scarcely saved,
what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?” [3]
19 Therefore let those who suffer according to God’s will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good.
I Peter 3.21 is couched within a talk on suffering for God’s glory which continues in chapter 5:
So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, [1] not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; [2] not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. 5 Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”
6 Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, 7 casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you. 8 Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. 9 Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world. 10 And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you. 11 To him be the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
Even here, Peter continues to encourage his readers to look for exaltation in humiliation. Who is the exemplar? The Good Shepherd (No, not Edward Wilson).
Travis said,
November 11, 2007 at 7:08 am
This is a test of the frustrated bloggers’ association. If this were an actual emergency………
Anyway, cursorily speaking, here is where I will begin:
13 Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? 14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, 15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, 16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. 17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.
Here the focus is on unjust suffering and not reviling in return. Peter is calling his readers to holy responses and, indeed, holy precipitation to persecution. A good conscience is the result of good behaviour in Christ. This leads into an illustration par excellence.
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.
Here is the meaning of this passage:
Christ is indeed our example of not returning evil for evil and for suffering righteously. Yes, the atonement is appealed to but this is really to serve as an analogy to Noah. Rather, Noah is type and Christ is antitype. How so? Noah’s righteousness is the basis for the salvation of the eight souls. Likewise, Jesus’ righteousness is the basis for the salvation of the unrighteous. But further, as Noah endured ridicule and suffered for his righteousness, so, too, Jesus endured ridicule and suffered for his righteousness; as the waters of God’s judgement upon the wicked was also the salvation of the righteous, so too, God’s judgement upon sin [by the waters] is the salvation of us.
Again, the point of the passage is to exalt Christ in his demonstration of godlyness in suffering wherein he was exalted. Peter is calling his hearers to imitate this life that they too, might be exhonorated.
Consider the fourth chapter,
12 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. 13 But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. 14 If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory [2] and of God rests upon you. 15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler. 16 Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. 17 For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? 18 And
“If the righteous is scarcely saved,
what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?” [3]
19 Therefore let those who suffer according to God’s will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good.
I Peter 3.21 is couched within a talk on suffering for God’s glory which continues in chapter 5:
So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, [1] not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; [2] not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. 5 Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”
6 Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, 7 casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you. 8 Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. 9 Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world. 10 And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you. 11 To him be the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
Even here, Peter continues to encourage his readers to look for exaltation in humiliation. Who is the exemplar? The Good Shepherd (No, not Edward Wilson).
Jeff Cagle said,
November 11, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Ed (#31) said, 1 Peter 3:21 presents no difficulty for those who practice believers’ baptism. For the person who is born again and is a new creation in Christ Jesus truly experiences the cleansing of his conscience at his baptism along with what you call the “essence” of the covenant.
That’s true. In a church in which all who receive water baptism *are also* truly saved, there is no conflict between the sign and the thing signified. On the other hand, no church does or can practice “believer’s baptism” in that sense, since there is no salvation-o-meter that one can attach to the baptizee to see whether he really truly is saved or is just faking it.
So the distinction between the visible church and the invisible intrudes once again…
Jeff
Keith LaMothe said,
November 12, 2007 at 9:35 am
“there is no salvation-o-meter that one can attach to the baptizee to see whether he really truly is saved or is just faking it.”
But we’ve got the card they signed right here!
Sorry, unfair, just had to say it
Ed Barrett said,
November 12, 2007 at 5:18 pm
What you and I think of a person at his baptism is irrelevant. Why do you doubt his baptism while at the same time presume a covenant child is elect and saved by virtue of being physically born into a Christian family? The reality of a cleansed conscience at baptism is between the individual and the Lord. The church has the authority to administer the sacrament of baptism but it does not have the authority or ability to judge and determine its efficaciousness. Like the blind man receiving his sight, a true believer may not understand the workings of the Holy Spirit, but he knows when his conscience has been cleansed.
There is no “salvation-o-meter” at the time an infant is baptized either; yet we act like there is. Believing parents often presume their covenant child is elect and saved before he is even aware that he has a conscience, let alone that it needs to be cleansed. Where do we get that meter reading?
Keith LaMothe said,
November 13, 2007 at 9:04 am
Ed,
As best as I can understand the Presbyterian position, we don’t think there’s a “salvation-o-meter” for any baptism. Baptism is neither a necessary, sufficient, or efficient cause of salvation. However, God has given His promises to us and our children, who are holy. We baptize them because they are members of the covenant. Because of God’s promises, we presume them to be elect unless they give evidence to the contrary (which usually doesn’t happen until later in life). Do we assume that they’re 100% certain going-to-heaven? No, we don’t assume that for anyone (not even our own selves).
Of course, I may have misunderstood the Presbyterian position.
Keith
Ed Barrett said,
November 13, 2007 at 12:28 pm
The Bible tells us that there will only be a remnant of believers. We have raised a new generation of children with a new label - “hyper-churched kids”. They are kids raised in church but just as rebellious as those outside the church. They have a form of godliness, but are lost sinners.
Why? Could it be that some of them are being raised on presumption instead of being evangelized? As a parent, I am not going to take the risk and wait for evidence that my children are saved or unsaved. That may be too late. Covenant Christian nurture includes evangelism along with all the other aspects of Christian nurture. Every individual must come to faith in Christ. They must repent and believe in Jesus Christ and be born again. The rules are the same for all - whether or not you are a covenant child of believing parents.
Our struggle with this truth is that regeneration is out of our control. We really in our hearts don’t want to admit that our children’s salvation and standing before God is totally out of our control. We want to will our children into heaven - to build these presumptions and rest on them instead of God’s Word which says in John 1 - that we are born not of the will of man but by the will of God. This truth should not frustrate us, but should motivate us even more to always place Christ - the gospel - in front of our children each and every day.
And, as you have written, our children possess the promises; we can be encouraged as Christian parents that very soon they will possess the content of those promises. That is our fervent prayer.
Jeff Cagle said,
November 13, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Could it be that some of them are being raised on presumption instead of being evangelized?
This is a really good question, and it is an objection that has been raised to paedobaptism going back to Conrad Groebel.
But here’s the question to ask in order to test that hypothesis:
Are there more true believers in gospel-preaching Baptist churches than there are in gospel-preaching Presbyterian churches?
See, if the “being raised on presumption” argument really has force, then it should be the case that that churches that don’t raise on presumption should have a greater percentage of believers within their walls after you control for other variables.
And yet … I don’t see evidence that they do. The Presbyterians worry about their apostate covenant kids; the Baptists worry about their kids that have made professions of faith but really need to re-dedicate their lives to Christ.
Here’s my hypothesis: churches that preach the gospel tend to have believers within their walls. Churches that don’t — that preach works, or feel-goodism, or health-wealth instead — tend to have presumptuous church members. The difference is preaching the gospel, not getting baptism right.
Now, what about my kids? Well, I give them the judgment of charity, which means this:
* I permit them to participate in the worship of God (if they really were little pagans, they wouldn’t have that right).
* I assume that God’s promise to be a God to my children is probably true for them, which gives me something to pray for and something to rest on in the tragic case of a loss, and
* I remind them as well as myself that the gospel *means* trusting in Christ yesterday and today for the forgiveness of and power over sins.
Covenant Christian nurture includes evangelism along with all the other aspects of Christian nurture. Every individual must come to faith in Christ. They must repent and believe in Jesus Christ and be born again. The rules are the same for all - whether or not you are a covenant child of believing parents.
We actually agree here. A “judgment of charity” does not mean the same as presumption.
Jeff