Covenant | Green Baggins

Joel Beeke’s Address

March 15, 2012 at 5:25 pm (Covenant, Family)

The title of his address is “Parenting By God’s Promises.”

The premise of his book is that God is a God of grace. The covenant of grace is the bedrock of parenting. We parent based on the covenant. He doesn’t want to presume regeneration, nor does he want to ignore the covenantal promises. He argues that if we refuse to say to our children that they need to repent and believe, then we will create little Pharisees.

After laying the covenantal foundation of parenting, he gets into the how, which is written under the rubric of prophetic, priestly, and kingly tasks. Finally, he looks at some of the major problems. In this address, he wants to focus on four areas.

These foundational covenantal truths are the first issue. Parents need to believe that the covenantal structure of the promises is the reason why we will believe in God’s grace. The only perfect parents are those who don’t have kids yet. We should bring up our children “seamlessly,” which means that all the major influences will work together to bring up our children in the nurture of the Lord.

Secondly, we should use this rubric of prophet, priest, and king in the home. Of course, these offices have an echo in our lives in general. However, it is also true in our parenting. The prophetic task means that we should seek out opportunities for teaching. Family worship is vitally important to this. As priests, we are to be intercessors for our children. We should pray for them in our family worship. As kings, we have to fight against Satan and sin in this life. As parents, we help our children to discern God’s will. We discipline them, and guide them in their spiritual and temporal lives.

The third thing is that we must ourselves be models for living out the Gospel. Proper child-rearing is as much caught as taught. We have got to live what we teach them. A parent has to be a transcript of their teaching. We must love our children as Christ loves us. We should never fail to let our children know that we love them. We should not be shocked when our children sin. We sin, after all. We must ourselves grow in sanctification. The Gospel must inform and shape the way we deal with problems in the home. None of our children will ever treat us half as badly as we have treated our Lord Jesus Christ. We should therefore make sure that our interaction with our children should be largely positive.

Fourthly, we must recognize the times and seasons of the Christian life. How can we teach our children about the changes that will come into their lives before those changes occur?

3 Comments

The Sabbath and Salvation History

January 24, 2012 at 1:12 pm (Covenant, Sabbath)

It struck me today that there are broad connections between the Sabbath and the entirety of redemptive history. We will take as our starting point the magnificent contribution of Geerhardus Vos to our understanding of the Sabbath, when he said that the Covenant of Works was nothing other than an embodiment of the Sabbatical principle. Just as God worked for six days and rested the seventh, so also Adam was work for the probationary period, and then enter into his eternal rest. Adam had a weekly reminder of this probationary period in the Sabbath. So far, so Vos.

The thing that struck me was that the change of day from seventh day of the week to the first day of the week can then be connected to the change of covenant from works to grace. Now, here we have to be careful, since we can in no way imply that salvation was by works in the Old Testament. Nor are we positing a dispensational understanding of the different eras of history. The Covenant of Grace began in the Garden of Eden after the Fall. However, what we can say is that Adam was told “Do this, and live.” We can expand the sentence to say “Do this for six ‘days,’ and then you will enter your seventh ‘day’ of rest, which is eternal life.” The Sabbath is a weekly sign of that Covenantal promise affixed to the Covenant of Works. OT believers thus lived in a time when the Covenant of Grace was administered in type and shadow, not in its fullness. This might have some implications for the debate on whether the Covenant of Works was republished at Sinai. I would think this Sabbatical principle connected to covenant theology does support a form of republication at Sinai (especially given the rationale for Sabbath-keeping which we find in the Ten Commandments in Exodus, which hearkens back to the time of probation in the garden; and, the people did not celebrate the Sabbath on the first day of the week yet, since the Covenant of Works had yet to be fixed by Christ. The Sabbath pointed towards Christ’s work as bringing true rest). However, just trying to think through how that would work is making my head spin.

The change of day from seventh day to first day at the very least parallels the shift to the time of Gospel, when we hear “Live, and do this.” To be more specific, the connection goes like this: Jesus has now accomplished the fulfillment of the Covenant of Works, and so now the order of events is reversed. Instead of “Do this and live,” we now hear “Live and do this.” Expanding the sentence yields the following formulation: “Celebrate your eternal life on the day of the week on which Jesus obtained it for you, and then work in the light of that salvation afterwards.” Instead of work coming before rest, rest now comes before work.

Furthermore, there is a telescoping relationship of type and antitype in the OT and in the NT. In the OT, the weekly Sabbath telescopes into the seventh year Sabbath for the land, which in turn telescopes into the Jubilee, a pattern of seven times seven. The last implied link is eternity. In the NT, the beginning of this eternity has erupted into time with the beginning of the Sabbath rest obtained for us by Jesus. In the NT, there are elements of “already” and “not yet” with regard to the Sabbath, just as in the OT. The difference is that there is a lot more “already” in the NT than in the OT. We celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday in order to celebrate the new life and salvation we have in Christ Jesus. However, we still have not entered into our bodily eternal rest, even though our souls have, as Christians.

129 Comments

A Quick Comment on Union with Christ

October 14, 2011 at 9:27 pm (Covenant, Federal Vision, Heresy)

Posted by David Gadbois

I know there is an avalanche of great Leithart-related material streaming into Greenbaggins at this time, and I don’t mean to distract us too much from the primary issues of substance Lane and Reed have been focusing on, but I did want to slip in a few thoughts on Union with Christ that I made down in the combox of the “It Comes Down To This” post in response to one of the commenters there, and perhaps solicit some further discussion on the matter. I have slightly modified my comment for posting here.

————————————————

[previous commenter]: Are there reprobate within the visible Church, i.e., the kingdom of Christ? So, it’s quite plain that “in some sense” the reprobate within the visible Church are united to Christ.

I keep hearing variations of this argument but, no, it is not “plain” that they are “united” to Christ in any sense. There are logical steps and arguments that are missing to get from the premise that since some reprobate men are in the covenantal community of Christ and outward administration of the covenant of grace to the conclusion that they must be “in some sense” united with Christ. To speak of having unity with Christ – being one with Christ- is a profound thing, and it certainly must mean more than that they simply have a relation or connection to Christ. Even unbelievers outside of the covenant have a relation to Christ, in some sense.

First, it is a disingenuous move on the FV part to have the qualifier “in some sense” operate as a blanket over their formulation to cover their hides, so that it might mean almost anything and they don’t have to actually define what sense that is. For this and other reason FV has earned its reputation for being very weak on systematic theology.

We normally mean several things when we talk about being united with Christ, the union is legal, that is it is federal where Christ is our head as the second Adam, as well as existential (“mystical union”), the subjective sharing in the life of Christ by the operation of the Holy Spirit, wherein Christ is formed in us (Galatians 4:19). The reprobate clearly do not share in this union.

It is assumed that since the reprobate can be members of the covenant of grace and, indeed can be marked by the seal of the covenant, that this would imply a unity with Christ. But that would only be true if covenant membership in and of itself conveyed the blessing of union with Christ and other salvific blessings, that the covenant was unconditional. But Reformed theology and the WCF clearly see the CoG as conditional, the terms of the covenant state that true faith in Christ is required for the blessings promised. FVers always lose sight of the issue of conditional vs. unconditional promises in their conception of the covenant.

I think part of the problem with the FV is that they make the marriage covenant/relationship into a controlling paradigm for the covenant of grace and covenantal community, and it is the case that even the worst marriages still presuppose a level of existential unity and intimacy. But the Bible only actually establishes that there are similarities between the two, the analogy does not always hold up due to the discontinuities between them. The FV try to press this analogy to do the hard work for establishing their conclusions, rather than actually establishing their specific conceptions of the nature of the covenant from Scripture.

All of this reasoning also seems to ignore the fact that the Scriptures paint an adversarial picture of all those who are unregenerate, whether inside or outside of the covenant. In what sense can someone who is at enmity with God, with minds set on the flesh, not things of the Spirit, and that cannot please God (Romans 8) be said to be one with Christ? Indeed, “anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.”

Old Saint Berkhof steers us right when he remarks concerning “Erroneous Conceptions of the Mystical Union”:

Another error to be avoided is that of the sacramentarians, represented by the Roman Catholic Church and by some Lutheran and High Church Episcopalians….It makes the grace of God something substantial, of which the Church is the depositary, and which can be passed on in the sacraments; and completely loses sight of the fact that the sacraments cannot effect this union, because they already presuppose it.

30 Comments

Connecting Preaching to Covenant Theology

May 12, 2010 at 10:45 am (Covenant, Preaching)

I’ve decided to read through Hughes Oliphant Old’s entire set on the history of preaching. As I go along, I will note some of the more important insights from the set. Volume 1, interestingly enough, describes preaching in the Bible itself.

The first great insight I’ve come across so far is the very close connection there is between preaching and covenant theology. Old, depending on the work of Craigie, among others, has argued that the very nature of a covenant required the reading and the explanation of the covenant. In the ancient Near East, when a covenant was made between suzerain and vassal, the vassal was required to read the treaty regularly to his people, lest the people forget the nature of that covenant. Ancient Near Eastern treaties were always written down. The main reason for this was so that they would be read at solemn assembly to the people (p. 29). Old makes the point even more sharply when he says “Of the very essence of these treaties or covenants is that they are written down and regularly read and taught to the people in a public assembly” (p. 29, emphasis added). Old says, “If Craigie is right, then we have in the covenant theology of the Pentateuch the rationale for the reading and preaching of Scripture in worship – namely, that it is demanded by a covenantal understanding of our relationship to God and to each other” (p. 29). If the people are in a relationship with God based on a covenantal agreement, then it is absolutely necessary for the maintenance of that relationship that the terms of the covenantal agreement be regularly read and interpreted to the people.

Old goes on to describe what preaching looked like in the book of Deuteronomy. He observes three main elements in the preaching of Deuteronomy: remembrance, interpretation, and exhortation (p. 37). Retelling Israel’s story is absolutely essential, because God’s people are incredibly forgetful (see Deut. 4:9-14). A great deal of preaching should therefore be focused on helping people to remember what God has done in the past. Otherwise, our view of the future will get very dim indeed. The second element is interpretation (Deut. 1:5, for instance). This is obviously one of the main elements of any preaching. One simply has to explain the text. For the people need to hear what God means. Thirdly, there needs to be an exhortation for the people to do God’s will (Deut. 4:1, 6:4-6, 30:11,14).

I will conclude with this wonderful description of the power of God’s Spirit working through the Word (Old has the radiance on the face of Moses in the back of his mind as he writes these words):

God is a sacred fire, and to come near to him is to catch fire and glow with the same holy radiance. This begins to happen to us when we hear God’s Word. We are transformed after the image of Christ. It is through entering into that covenant that we enjoy his presence and through abiding in his presence that we are made holy (p. 25).

16 Comments

A Book Review of Michael Williams’s Book “Far As the Curse Is Found”

April 1, 2010 at 3:40 pm (Books (reviews and recommendations), Covenant)

Dr. Michael Williams is Professor of Systematic Theology at Covenant Theological Seminary. His degrees are from Moody Bible Institute (Diploma), Calvin College (BA), Harvard Divinity School (MTS), University of Toronto (Ph.D.), and Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary (M.Div.). He has been at Covenant since 1996.

The book he has written is, like many other books, good in some places, and not so good in other places. Unfortunately, the not so good places have some rather significant implications for the current situation in the PCA. But we’ll start with the good things.

Firstly, there is a salutary emphasis on resurrection in this book. He holds to the literal resurrection of Christ from the dead, and he believes that this fact has enormous implications for the Christian life. In an age which has sometimes forgotten the resurrection, this is a good thing. He takes trouble to connect the cross and the resurrection together, which is always important to do. In reference to this, he notes that resurrection was not any less difficult to believe in the first century than it is now (p. 4). If Williams overstates the importance of resurrection by saying that it is “the best single term to catch the nature of redemption and the character of the Christian hope,” (p. 15) we can perhaps forgive him in the current climate. Later we find that he has not forgotten the cross.

Secondly, it is a helpful idea sometimes to start with the Exodus, before one deals with Genesis. One could argue that Genesis tells us what is wrong, while Exodus gives us a picture of the solution, and this is a valid point. However, it is not an exaggeration to say, with Williams, that Exodus provides the pattern for redemption.

Thirdly, Williams dismisses myth as an acceptable way of thinking about Scripture (p. 54).

Fourthly, he has a sound principle of authorial intention (p. 77). He argues that the text is our key to the authorial intention (which can be found!).

Fifthly, he seems to have a clear understanding of the difference between grace and obligation (p. 105).

Sixthly, his account of why the land of Israel was the promised land for God’s people in the OT is insightful (p. 115).

Seventhly, he definitively holds to the visible/invisible church distinction, as well as a distinction of sign and thing signified (pp. 130, 251).

Eighthly, his insight into Luke 4 is illuminating (pp. 243-245).

And, ninthly, his correspondence of Pentecost to Mount Sinai is also very interesting (p. 261).

And now for the criticisms.

Firstly, he gets off on the wrong foot defining covenant as relationship (pp. 45, 143, 236). Relationship is already established before the covenant is made (witness Abraham’s relationship to God well before Genesis 15 and 17, as well as God’s relationship to Adam before the terms of the covenant were made). Covenant is not relationship, but agreement. We might say that a wedding is a covenant ceremony, but there jolly well better be a relationship ahead of time!

Secondly, he is firmly monocovenantal. Here are some quotations: “But the human story from creation to new creation does change, and that affects how God administers his creation covenant” (p. 46), “We may view covenant history not as a series of disconnected installments but as a single line. Each new covenant presupposes and renews what went before. Specifically, God’s redemptive acts to not oppose or deny his creative intent, but come as restorative promises in relation to creation,” (p. 51), “Yahweh enters a covenantal relationship with his creation and with his people. He sovereignly initiates that relationship, choosing and binding himself to the recipients of his steadfast love. The relationship in no way depends on the prior performance of the chosen; it is, from the outset, wholly gracious…The covenant of creation thus provides for newly constituted Israel what it affords God’s people in every age: a full-bodied way of life that we are called to live before God and in the midst of the world” (p. 62), “Both before and after the fall, man was related to God in virtue of God’s grace” (p. 73), “We have so far considered the climactic and defining moment of the marriage (the resurrection), the story of how the couple first met and became involved (creation), how the hero saved the heroine (the flood, the exodus), and what they promised to each other in their wedding vows (the covenant words)” (p. 170). I would especially draw people’s attention to the quotation from page 73, for on page 74, Williams goes on to deny the substance of the covenant of works. He says, “Thus before the Adamic fall the terms of the covenant were addressed to man as creature. After the fall the covenant (note: the same covenant! LK) addresses man not only as creature but also as sinner in need of redemption…As both grace and law (love and holiness) are essential to God’s character, so the two are inexorably bound together and interdependent within the covenant…Legal obligation is not the precondition for life and relationship.”

We must be careful here. The Westminster Confession of Faith clearly advocates some aspect of God’s favor to man before the Fall, as the precondition for any kind of relationship. However, the question that needs to be asked is this: on what basis would Adam have had eternal life? The question is not whether there were any aspects of non-legal relationship between God and man. Most of the Reformed world has agreed that there are. The question is much more narrow than this, and refers entirely to the basis upon which Adam would have obtained eternal life. Was it by grace or by works? Williams says that Adam already had life (p. 72): “What I am suggesting here is that life in covenant relationship with God was something that Adam enjoyed by God’s grace. He possessed it as a gift. He could lose that gift by the misapplication of his responsible freedom, his disobedience, but he could not earn or merit it.” In other words, life was not promised to Adam; rather, he already had it. This raises several serious questions: if Adam already had it, then we cannot call it eternal life, can we? If we cannot call it eternal life, then God put Adam in a catch 22 situation, for Adam could not have gotten out of a state that had the perpetual danger of losing what he had. There was no way for him to progress beyond this state. None whatever. Williams rejects any and all aspects of a “merit-based” covenantal arrangement: “it is dangerously misleading to describe Adam’s relationship as merit-based” (p. 72). Of course, this begs the question of what kind of merit we are talking about: Williams never defines it. But it would seem that any kind of works that would be the basis for obtaining eternal life is rejected by his formulation, whether it is condign, congruent, or pactum merit. Hence, the covenant of works is rejected by Williams in all its essential aspects: there is nothing beyond his current state for Adam to obtain, and there is no way for him to obtain anything beyond his current state.

Further, Williams seriously confuses law and gospel. In fact, he advocates a kind of covenantal nomism as the proper understanding of all covenantal arrangements between God and man. This much is clear from pages 150-151. Here are the relevant quotations: “It is imperative that we see that in the giving of the law we witness the same relationship between grace and obedience that God has maintained from the beginning.” Now, in certain contexts, this could be true, except that he brings it back all the way back to creation. This is clear form what follows: “As he created Adam to obey his word, Yahweh redeems Israel to obey his word. There is no question of merit in either case…I cannot say this strongly enough. The law was never intended to be a means of earning salvation…In fact, we can speak of the law as a further act of grace, a gift to God’s people that serves his covenantal and gracious purposes. Thus the call of the law is to translate God’s grace into action. The law is the divinely intended means by which the covenant is nourished and maintained” (pp. 150-151). If the law was never intended to be a means of earning salvation, then Jesus Christ did not earn our salvation by means of law-keeping. Law winds up being grace, and grace winds up being law. This is not mitigated by his statement “Man’s obedience brings blessing; his disobedience brings curse” (p. 68), because he does not define the nature of the blessing or the cursing. Hence it is a statement with which almost anyone could agree.

This book is required reading for every single seminary student who goes to Covenant Theological Seminary, and is required in a class taught by Dr. Williams that is required of every student going through Covenant Seminary. The students are being taught a non-confessional view of the Covenant of Works in this class, and through this book, whereas our denomination has ruled strongly in favor of the Westminster Confession’s treatment of the Covenant of Works. While the book has some good things we can glean from its pages, it should not be used as a standard treatment of covenant theology.

141 Comments

TE Keister’s Reply to TE Moon’s Defense of TE Lawrence – Part 3

February 28, 2010 at 10:50 pm (Assurance of Salvation, Covenant, Federal Vision, Heresy, Justification, Uncategorized)

Posted by Wes White

II. Exegetical Arguments

A. TE Moon argues (p. 2) that TE Lawrence’s view of the term is in accord with the NT understanding of the term “Christian.” However, the context of each of the three uses of the term in the NT does not support this claim, which depends on baptism being the marker or identifier of who is a Christian. The first instance of its use is Acts 11:26. Baptism is nowhere mentioned in the context, but believing and turning to the Lord certainly is (vs. 21). They were marked by their beliefs, primarily. At the very least, if baptism was supposed to be the marker of the Christian, it should have been present in this context, and yet it is absent. If a Christian is one who identifies with Christ, then in this passage the way one is identified with Christ is if a person believed and turned to the Lord. This is very similar to the common way of using “Christian” today to refer to someone who believes in Christ. The second occurrence of this word is even stronger against TE Moon’s assertion. The context is Paul’s defense before King Agrippa. Paul gives a detailed defense of what he believes. In short, he preached the Word to King Agrippa. King Agrippa responds eventually by saying, “In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?” (Acts 26:28). King Agrippa was obviously thinking that Paul intended to persuade by his words, not by baptism. At the very least, in King Agrippa’s mind, to be a Christian was to believe what Paul said about the Christ. The means of becoming one, for King Agrippa, was persuasion by words. The last instance of the word occurs in 1 Peter 4:16. In my opinion, this verse does not point in any particular way, except that it is contrasted with “murderer, thief, evildoer, and meddler” (vs. 15). In this context, therefore, it is primarily what a Christian does that is marking him out for persecution, since he is not doing any of those wrong things. The passage is not really about how one becomes a Christian. The context is certainly delimited by the closing “Amen” of verse 11. Therefore, verse 12 starts a new subject. This is why the end of chapter 3 would not be pertinent to the discussion, as it is not in the immediate context. The conclusion of this study of the contexts of the three occurrences of “Christian” in the New Testament point rather strongly against TE Moon’s assertion that the “Christian” was deemed so by baptism. So, the issue is not whether “Christian” means “elect,” but rather whether “Christian” means “believer.” I would argue that it means the latter. And a true believer is one of the elect.

The next section will take quite some time to unpack, since TE Lawrence quotes a variety of Scriptures to prove his point, and TE Moon simply asserts that TE Lawrence’s statement is a paraphrase of Scripture. As a result, we must exegete every single one of these passages to prove that they do not advocate undifferentiated benefits given to the elect and the non-elect in baptism.

B. First up is Matthew 28:18-20, which is said by TE Lawrence to be a proof text for the assertion, “Baptism is the initiatory rite by which we are united to christ and thus granted new life.” It is difficult to see how union with Christ language is even present in the Great Commission. No doubt TE Lawrence interprets the participial clause “baptizing them” to be explanatory of “make disciples.” However, there are two participial clauses that modify “make disciples” in this context. Baptizing is one of those clauses, but in verse 20, we see that “teaching them to observe” is parallel with “baptizing them.” So, making disciples, or, literally, “discipling all the nations” has to do with two things, not just one. It has to do with baptizing and teaching. In any case, union with Christ is not present in the passage. Being a disciple is present. But being a disciple means being baptized and being taught. The baptism is not defined in relation to union with Christ in this passage. Neither is new life present in this passage. So, this passage cannot be used to buttress the claim that baptism gives new life and union with Christ.

C. The second passage quoted is Titus 3:5. The text itself is complicated and fraught with exegetical difficulties. Basically, the question can be boiled down to this: what does “laver, or washing of regeneration” mean? Several commentators argue that the primary meaning is a spiritual washing (see Towner, 781; Marshall, 318; Mounce, 448; and Knight, 350). These commentators do not deny an allusion to baptism. However, the primary reference for them is to a spiritual cleansing of regeneration, which is invisible, a visible sign of which we receive in baptism. This is also the position of Calvin (pp. 332-334). Calvin carefully distinguishes between sign and thing signified even while connecting them together. What belongs to the sign stays with the sign (p. 333), and what belongs to the Spirit belongs to the Spirit. He states categorically that wicked men are neither washed nor renewed by baptism, even if the grace is offered to them. This is a far cry from what TE Lawrence is claiming. Also, it has been objected that discussing the distinction between sign and thing signified in relation to various passages is not exegetically helpful. Calvin, then, must be terribly unhelpful on page 334 of his commentary, when he claims that verse 6 refers not to the sign, but rather of the thing signified, in which the truth of the sign exists. Let me repeat, the distinction between sign and thing signified was not viewed by Calvin as relevant only to the concerns about Roman Catholics and Lutherans. He clearly saw the distinction as an exegetically helpful category for explaining the text. Calvin, then, is saying that the efficacy of baptism applies only to the elect (p. 333), and that wicked men get nothing good out of baptism. In fact, the efficacy of baptism towards the non-elect is said to be retained only in the hand of God who offers grace. That grace never reaches the non-elect. And, as we will see in Calvin’s comments on Romans 6, the efficacy is tied to Spirit-wrought faith.

D. The third passage quoted is Romans 6:3-4. Several key points are raised by TE Moon in this section (p. 4). First of all, TE Moon makes the claim that if the accusers are correct, then Paul should not have spoken the way he did about the instrumentality of baptism. Secondly, TE Moon argues that the distinction between sign and thing signified primarily relates to arguments that the Reformed have had with Catholic and Lutheran theology, and that such a distinction should not be used as a hermeneutical tool to understand Romans 6, at least not if it is used to say that Paul is not speaking of water baptism. If such a claim were made, says TE Moon, it would come near to violating what the Confession says about sacramental union, and the nature of how sacramental language can function. Lastly, he says that TE Lawrence was asked to divorce the sign from the thing signified. Let’s take these in order.

Firstly, how does Paul speak in Romans 6? One really cannot do better than John Calvin at this point. I, for one, do not believe that the rite of baptism is absent from Romans 6. Therefore, TE Moon’s rhetoric concerning the violation of every exegetical rule does not apply (although I think his comment is still off-base, as there are several well-respected scholars who do not hold that water baptism is in view at all, Lloyd-Jones being one of them. We would not want to accuse Lloyd-Jones of thereby violating every exegetical rule. Nor would such a position violate the Standards on the union of sign and thing signified, since one can legitimately speak of the sign or the thing signified without automatically including the other). Notice Calvin’s careful balance and qualifications:

For Paul, according to his usual manner, where he speaks of the faithful, connects the reality and the effect with the outward sign; for we know that whatever the Lord offers by the visible symbol is confirmed and ratified by their faith. In short, he teaches what is the real character of baptism when rightly received. So he testifies to the Galatians, that all who have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. (Gal iii.27.) Thus indeed must we speak, as long as the institution of the Lord and the faith of the godly unite together; for we never have naked and empty symbols, except when our ingratitude and wickedness hinder the working of divine beneficence (emphasis added, p. 221 of his commentary on Romans, which is on Romans 6:4).

Notice here that baptism can be an empty and naked sign. It happens when ingratitude and wickedness prevent the thing signified from being present.

It is possible to err on two sides on this question of how Paul speaks. The first is to say that Paul refers only to water baptism in Romans 6. The other error to say that Paul refers only to what baptism signifies (though, as I said earlier, this hardly breaks every exegetical rule). For now, we need to explore the former error. If one says that Paul is only speaking of water baptism, then one might also be tempted to say that everything Paul describes happens at water baptism. But if Paul does not have only water baptism in view, but the entire sacrament (sign, thing signified, and Spiritual relation of the two), then nothing concerning the time point of when the thing signified comes to pass may be inferred from this passage. Paul is talking about the whole picture of baptism. He is not talking only about water baptism. This means that we cannot say when the thing signified comes to a person. Romans 6 presupposes Romans 4-5, as several authors have noted (see Shedd, pp. 150-152 of his Romans commentary, and Moo, p. 366, quoting Dunn, who seems to have this issue right, even if he is off on other things, although he seems to have backed off from his earlier position in his later commentary). If the thing signified came at the same time as the sign, then Romans 4-5 would make no sense in the flow of Paul’s argument, since the whole argument is that we have been freed from sin’s guilt by justification by faith alone. Abraham’s example in Romans 4 is conclusive on this point, since Paul pointedly reminds us in Romans 4:10 that justification happened before circumcision. The remainder of the passage hints that those who come to faith after circumcision are also the children of Abraham (v. 12). However, if all these benefits come to a person simply by virtue of the water rite (as TE Lawrence explicitly claims), then such a theology must narrowly tie faith down in the point of its inception to the moment of baptism. Otherwise, no sense at all could be made of Romans 4-5, which explicitly ties saving benefits to faith, and not to baptism.

E. The fourth passage adduced by TE Lawrence is Ephesians 4:4-6. TE Lawrence claims that this passage proves that baptism brings a person into the fellowship of the church. However, the items in a series, which strongly emphasize the oneness of the church, are not causally related to each other. They are simply items in a series: one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God. How these things relate is not developed in Ephesians 4. Now, we do believe that baptism brings one into the visible church (as WCF 28.1 says). However, notice that the Westminster divines were very careful to summarize the Bible’s teaching on this as the “visible” church. They do not say that baptism gives the benefits it signs and seals, thus making a person a member of the invisible church. Of course, the minute such a distinction is made, the objection usually arises that this distinction bifurcates the church into two. It does not. There is a visible aspect and an invisible aspect to the church. There are distinct properties to each aspect. Both aspects put together constitute the church in the largest sense of the term.

F. Brief Excursus on the language of “sign and seal.”

1. A brief digression is necessary here in order to deal with the language of “sign” and “seal.” With regard to the language of “sign,” and analogy is helpful. Suppose a person is wandering around in his car, looking for Bismarck. He doesn’t really know where he is or where he is going. However, then he runs across a sign that says “Bismarck 22 miles.” He can then infer from this sign that if he continues on that road another 22 miles, he will be in Bismarck. The sign is no empty sign, for it points in the right direction. One would not expect to continue 22 miles in that direction, after having seen that sign, only to arrive in Minneapolis. However, it is easy to see that the sign is not Bismarck itself. One could extend the analogy to say that the spiritual relation between the two is the road connecting the sign with the city. One may choose not to go to Bismarck after all, in which case one does not get the thing signified. Seeing the sign does not give one access to the city. But when one comes to Bismarck, one is assured that he is there, because he remembers the sign that he saw. Similarly, if he had already been in Bismarck, and was leaving, but couldn’t quite remember what city it was he had just passed through, he could theoretically look at the sign backwards as he passed, and would be confirmed in his belief that it was Bismarck he had just been in. So the thing signified could come before, during, or after the sign. We must not tie down the thing signified to the time of the sign. Otherwise, we put God’s grace in a very small box indeed, and ascribe too much to the sign.

2. The language of “seal” is a bit trickier, since it sounds more efficacious. However, the language of seal functions very similarly, although we must use a different analogy. A letter from a king needed to have a confirmation that it was from the king. Therefore, there was wax that was used in connection with a signet ring to put a particular stamp upon the wax. This would guarantee to the reader that the message inside the letter was genuinely from the king. But the seal is not the letter itself. The letter could very well exist without the seal, although that would be unusual. Nor does a seal deliver the letter to anyone. What the seal says is that the letter is genuine to anyone who reads the letter. In the same way, baptism functions as a seal for our faith. It is faith that is the letter, faith that God gives us in order that we might be justified, sanctified, etc. When the letter is opened is not set at the time that the seal is placed on the letter. The letter might be opened later. One might already have the letter opened, and the king places his seal upon it afterward in order to confirm its genuineness. So the analogy works well whether faith comes before or after baptism. But someone who does not open the letter can see that the wax is genuine, but does not have the substance of the letter in his possession, and thus indeed does possess an empty sign, as Calvin noted above.

G. A fifth passage that TE Lawrence adduces is Galatians 3:26-27, which he argues proves that baptism brings one into fellowship with Christ and also brings adoption as sons of God. However, the text explicitly states that everyone who is a son of God is a son of God through faith (vs 26), not through baptism. The “for” in verse 27 does not explain something that is epexegetical to verse 26. Rather, verse 27 describes the sign, the reason they may have assurance that they are the sons of God. And the thing signified is here viewed as connected with the sign for those who have what verse 26 says. Again, Calvin is helpful and worth quoting at length, for his insight into the two ways Paul speaks (this is from his commentary on the passage):

But the argument, that, because they have been baptized, they have put on Christ, appears weak; for how far is baptism from being efficacious in all? Is it reasonable that the grace of the Holy Spirit should be so closely linked to an external symbol? Does not the uniform doctrine of Scripture, as well as experience, appear to confute this statement? I answer, it is customary with Paul to treat of the sacraments in two points of view. When he is dealing with hypocrites, in whom the mere symbol awakens pride, he then proclaims loudly the emptiness and worthlessness of the outward symbol, and denounces, in strong terms, their foolish confidence. In such cases he contemplates not the ordinance of God, but the corruption of wicked men. When, on the other hand, he addresses believers, who make a proper use of the symbols, he then views them in connexion with the truth- which they represent. In this case, he makes no boast of any false splendour as belonging to the sacraments, but calls our attention to the actual fact represented by the outward ceremony. Thus, agreeably to the Divine appointment, the truth comes to be associated with the symbols.

But perhaps some person will ask, Is it then possible that, through the fault of men, a sacrament shall cease to bear a figurative meaning? The reply is easy. Though wicked men may derive no advantage from the sacraments, they still retain undiminised their nature and force. The sacraments present, both to good and to bad men, the grace of God. No falsehood attaches to the promises which they exhibit of the grace of the Holy Spirit. Believers receive what is offered; and if wicked men, by rejecting it, render the offer unprofitable to themselves, their conduct cannot destroy the faithfulness of God, or the true meaning of the sacrament…(after quoting Romans 6:5, LK) In this way, the symbol and the Divine operation are kept distinct, and yet the meaning of the sacraments is manifest; so that they cannot be regarded as empty and trivial exhibitions (emphasis added, pp. 111-112 of Calvin’s Galatians commentary).

Calvin’s sermons are even more plain on this matter:

Baptism then maketh us not all Christians, and again we know, that to be made the child of God, is too great a benefit to be fathered upon a corruptible element (Sermons, p. 484).

And again:

But first of all let us mark here, that when Saint Paul speaketh of Baptism, he presupposeth that we receive the thing that is offered unto us in it. Many that are baptized do wipe away the grace of God: and notwithstanding that it be offered them, yet they make themselves unworthy of ir through their unbelief, lewdness, and rebellion. Thus ye see that the power of baptism is defeated in many men. But when there happeneth a mutual agreement and melody between God and us: then has baptism the effect whereof Saint Paul treateth and discourseth in this text (Sermons, p. 485).

Peter Barnes, in his excellent recent commentary on Galatians (p. 178), says much the same:

Surely, Paul is referring to water baptism. It is true that external baptism does not unite us to Christ. Paul is hardly saying that the rite of circumcision does not save or add to savlation, but the rite of baptism does! As John Stott puts it, “Faith secures the union; baptism signifies it outwardly and visibly.”

Plainly the views of Calvin and Barnes are not the views of TE Lawrence or of TE Moon. For TE’s Moon and Lawrence plainly say that even wicked men gain at least some advantage from the sacrament, even if it is a lesser version than what the elect receive (although such a two-tiered reception of the benefits of baptism is certainly nowhere taught in Scripture). Again, Calvin says that there is nothing signified present unless the sacrament be received in faith. Calvin says that wicked men gain no advantage from the sacrament whatsoever. Only believers get the thing signified, and they have to be believers (meaning that they must have true faith) to receive those benefits. Calvin says that baptism does not make us Christians, whereas TE Lawrence says that it does make us Christians. Calvin says, in effect, that a person is a Christian when sign and thing signified are both present. TE Lawrence says, in effect, that it comes in the water rite regardless of faith, or that faith itself comes in the water rite.

H. A sixth passage is Leviticus 8-9. It is difficult to know how TE Lawrence applies this to baptism and the benefits surrounding baptism. He says that it proves that a baptized person is brought into the fellowship of the church. I will be content on this passage simply to say that more work would need to be done on TE Lawrence’s part to prove his case. The consecration of Aaron and his sons might have relevance to one of the possible modes of baptism (sprinkling), but it is difficult to see how it relates to the efficacy of baptism, especially when circumcision would seem a much more direct place to go in the Old Testament for the theology of baptism.

I. A seventh passage is 1 Corinthians 12:13. Again, this passage is referenced by TE Lawrence to prove that baptism brings a person into the fellowship of the body, the church. The statement is vague in and of itself. It is true that baptism is a sign of joining the visible church, as has been said before. However, this passage is not talking about water baptism. Charles Hodge notes that water baptism and Spirit baptism are clearly distinguished in Matthew 3:11, John 1:33, Acts 1:5. He says further:

It is not denied that the one is sacramentally connected with the other; or that the baptism of the Spirit often attends the baptism of water; but they are not inseparably connected. The one may be without the other. And in the present passage there does not seem to be even an allusion to water baptism, and more than in Acts 1:5. Paul does not say that we are made one body by baptism, but by the baptism of the Holy Ghost; that is, by spiritual regeneration. Any communication of the Holy Spirit is called a baptism, because the Spirit is said to be poured out (p. 254 of his commentary).

Notice especially those important words about any outpouring of the Holy Spirit. We must not make the word-concept fallacy: that just because a word is present, that therefore a particular concept must be present. Just because the word “baptism” is present does not mean that water baptism is present. Peter Naylor, in his recent commentary on the epistle, also does not believe that water baptism is referred to here. His argument is that if water baptism was meant, Paul would left out the qualifying phrase “in the Spirit” (p. 327). There is, however, a very recent commentary with whom the views of Moon and Lawrence agree. He writes this:

This verse is one of the fundamental Pauline texts that teach the incorporation of baptized believers into Christ.

The author is Joseph Fitzmyer, a Roman Catholic theologian (see p. 478 of his commentary).

J. The eighth passage referenced is 1 Corinthians 6:11, which does not have the word “baptized” in it. Now this does not mean that baptism is automatically excluded (otherwise we would be committing the word-concept fallacy described above). However, the verb “washed” is not usually connected with baptism in the New Testament (see Fee, p. 246). The phrase “in the name of Jesus Christ” refers to all three verbs (wash, sanctify, and justify, all in the aorist tense), not just to washing. Furthermore, the preposition “en” is not Paul’s usual preposition to use when saying “baptize into the name of.” That verb is usually “eis.” It is more likely that Paul has in mind an inward washing from the guilt and power of the sins mentioned in the previous verses. Certainly, this verse does NOT say that baptism cleanses us from our sins, as TE Lawrence claims it says. The commentaries of Naylor (p. 144), Barrett (p. 141, who acknowledges an indirect reference to baptism, but says that it is “the inward meaning rather than the outward circumstances of the rite that is important to Paul”), Hodge (p. 100), and Thiselton (pp. 453-455 for a very nuanced version of what Barrett also said) also bear this out. Calvin says that the term “washing” is metaphorical, Christ’s blood being likened to water. But Calvin nowhere mentions baptism in connection with this text.

To be continued…

Posted by Wes White

20 Comments

TE Keister’s Reply to TE Moon’s Defense of TE Lawrence – Part 2

February 24, 2010 at 10:23 am (Baptism, Church, Covenant, Federal Vision, Heresy, Historical Theology, Uncategorized)

Posted by Wes White

You can read the first part of Lane’s reply here.

F. Next up is Heinrich Bullinger. He says:

For to whomever the Lord promises that he will be their God, and whomever he receives and acknowledges for his, those no man without horrible offense may exclude from the number of the faithful. And God promises that he will not only be the God of them that confess him, but of infants also; he promises to them[I.e. the infants of believers] his grace and remission of sins. Who, therefore, gainsaying the Lord of all things, will yet deny that infants belong to God, are his, and that they are made partakers of purification through Christ? (emphasis and explanation TE Moon, p. 383 of Decade 5).

The quotation does not prove that the infant gets grace and remission of sins through baptism. In fact, when Bullinger tells us how the child gets purification, he says that it is through Christ, not through baptism. This detail seems to have escaped TE Moon’s notice entirely, especially since it is in a section he italicized. Though this one quotation does not at all support TE Moon’s contention, Bullinger must be understood in the entirety of his teaching, not just in one quotation. Bullinger elsewhere says this:

Therefore in baptism, water, or sprinkling of water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and all that which is done of the church, is a sign, rite, ceremony, and outward thing, earthly and sensible, lying open and made plain to the senses: but remission of sins, partaking of (everlasting) life, fellowship with Christ and his members, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, which are given unto us by the grace of God through faith in Christ Jesus, is the thing signified, the inward and heavenly thing, and that intelligible thing which is not perceived but by a faithful mind (Decade 5, p. 250).

And then, proving that the unbelievers do not get anything through the sacraments, Bullinger says:

That each part (the sign and the thing signified, LK) retaineth their natures distinguished, without communicating or mingling of properties, it is to be seen hereby; that many be partakers of the sign, and yet are barred from the thing signified. But if the natures of the parts were united or naturally knit together, it must needs be then, that those which be partakers of the signs must be partakers also of the thing signified. Examples of scripture, as they are ready, so are they evident. For Simon Magus, in the Acts of the Apostles, received the sign, and was baptized: but of the thing signified he had not neither received so much as one iota (emphasis added, Decades 5, p. 271).

And again, later:

For so it cometh to pass, that many receive the visible sacraments, and yet are not partakers of the invisible grace, which by faith only is received (Decades 5, p. 273).

This is clearly not the position of TE Moon and TE Lawrence, who believe that baptism is always efficacious to give at least something to the receiver. TE Moon says that that Bullinger knows that, in the end, only the elect will have final and true enjoyment of those things (p. 6). However, Bullinger says that it is the elect, and only the elect, who enjoy any part of the blessings of the sacraments. The non-elect receive no benefit, not one iota, from the sacrament. Indeed, Bullinger is emphatic on this point.

Further, even in the part quoted by TE Moon, Bullinger says that Godpromises remission of sins. Bullinger stops short of saying that God givesremission of sins in baptism.

G. The next quotation is from the Belgic Confession.

Christ shed his blood no less for the washing of the children of the faithful than for adult persons; and, therefore, they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that which Christ hath done for them (from article 34, translation Schaff’s).

One does not even need to go outside the quotation itself to refute TE Moon’s reading of it. TE Moon simply quotes it, and does not argue the point specifically. However, as was said before, there is no disagreement over whether children can be saved, regenerated, etc. But the Belgic Confession does not say that that comes at the water rite. In fact, it says the opposite: the force of the “therefore” in the middle of the quotation shows that it because saving realities can already exist in infants, that therefore they ought to be baptized, plainly indicating that, in these cases, the thing signified already existed in their lives. Plainly, it does not come by baptism. And again, when one examines the context of the Belgic Confession, and sees what it says concerning sacraments in general, one can see the difference:

From article 33: For they are visible signs and seals of an inward and invisible thing, by means whereof God worketh in us by the power of the Holy Ghost.

It should be noted here that the thing “by means whereof” refers to the inward and invisible thing, as is evident by the phraseology of “God workethin us.”

And from article 34: as water washeth away the filth of the body, when poured upon it, and is seen on the body of the baptized, when sprinkled upon him, so doth the blood of Christ, by the power of the Holy Ghost, internally sprinkle the soul, cleanse it from its sins, and regenerate us from children of wrath unto children of God. Not that this is effected by the external water, but by the sprinkling of the precious blood of the Son of God. (emphasis added).

The Belgic Confession does not nail down the time at which this internal sprinkling occurs. It certainly does not say that it happens at the same time as the outward sprinkling. It merely says that there is an analogy between the inward and the outward sprinkling.

H. Next up is the Scotch Confession.

We are fully persuaded that, by means of baptism we are engrafted into Christ, made partakers of his righteousness, through which our sins are covered, and on account of which kindness and grace are purchased (translation TE Moon’s).

TE Moon argues that the phrase “by means of baptism” (per baptismum) is clearly instrumental (p. 6, footnote 11). On the surface, this quotation does not seem to be taken out of context. And this statement is not immediately qualified as all the others have been. However, there are still statements in the Scotch Confession and in the other works of John Knox that help explain. In the end, we will see that even the Scotch Confession does not say what TE Moon thinks it says. First of all, the Confession says this about Sacraments in general (I am translating the Scottish brogue into more contemporary English):

And their Sacraments, as well of Old as of New Testament, now instituted by God, not only to make a visible difference betwixt his people and they that was without his league: but also to exercise the faith of his Children, and, by participation of the same Sacraments, to seal in their hearts the assurance of his promise, and of that most blessed conjunction, union and society, which the elect have with their head Christ Jesus (emphasis added, p. 467 of Schaff).

This is the definition of what the Sacraments are for, and should be allowed to qualify the statements following concerning what Baptism does. In other words, the instrumental nature of Baptism is only true for the elect, and the instrumental sense is applied only to assurance.

The instrumental nature of baptism is not defined in the Scotch Confession. However, John Knox elsewhere qualifies his statements in exactly the same way all the others we have seen so far have done.

In 1556, 4 years before the Scotch Confession was published, Knox has this to say about baptism (again translating the brogue):

We have some respect also, that no more be given to the external sign, than is proper to it, that is, that it be the seal of justice and the sign of regeneration, but neither the cause, neither yet the effect or virtue…Baptism is the sign of our first entrance in the household of God our Father, by the which issignified that we are received in league with him, that we are clad with Christ’s justice, our sins and filthiness being washed away in His blood (emphasis added, volume 4 of the Works of John Knox, “Answers to Some Questions Concerning Baptism,” pp. 122-123).[1]

Secondly, in 1561, just one year after he wrote the Scotch Confession, he penned these words:

Albeit that the Sacraments are pledges to assure us of the grace of God, yet I Confess that they were unprofitable, except the Holy Ghost should make them effectual in us as instruments, to the intent that our faith should not be distracted from God, and stay upon creatures. Also, I Confess that the Sacraments are depraved and corrupt, when they are not referred to this end, to seek in Jesus Christ all that appertaineth to our salvation, and when they are applied to any other use than that our faith thereby should be wholly confirmed toward him (emphasis added, p. 366 of volume 5, in Additional Prayers for the Scholars of Geneva).

It should be noted that the same instrumental language is present here as is present in the Scotch Confession. To seek in Jesus Christ everything concerning salvation and that our faith should be wholly confirmed toward him, those are the only two proper uses of the sacrament, for John Knox. So the instrumental language of the Scotch Confession is explained here.

I. The Calvin quotation on the bottom of page 6 is possibly the most egregiously misunderstood passage of them all.

Baptism, must…be preceded by the gift of adoption, which is not the cause of half salvation merely, but gives salvation entire; and this salvation is afterwards ratified by Baptism.

Firstly, Calvin explicitly says within the quotation itself that salvation isafterwards ratified by baptism. Secondly, and more importantly, the relative pronoun “which” in the first line does not refer to baptism. Indeed, it cannot, for “baptismum” is neuter singular accusative, whereas “quae” is feminine singular nominative, agreeing with “gratia,” not with “baptismum.” Therefore, it is adoption which gives salvation entire, not baptism.[2]

J. Next comes a series of theologians that TE Moon thinks is adequately covered in Schenk’s book, The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant. The names dropped are Hodge, Warfield, and Lymond Atwater, and others. Hodge is dealt with below. But we must attend to Warfield and Atwater. Warfield’s doctrine of baptismal efficacy is stated in his article entitled “Christian Baptism,” found in volume 1 of his Shorter Writings (pp. 325-331). He is clear that baptism is a sign and seal of various salvific benefits, and is not those benefits themselves (p. 325). Furthermore, at no place does Warfield claim that salvific benefits come in baptism. Rather, he constantly uses the language of sign and seal (even using the letter analogy on page 327 that I used above). He says, “By receiving it, we do make claim to be members of Christ” (ibid). He does not say “By receiving it, we are made members of Christ.” Now, the claim is not all that baptism does, for Warfield. It is also a sign and seal of benefits. But he never says that baptism conveysthose benefits. It witnesses to God’s engagement and testimony to procure our salvation (ibid). Dr. Atwater believed in presumptive membership in the invisible church for infants of believers (Schenk, p. 131). But this is not the same thing as saying that salvific benefits come in baptism.

K. Charles Hodge is next on the list:

Since the promise is not only to parents but to their seed, children are by the command of God to be regarded and treated as of the number of the elect (“The Church Membership of Infants,” Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 30.2 (1858), pp. 375-376.

The quotation isn’t even relevant to the question of what baptism does. Hodge’s point is that infants can be said to be members of the church (and this is true regardless of whether they are baptized or not!). Furthermore, elsewhere in the article, he specifically states the opposite of the position of TE Moon and TE Lawrence:

The doctrine of baptismal regeneration is not only repudiated by all the Reformed Confessions, but, what perhaps, will to many minds be more convincing, it is impossible to reconcile the doctrine with their theology. Every one knows that the Reformed Churches adopted the theological system of Augustin. They all taught that none are born of the Spirit but those who are finally saved. If a man is called (regenerated,) he is justified; and if justified, he is glorified. There is no such thing, according to their doctrine, as falling from grace. If the Reformed therefore believed that all who are baptized are vitally united to Christ, and regenerated by the Holy Ghost, then they held that all the baptized are saved. They assuredly did not hold the latter, and therefore it is no less certain that they did not hold the former. It is impossible for a man to be a Calvinist, and believe the doctrine of baptismal regeneration (pp. 382-383).

L. Two final quotations (pp. 10-11), which TE Moon mangles out of all recognition.

The first is by Charles Hodge.

He stands in a peculiar [unique or special] relation to God, as being included in his covenant and baptized in his name; that he has in virtue of that relation a right to claim God as his Father, Christ as his Saviour, and the Holy Ghost as his sanctifier; and assured that God will recognize that claim and receive him as his child, if he is faithful to his baptismal vows (Essays and Reviews, p. 310).

In analyzing this quotation, TE Moon says:

Here we have nothing more than a summary of the position of TE Lawrence on the matters deemed heterodox by the majority: the language of adoption, salvation and forgiveness, and even the new life of the Spirit, all with the call to be faithful to one’s baptismal vows. This in Hodge is true adoption: it is preposterous to think that anyone has the right to call God his Father unless it is true. It may not be final, absolute adoption (Hodge knows that and so does TE Lawrence). But it must in some way be true, or they have no such right. And that applies to calling Christ their Savior, and the Holy Ghost their sanctifier (emphasis original).

In answer to TE Moon’s claims, it need only be pointed out that the relation to God is the foundation of the right to claim God as his Father. And that secondly, baptism, if anything, gives a person a right to claim God as Father, but does not actually effect that relationship. Such an interpretation is simply not responsible to what Charles Hodge said, either here, or elsewhere, as we have seen above. But the mangling has to do with an implied caricature of the committee’s position again, for the call to be faithful to one’s baptismal vows is a confessional matter, as is the language of adoption, salvation, and forgiveness. But such is not attributed by Hodge to baptism, but to the relation a person has with God, which is signified by baptism, but not effected by it.

M. Lastly, the Rev. George Mair’s position is my own. TE Moon summarizes Mair’s position, saying:

Thomas Boston remarks that his friend, the Rev. George Mair, taught that baptism seals all members of the visible Church to have a right to Christ and the benefits of the covenant (p. 11).

I believe that baptism seals all members of the visible church to have a right to Christ and the benefits of the covenant. Having a right to those things doesn’t mean that one has them, especially not simply by virtue of baptism. So Rev. George Mair is not saying the same thing as TE Lawrence or Moon.

[1] The six volume Works of John Knox are available on http://books.google.com/.

[2] As this particular volume of Corpus Reformatorum is available online, there is no reason TE Moon could not have checked the original Latin. At best, the English translation has an ambiguous “which.” But the qualifying statement at the end is still clear: adoption, which gives salvation entire,precedes baptism, and is ratified by baptism. In this particular quotation, there seems to be a definite reading comprehension problem on the part of TE Moon. Now, it is possible that TE Moon understands this passage simply to be talking about the fact that children get adoption and salvation. His words are: “Here is Calvin speaking of our covenant children as adopted and given salvation, which is sealed in baptism” (p. 6). Then follows the quotation. But if this is so, then it is not clear why he brought this passage into the discussion at all. At any rate, Calvin is certainly not saying that these things come by baptism. Rather, he is saying that they are ratified by baptism. Either way, the passage does not help TE Moon’s case in any way whatsoever.

2 Comments

TE Keister’s Reply to TE Moon’s Defense of TE Lawrence (Part 1)

February 21, 2010 at 11:16 pm (Church, Covenant, Federal Vision, Heresy, Theology, Westminster standards)

-Posted by Wes White

Since Lane is going to be on vacation, I’ve offered to post some things for him. I’m going to post in several parts his reply to TE Moon. TE Moon’s speech/paper was given at the 87th Stated Meeting of Presbytery in the context of debates about an investigative report on TE Lawrence. It consists of two main parts. The first part deals with historical arguments. The second part deals with exegetical arguments. I plan on posting it in five parts. Here is the first.

An Answer to TE Josh Moon’s Report on the Views of TE Greg Lawrence

A combination of factors will show that TE Moon’s arguments are without foundation at almost every point. These factors include faulty logic, faulty exegesis, and blatant misreading of the Reformed sources, none of which support his claim. His claim can be summarized thus: TE Lawrence’s views are in accord with Scripture, in accord with the confession, and in accord with significant strands of Reformed authors who have written on these topics throughout history, and that, therefore, to find a strong presumption of guilt concerning TE Lawrence’s teaching would disenfranchize many Reformed theologians, many Reformed confessions, and even parts of the Scripture itself. Our method will be to examine the historical arguments TE Moon sets forth, followed by the exegetical arguments.

I. Historical arguments

A. TE Moon starts out with a discussion of the controversy of Bavinck and Kuyper concerning presumptive regeneration. He argues that the issues were similar: “the place of children in the covenant, the efficacy of baptism, what it means for baptism to seal or be a means of salvation” (p. 1). He further argues that Bavinck himself describes the opposing views as being within the bounds of orthodoxy. However, the issue with Bavinck and Kuyper is not the same as is before us today. Bavinck and Kuyper were disputing the notion of presumptive regeneration, not what happens at baptism. Consider the following quote (from Hillenius) in the very near context to what TE Moon quoted in Saved By Grace:

As far as the time of regeneration is concerned, that is quite varied. The papists teach that it occurs in baptism, since they desire that baptism itself effects regeneration by virtue of the act performed, but we will not pause to refute that erroneous view.

Then Bavinck goes on to say, “The view which identifies the moment of regeneration as the moment one is baptized is a claim that the Holy Scripture nowhere teaches us, but on the contrary, Scriptures teaches us about several people who were regenerated already before baptism, such as Paul…” (pp. 88-89 of Saved By Grace). Consider also Bavinck’s claim concerning the following theologians: Calvin, Musculus, Beza, Ursinus, Alsted, de Bres, Alting, Acronius, Gomarus, Walaeus, Maccovius, Cloppenburg, Comrie, and many others. He says:

They viewed baptism not as a sign and proof that regeneration had already occurred in all elect infants, but as a seal of God’s promises to believers and their seed, promises that He would certainly fulfill toward all of them in His own time. Therefore Calvin declared that the baptism he had received in his youth first became profitable to him at a subsequent age (p. 90).

This qualifies the statement that TE Moon quoted, in that the variety of opinion was not whether the thing promised in baptism was actually given in baptism, but rather when regeneration occurred. The difference of opinion, then, left out the possibility that all the promises were fulfilled in baptism, as Hillenius’ quotation proves.

B. Next we have to deal with the ubiquitously quoted (in the FV literature) questions from Calvin’s catechism, which are universally misunderstood by FV’ers. Here are the two questions (quoted on p. 2 of TE Moon’s report):

Q. Are you, my son, a Christian in fact as well as in name? A: Yes, my father.

Q: How do you know yourself to be? A: Because I am baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (emphasis TE Moon’s).

First of all, we must notice that there are two distinct questions here. They are not one question, but two. This does have hermeneutical ramifications, since the first question has to do with the actual status of the child, and the second question has to do with the knowledge about that status. Every Reformed theologian of which this author is aware agrees that baptism forms part of our assurance of salvation. All the second question is getting at is the question of assurance. How does one know that he is a Christian in fact as well as in name? Well, one has the sign and seal of salvation. This question and answer makes no claim about how the state of being a Christian comes about. It merely says that baptism is a means of assurance concerning one’s true state. Furthermore, this is a catechism. It is not here delineating all the different things that filter into one’s assurance of salvation. That this is what Calvin means is proven quite adequately by the Institutes IV.15.2:

For Paul did not mean to signify that our cleansing and salvation are accomplished by water, or that water contains in itself the power to cleanse, regenerate, and renew; nor that here is the cause of salvation, but only that in this sacrament are received the knowledge and certainty of such gifts. This the words themselves explain clearly enough. For Paul joins together the Word of life and the baptism of water, as if he had said: “Through the gospel a message of our cleansing and sanctification is brought to us; through such baptism the message is sealed.”

Notice that the sacrament seals the Word, as it were. Certainly, this is not what TE Lawrence is saying, nor is it what TE Moon is saying.

C. Next up is TE Moon’s gross mishandling of Ferguson and Owen. The quotation comes from Ferguson’s book John Owen on the Christian Life:

[Baptism] is to be to the Christian a constant reminder and pledge of his being constituted a Christian, and of the basic elements in the ‘new creation’ which has come in Christ.’ (emphasis TE Moon’s).

TE Moon claims that this is using the name “Christian” to refer to someone who is baptized. However, the quotation is not saying that baptism constitutes one a Christian. It is saying that baptism is a constant reminder and pledge of his already having been constituted a Christian. That this is the proper way of interpreting Owen and Ferguson is proven by the context, where Owen is quoted to say that baptism is a token and pledge of forgiveness of sins: “He lets them know that he would take away their sin, wherein their spiritual defilement doth consist, even as water takes away the outward filth of the body” (emphasis, added, Owen’s Works, VI, pp. 465-6, quoted in Ferguson, p. 216). The phrase “would take away” refers not to a future act, but to the fact that in baptism God is promising to forgive sins.

D. The next quotation is from the Directory of Public Worship. This statement has an ellipsis in the middle of it. Here is how TE Moon quotes the DPW: “That children, by their baptism…are Christians” (p. 3 of TE Moon’s report).

It would be good to see the full quotation:

That children, by baptism, are solemnly received into the bosom of the visible church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers; and that all who are baptized in the name of Christ, do renounce, and by their baptism are bound to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh: That they are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized.

The statement is not that children are Christians by virtue of the their baptism. The statement rather says that they are federally holy before their baptism. The words “federally holy” are a further explanation of the phrase “that they are Christians.” Therefore, the natural interpretation of the text is that children are Christians, that is, federally holy, before baptism, and thus ought to receive the sign. This is confirmed by the “therefore” clause at the end. They are baptized because they are federally holy, not vice versa. The phrases are carefully qualified here. TE Moon quoted the statement out of context, giving the impression that baptism was the instrument by which the child becomes a Christian in the sense being talked about here, whereas the federally holy sense of “Christian” is present before baptism, not because of it. Furthermore, this comes in the context of teaching a series of theses about what baptism means, and how it ought to be taught. Each “that” introduces a new item in the series. Therefore, it is hermeneutically suspect to take part of a phrase from one clause and combine it with part of a phrase of another clause.

E. TE Moon quotes Ursinus’s commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (quoted at the bottom of p. 5 and the top of p. 6, from p. 366 of the Commentary). The quotation in full reads:

[T]hose are not to be excluded from baptism, to whom the benefit of the remission of sins, and of regeneration belongs. But this benefit belongs to the infants of the church; for redemption from sin, by the blood of Christ and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult.

TE Moon thinks that Ursinus is saying that the infants of believers indiscriminately are said to have remission of sins, regeneration, and redemption (p. 6 of the report). This reading ignores three crucial elements: 1. Everyone agrees, even TE White and TE Keister, that infants can be saved. In fact, TE Keister and TE White believe that it is not necessary always to expect a violent conversion experience out of children, and that one can believe a child’s profession of faith. But not all children are regenerate from the womb, and not all children born of Christian parents are regenerated from the womb. It is just as dangerous to assume that they are regenerate when they are not, as it is to assume that they are not regenerate when they are. One can legitimately err on the side of giving the benefit of the doubt, as long as each parent takes upon himself the responsibility to nurture and admonish the child in the Lord’s grace. But all of that is not precisely the issue at hand. All the previous words in this paragraph were to prove that TE Moon set up a straw man. The main point at issue is: do these benefits of which Ursinus speaks come at baptism? Even in the passage, the answer is clearly not. For he says that the children already have these things (if he means the whole church, then he is not speaking in a head for head fashion, but in a generalizing fashion). He nowhere says that such benefits are given to the children at baptism. Baptism should come to children, because they have the thing signified (one should read here that they can have the thing signified: he is surely not saying that every child of Christian parents in fact has all these things). Ursinus says this explicitly just a little later on down the page: “those unto whom the things signified belong, unto them the sign also belongs.”

2. Ursinus uses the word “promised” in the last phrase. In the context, it seems plain that baptism is the promise. Whether they have faith or do not yet have it, baptism is the promise that faith will bring salvation.

3. TE Moon neglects the overall context of Ursinus’ theology and other statements which qualify the statement quoted. For instance, Ursinus is clearly distinguishing between sign and thing signifed in the theses concerning baptism, which run from page 371-373 of his commentary on the Heidelberg Catichism. He says the following:

When baptism is, therefore, said to be the laver or washing of regeneration, to save us, or to wash away sins, it is meant that the external baptism is a sign of the internal, that is, of regeneration, salvation and of spiritual absolution; and this internal baptism is said to be joined with that which is external, in the right and proper use of it (emphasis added, p. 372).

And again:

All those who are baptized with water, whether adults or infants, are not made partakers of the grace of Christ, for the eternal election of God and his calling to the kingdom of Christ, is free (p. 373).

These are precisely the sort of qualifications necessary, and yet which are not present either in TE Moon’s presentation, nor in TE Lawrence’s theology. Again, compare TE Lawrence with the above:

LK: Let’s put it this way, the resurrection, or being united into the death and resurrection of Christ, does that pertain to the thing signified or to the sign, in Rom. 6 for instance?

GL: I would not distinguish.

LK: But that raises the question, then, if you don’t distinguish, then if everybody does get that at the water sign, then everybody does get the thing signified at the same time, right? Is that what you’re saying?

GL: Yeah. By virtue of the rite of baptism, to some degree they become recipients of those benefits, in terms of their union with Christ (pp. 59-60 of the final report).

TE Lawrence says that everyone becomes recipients of the thing signified by virtue of the rite of baptism. In order to avoid confusion at precisely this point, TE Keister made the qualification “at the water sign.” TE Lawrence is clear on this point. TE Lawrence is equally clearly out of accord with the Standards, which explicitly contradict the idea that these benefits come at the time of the sign (cf. WCF 28.1, 28.6).

Another essential point to notice here is that Ursinus uses the phrase “infants of the church.” This phrase is not the same as TE Moon’s “the infants of believers.” For how one defines the church will be important as to how the phrase “infants of the church” should be understood. To understand this, we must look at what Ursinus says about the church:

The Catechism in answer to the Question under consideration, defines the church to be that assembly, or congregation of men, chosen of God from everlasting to eternal life, which the Son of God, from the beginning to the end of the world, gathers, defends, and preserves to himself, by his Spirit and word, out of the whole human race, agreeing in true faith, and which he will at length glorify with eternal life and glory. Such is the definition of the true church of God of which the Creed properly speaks (p. 286 of the Commentary). (See question 54 of the Heidelberg Catechism, LK).

Now, although Ursinus goes on to make all the normal distinctions in terms of how we speak about the church, we have to notice the italicized parts of the above quotation. This indicates that the above defines the normal usage of the word “church” in Ursinus’s commentary. Therefore, “infants of the church” does not refer to all children of believers, as TE Moon suggests, but rather refers to elect infants, who are part of the true church. And precisely because we cannot see who is elect and who is not, all children of professing believers are to be baptized. But Ursinus is not saying that all children of believers indiscriminately have the thing signified.

To be continued…

Posted by Wes White

6 Comments

The Manhattan Declaration

December 9, 2009 at 10:10 am (Abortion, Covenant, Law, Marriage, Ph-Government)

I know I’m a bit slow to comment on the Manhattan Declaration, but I wanted some of my fathers in the faith to speak out first before I said anything. I had some initial impressions, but wanted them debated before I stuck out my neck. I shall stick it out now.

On each of the three issues, I issue a hearty amen to the position of the declaration. It would be difficult to do otherwise, when these issues are of such paramount importance, and the stance taken so completely biblical. I have picketed abortion clinics in the past, and support doing so now and in the future (as long as it is done legally). I firmly stand for marriage as God has defined it, not as how man wants to redefine it. And, in our context, where the freedom to worship God has been constantly eroded by humanistic thinking, what Christian wouldn’t be eager to say that he wants the freedom to worship the God he loves?

However, the concerns of Sproul, MacArthur, Horton, and Challies have all raised some very important issues about particular words and ideas used in the effort to create a monolithic Christian coalition on these issues. And there is where the rub lies. How is the word “gospel” and “Christian,” among other words, being used in this document? Is it a wax nose, twistable by any signer or reader into the shape he wishes? I was forced to come to this conclusion: those words are empty vessels, into which anyone can pour what meaning he chooses. I would much have preferred language like this: “Although we do not agree on the definition of “gospel” or “Christian” or “justification,” we can agree on these social issues.” This, I think, would have allowed folks like the ones linked above to sign this document in good conscience. It is really too bad that these flaws are deal-breakers for the men listed above, and for myself, especially when SOO many men I deeply respect have signed it, and when I yearn to say yes on the particular issues.

93 Comments

A Problem Passage for the Definition of “Covenant”

July 7, 2009 at 12:48 pm (Covenant)

I was just reading 1 Kings 8 in preparation for the Lord’s Day coming up, and I noticed a use of the term “covenant” which is extremely problematic for those who define “covenant” as “relationship.” This passage is 1 Kings 8:21. In the context, which is Solomon’s dedication of the temple, we note some interesting things.

First of all, what Solomon says indicates very clearly that the temple is the fulfillment of God’s promise made to his father David. However, verse 21 also implies that the fulfillment of the promise made to David is in turn connected to the covenant God made with the fathers when He brought them out of Egypt. This is indicated by the pronoun “our” connected to the noun “fathers.”

One is reminded of the preface to the second giving of the law in Deuteronomy 5, where Moses makes the point that it was not with their fathers (it was, but not absolutely and exclusively) that God had made the covenant, but with those present right there, all of them who were alive at the time of Deuteronomy being given to the people. In other words, 1 Kings 8:21 is a very important verse for deciding what the word “covenant” means, since Solomon is connecting the word not only with the Davidic promise-covenant, but also with the Mosaic covenant.

And here is what he says: the covenant actually resides in the ark of the covenant. What was in the ark of the covenant? The law of God (see verse 9). If covenant equals relationship, then it could not reside in the ark of the covenant. A relationship does not reside in a physical place. But it is actually said that the covenant was IN the ark of the covenant in the obvious form of the tablets of stone, on which were written the Ten Commandments. This points fairly conclusively to a definition of covenant as “agreement.” Of course, the relationship is based on the agreement, and the agreement and the relationship built upon it are closely tied together. And no, contrary to all the rhetoric of the FV folks, saying a covenant is an agreement is not a cold, legal, paperish sort of thing, any more than a marriage certificate is. Looking at my marriage certificate brings many happy memories back to me of the wedding, and of my wife, just as looking at the covenantal agreement in Scripture brings us back to God’s love for us, and the love we are required to give back to God in the form of obedience to the Ten Commandments.

27 Comments

« Older entries

Green Baggins

Joel Beeke’s Address

The Sabbath and Salvation History

A Quick Comment on Union with Christ

Connecting Preaching to Covenant Theology

A Book Review of Michael Williams’s Book “Far As the Curse Is Found”

TE Keister’s Reply to TE Moon’s Defense of TE Lawrence – Part 3

TE Keister’s Reply to TE Moon’s Defense of TE Lawrence – Part 2

TE Keister’s Reply to TE Moon’s Defense of TE Lawrence (Part 1)

The Manhattan Declaration

A Problem Passage for the Definition of “Covenant”

Recent Comments

Blog Stats

Pages

c

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Blogroll

Books I have recently read

Books I am now reading

Books for future reading

Archives

Blog directories

Top Clicks

Email Subscription

Tags

Categories

Follow “Green Baggins”

May 2013
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
« Apr
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31