Green Baggins

In reviewing chapter 10 of RINE, we need to start out with some definitions. Sacerdotalism has to do with a priesthood caste in the church. It is the idea that the priesthood in the church has supernatural powers. It is the idea that such a priesthood needs to be exalted at the expense of the laity. As such (although obviously related in practice) it may be distinguished from sacramentalism, the idea that the Sacraments work ex opere operato, or magically. 

The reason this distinction is important is because Wilson has not quite grasped what Warfield was targeting, in my judgment. Wilson says that Warfield is “disparaging the means of grace” (p. 85). This is the result of a rationalist system (Wilson’s own words). Then follows a lengthy quotation from Warfield’s book The Plan of Salvation. In this quotation, what Wilson sees is a denial of the means of grace in salvation in the interests of pure supernaturalism (p. 86). He calls Warfield’s view “closer to refried Gnosticism” (p. 86). Just to be clear, Wilson argues thusly: “I take his insistence that God works ‘directly’ on the human soul as a claim that God is working ‘apart from means'” (p. 86). Now, Wilson immediately qualifies this by saying that Warfield elsewhere acknowledges that God uses means of grace (p. 86). And he ends by asking this question, “But how is this not God working ‘indirectly’?” (p. 86). I will explain how this is so.

Warfield’s target is not sacramentalism in the quotation, but rather sacerdotalism. This is evident from the reasoning: “and has not suspended any man’s salvation upon the faithlessness or caprice of his fellows” (emphasis added). The target here is plainly a human priest getting in the way of God’s grace. He explicitly says “Sacerdotal system” in the quotation, which in turn defines “this human factor indeed, is made the determining factor in salvation” (quoted on p. 86 of RINE). It is plain, then, that the human factor which is intruded is the target of Warfield’s statement, and not the means of grace unmediated by a priest. Because Wilson has seemingly conflated sacerdotalism with sacramentalism in the mind of Warfield, he thinks that a denial on Warfield’s part of the former must also imply a denial of the latter, and furthermore a downplaying of the significance of the sacraments. Wilson further misreads Warfield when he says that “According to Warfield’s definition, to have the covenant dispensed in ordinances and to have them be spiritually efficacious, is sacerdotalism” (p. 88). This is plainly not Warfield’s definition of sacerdotalism. Warfield’s definition is plainly that mentioned above: a human intruder in the pathway of God’s grace. But surely we can therefore see that just because Warfield denies sacerdotalism does not mean that he has too low a view of the sacraments. What was Warfield’s view of baptism and the Lord’s Supper?

To answer that question, we must go to the Selected Shorter Writings, volume 1, pp. 325-338. Given the fact that Warfield was such a target of Wilson in this chapter, it might have been good had Wilson referenced these two short articles, which are quite clear concerning Warfield’s view. Warfield starts out his chapter on baptism by talking about circumcision, coming to the standard Reformed conclusion that (from circumcision to baptism) “the form of the rite was changed, not its substance” (p. 327). Then follows this statement:

God gave it to (Abraham) as a “sign” and a “seal,” not to others but to himself. It is inadequate, therefore, to speak of baptism as “the badge of a Christian man’s profession.” By receiving it, we do make claim to be members of Christ…The meaning of that (the “honorable name in James 2:7, LK) is that we have been marked as the peculiar possession of our Lord, over whom he claims ownership, and to the protection and guidance of whom he pledges himself…What it means is just this and nothing else: that we are the Lord’s. What it pledges us just this and nothing else: that the Lord will keep us as his own. (pp. 327-328). Salvation is cleansing, salvation is ransoming. Baptism represents it from the one point of view, the Lord’s Supper from the other (p. 330).   

Does this sound like a rationalistic downplaying of the Sacrament to you? And furthermore, in Warfield’s view of the Lord’s Supper, he uses the same procedure: he starts from the OT type, and moves from there to the antitype.

What is done in the two feasts (passover and the Lord’s Supper, LK) is therefore precisely the same thing: Jesus Christ is symbolically fed upon in both…It is much rather only a new form given to the Passover (p. 333). All who partake of this bread and winde, the appointed symbols of his body and blood, therefore, are symbolically partaking of the victim offered on the altar of the cross, and are by this act professing themselves offerers of the sacrifice and seeking to become beneficiaries of it. That is the fundamental significance of the Lord’s Supper…by which we testify our “participation in the altar” and claim our part in the benefits bought by the offering immolated on it (pp. 336-337).

Finally, it should be noted that Wilson says this: “I quote Warfield at this point knowing that as a confessional Presbyterian he had to (and did) acknowledge that God established and used means of grace within the Church. I do not want to misrepresent him as overtly denying that there are means of grace. But I do want to argue that Warfield was being inconsistent here” (p. 86). I am arguing that Warfield was not being inconsistent, but rather was denying sacerdotalism, and not sacramentalism, and even though he would also deny sacramentalism, he would not thereby downplay the importance of the sacraments. At the very least, he does not approach a refried Gnosticism. I will go over the latter part of this chapter in another post.

Update: to tack on something that is unrelated to this specific post, but very much related to the FV, see this outstanding quotation from Jonathan Edwards.

It’s a pity that Wilson never lets us know what he thinks about anything. :-) I have a question for him, though. Wilson was examined by his presbytery on many issues related to the Federal Vision. Now, I am not familiar with the makeup of his presbytery, but here is my question: did Wilson invite TR’s to his examination? Of course, Wilson was not on trial. He wanted to do this to show people where he stood on certain issues. But did he feel compelled to invite TR’s to his examination, to insure that all points of view were represented in the questioning? Of course, we must ask the question, are there any TR’s in the CREC? If there are not, then two conclusions must result. The first is that Wilson was not required to invite any TR’s to his exam. But the second, equally important conclusion, is this question: how convincing has the examination been to the TR’s, who think that the CREC is basically a rubber-stamping outfit? Now, let me be clear. I am not well-enough aware of the makeup of the CREC to say that myself. In other words, I do not claim that the CREC is a rubber-stamp outfit. However, the question asked above is a valid question. Let me be clear on this point as well: I am not accusing Wilson of hypocrisy. Rather, I am asking whether he is being consistent on this point. I have no desire to continue talking about the makeup of the committee. Wilson can have all the last word(s) his heart desires. I will only say this logical syllogism: if the PCA as a whole thought that the “stacked” deck (to grant Wilson’s point for the moment, though I disagree with him here) seriously affected the accuracy of the report, they would not have approved the report. This, to my mind, was the entire issue of the discussion surrounding Novenson’s proposal. Novenson wanted a more accurate report. He felt that the addition of two more members to the study committee sympathetic to the FV would produce a more accurate report. Obviously, the majority of the PCA disagreed with him.

And really, the question of whether the committee was stacked is a distinct question from whether the nature of the committee affected the accuracy of the outcome. The committee acknowledged its mistake in the Wilson quotation by removing the inaccuracy.  The committee felt itself to be on solid ground with regard to the rest of the report. One further point bears mentioning. By submitting the report to the internet, and listening carefully to the FV responses (and believe you me, they did listen very carefully to the FV responses!), the committee was able to test its conclusions against the reaction of the FV guys. So, in reality, though no FV men were on the committee, they still had plenty of chances to prove their point on the internet before GA. The report as it stands now would therefore be no different if there had been FV guys on the committee. The difference is that there would have been a minority report. And, given the nature of the vote at GA, is there really any doubt as to which report would have won out in the end? I respect Wilson quite a bit. I have never tried to use rhetoric against him. Therefore, I hope that these honest questions and points will attain a fair hearing with him. He has nothing to lose by considering whether these argument have any weight. I have no wish to antagonize him, especially since our conversation on the blogs seems to be benefitting people. At least, most of the responses I have received (from both sides, amazingly enough!) has been generally positive. Let’s keep that going. There is therefore no need for Wilson to use mockery in response to this blog-post. I hope he will not.

That being said, let’s move on to the next chapter of RINE. This chapter is concerned with the marks of the church (pg. 79). He discusses the Word, Sacrament, and discipline. He seems to take Calvin’s view on the place of discipline: not a mark, but exceedingly important, nevertheless. I like this statement: “A Church with no discipline is a Church with no immune system” (p. 80). I am not sure that the over-emphasis of discipline constitutes a reason to reject discipline as being a mark of the church (Wilson, in so doing, is not undervaluing discipline: he says that discipline is a matter of the well-being of the church, not of the being of the church). I was a tad puzzled by this statement: “In other words, lack of discipline will bring about a collapse soon enough but is not to be identified with that collapse” (p. 81). If he has just said that discipline constitutes the immune system of the church, then wouldn’t the lack thereof be very similar to AIDS? AIDS kills the person if no other disease takes the person first. AIDS then would constitute the collapse of the person, whether by first or by secondary causes. I realize, of course, that other factors often do contribute to the downfall of a church.

One other question I have for Wilson is this: when he affirms nulla salus extra ecclesiam (no salvation outside the church), does he allow for exceptions to this rule? As Wilson has previously agreed that someone can be in the church but not of the church, so is it not also possible to be outside the church, and yet have eternal life? I am thinking here of the discussion on baptism in WCF 28.5: if baptism is the mark of someone belonging to the church, and yet someone can be regenerated without that sign, then surely it follows that someone can be regenerated, and be part of the invisible church without being part of the visible church.