I haven’t been reading much of Wright’s press lately, but this interview caught my eye. Here are some of my favorite quotations.

Regarding homosexuality and the ECUSA:

There are lots of issues which are bubbling up under the surface. At the moment, because of the peculiar configuration of the way the postmodern culture has worked, with the deconstruction of the old ways of doing society that we all knew, one of the sharp presenting issues which has come up within our culture, is the deconstruction of marriage, and the reconstruction of more free-floating relationships in which the male plus female thing is a kind of an incidental. And why not do male plus male, or female plus female, or indeed threesomes, foursomes, fivesomes whatever. I mean there’s plenty of that going on in America as a kind of cultural mandate which people are following. And the church is finding it very difficult to hold its own in the middle of all of that.

On the probability of a split within the Anglican communion:

the church at every period in history has faced crises, struggles, big issues which have threatened to tear things apart. I think it looks now as though a great many people in North America are absolutely determined to ignore what the rest of the community’s saying, and say ‘We’re just going to do this, and if you don’t like it, tough, we’re off on our own’. If that means a loss, and it does mean a loss because that would mean part of the Anglican communion splitting off from the rest, then that is a tragedy, but it’s actually been a tragedy waiting to happen for a very long time. Because there are many churches and ECUSA has been one of them, which have embraced a particular type of theology, which leads it further and further away from where most of the rest of the Anglican communion are. Of course they will tell it the other way, they would say that the Africans and others have embraced a kind of fundamentalism which leads them away from academic purity and respectability. As an academic myself I would be bound to disagree with that. But inevitably, in any family squabble, you get this kind of ‘I said, you said, why did you say this?’ etc., to and fro, and that’s where we are right now. It’s not pretty, but it is actually what family life is sometimes all about.

On Paul:

In a sense, St Paul ought always to freak us all out, Protestants included.

On the resurrection:

Let’s be quite clear. The word ‘resurrection’ in the ancient world, the Greek word ‘anastasis’ always referred to something that we would call a physical resurrection. That is to say, the word ‘resurrection’ was never a kind of synonym for life after death, or a spiritual survival, or ‘John Brown’s body lies a-mouldering in the grave, while his soul goes marching on’. The ancient world was full of theories about bodies mouldering in graves and souls being off somewhere else, and that is not resurrection. It never was. The Greeks and Romans who explicitly disbelieved in resurrection. I should say we’re sitting in a room with Greek and Roman texts around the wall as we’re doing this recording, and many of the authors on these walls, Greek and Roman writers, when they face the idea of resurrection they say, ‘Well we’ve heard silly stories about this sort of thing, but we all know it doesn’t happen, dead people stay dead’. Aeschylus said that, Pliny said that, Homer said that. What they meant always involved bodies. It’s only in the late 2nd century and thereafter that some people who are trying to put together Christianity with bits of pagan philosophy, used the language of resurrection but mean a kind of spiritual survival. And that is a new innovation in the late 2nd century AD. It’s certainly not what the early Christians were all about.

On the nature of Christianity:

The point about Christianity is that it’s not just a new religious teaching or new ethical teaching, it’s certainly not a new way to go to heaven when you die, it’s that God’s new world has broken into the present one through Jesus of Nazareth. It’s the God who is the creator that we’re talking about, and Christianity is about new creation in and through Jesus. Dealing with the problems of the old – that’s what the Atonement is all about – and launching God’s new creation.

On the importance of the Old Testament to understanding the New:

Trying to get the message of the New Testament without the Old Testament is trying to make a tree stand up without a root system. Many Christians ignore the Old Testament and profit still from the fact that this tree is still flowering and bearing fruit. But in fact if you try cutting off that root system, you’ll find the tree falls down dead pretty soon.

Islam and Christianity:

the nub of it is really the question as to whether we are meaning the same thing by the word “God”. Whether the “Allah” of the Muslim, is actually the same as the God who is the father of Jesus Christ. Because classical Islam has said very, very definitely, ‘There is one God and he does not have a son’. And classical Islam has said very definitely that Jesus of Nazareth is a prophet but he did not die on a cross, and he was not raised from the dead. Now those are not little incidentals to Christianity, and it isn’t just that there are things Christians believe happened to Jesus. They are defining things, by which we know who the Father of Jesus is. The Father of Jesus is the one who we see revealed in the Son who dies and rises again. So we actually know the meaning of the word God by looking at Jesus.

On world religions:

it isn’t just that we’re all three branches on the same stem. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are different sorts of things. And that’s part of the difficulty about our wretched word “religion,” which ever since the 18th century has been used as a label to stick on Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, etc., as though they were simply all variants on the same thing. And when you actually look at them, they’re not. They’re different kinds of animals entirely.

Lots of good stuff here for the discerning reader.

Rulers use to be able to carry God around and have people bow to their possession. The rich used to be able to buy divine favors by simply hiring a priest and having him perform masses. Rich and poor, political power and peasants, were all made into the ultimate heaven reality. Gold didn’t just buy your luxuries; it bought forgiveness. Power didn’t mean controlling people; it meant controlling God.

These things were not actually true but they (among other things) were the popular percetion and thus the great political reality. Denying transubstantiation was a shotgun blast in the face of the social order as it had existed for centuries. All those obscure arguments about “presence” are anarchy in ink. They dare to question whether the powers are capable of compressing divinity into a wafer and making people go to their knees when they parade their passive god nearby.

So martyrs like Hugh Latimer died for a point in theology when they refused to affirm transubstantiation. But it was not a “fine point” as Evangelicals like to pretend exist. We should admit that sometimes things appear to be inconsequential when they are not, but nothing in true theology is ever really inconsequential. The martyrs died for the truth that Jesus is the only Lord and Savior of the world. And that has never been a “fine” distinction. It has been explosive to the powers of darkness and always will be.

Because the movie version of Alan Moore’s (quite anti-Christian) comic book has come out (I haven’t seen the movie and am not recommending it), I can’t help but think of Guy Fawkes. He merely had gun powder to light, but Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley proved to be fuses in a more powerful blast.

“Be of good cheer,
Master Ridley,
and play the man,
for we shall this day
light such a candle in England
as I trust by God’s grace
shall never be put out.”

Current content link

Blogging is good for the PCA. I don’t primarily mean the second-order blogging that reports on other blogs. I mean every teenager in every congregation needs to be given and encouraged to use a Xanga account (by the way, have I ever mentioned my aesthetic revulsion to everything about Xanga, including the name?). Sooner or later everything comes out in the open and can be dealt with.

As a national phenomenon, blogging is amazing. We all want to protect our privacy, but give us a tool and we will reveal everything about ourselves in open forums.

Are we really lonely or what?

I went to seminary not feeling a twinge about being from a Southern Presbyterian heritage. After all, racisim was pretty much a sin of the entire nation, including Lincoln, so why should it especially bother me that this was found among Southern Presbyterians? That was my mindset.

Having said that, while I was a PCA member and candidate, there was nothing distinctively Southern Presbyterian in my theological reading. My literary exposure to the Reformed Faith came through Westminster Philadelphia. I had read Kline (Images of the Spirit ought to be much more appreciated that it is), Vos (I think), Murray, Van der Waal, Calvin, Van Til, Jim Jordan, Ronald Wallace, Berkhof, Bavinck, John Frame, Vern Poythress, etc. I had, as far as I can recall, never read a syllable of Dabney, Thornwell, Girardeau (still true) or anyone else who was distinctly Southern Presbyterian in identity.

But when I read The Metaphysical Confederacy I had the pinball game of my mindset shouldered into serious tilt. It had never dawned on me that Thornwell was known among secular historians of the period, men who had no real interest in Presbyterianism one way or the other, as one of the major apologists for the South and for Slavery in particular (I’m remembering him being listed as one of the “top three” but I am not sure I’m remembering correctly). He actually listed as one of the reasons why the South must secede (his expression of an opinion on this matter, was of course, somehow within the strictures of “the spirituality of the Church”) was because the Federal Government would not allow the creation of new slave states in the West. This meant that the “Southern Man” could only migrate West as a “Northern Man,” but not as a “Southern Man.” As the author points out, Thornwell made slaveholding the essence of being Southern.

I’m sure Thornwell had better moments. Theologically I think he opposed the evolutionary type of dehumanizing racism that was developing among unbelievers in the South which became modern eugenics. But the book convinced me that we not talking about simply children of their time and culture; we are talking also about leaders in their culture.

When this came up on the floor of GA I voted for it, though I thought it could have been much improved if Thornwell and Dabney had been mentioned by name. To claim we cannot “repent” of our past makes sense in some ways but is entirely bogus where it counts. We bask and boast in these “great fathers in the faith” all the time. We actually extoll them. No doubt they had some virtues (I think this by Dabney, for example, is well worth getting excited about). But we can’t simply claim the good without renouncing the bad and we do have a duty to make that clear. Getting the benefits of being identified with a heritage means having to deal with the heritage’s liabilities as well. I don’t think that is a problematic guideline, and it certainly gives us reason to make public repentance a priority along with our public identifying ourselves as a continuation of the Southern Presbyterian Church.

Perhaps in the future this will all become moot as the denomination becomes truly national and international and the archaic regionalisms simply wither and dies. But until that time, this is what we face.

[Comments disabled, at least for the time being. Please feel free to email me any comments you have.]

One of the things that keeps me from blogging all that often is that I don’t do my reading in my office. So, I often think of things I would like to think in print about, but, since I am only remembering the souce text, I want to hold off until I have the book in front of me at the keyboard. And, more often than not, that never happens. In reality I would be much more likely to reach that point if I blog a reminder to myself.

So what follows are my reflections on remembered impressions. If I make this sort of thing a habit I’ll probably link this entry just for its provisio’s Or else I’ll copy it as a permanant preface to all such blogs. Accuracy is desired here but inaccuracy is risked.

I thought Turretin tore into Amyraut’s “four-pointer” scheme rather well. He is convincing. He makes you think that Amyraut is really wrong.

But when he begins defending infralapsarianism his entire case suddenly seems arbitrary. If God can have amnesia as to why he is decreeing the fall into sin, then why not when he decrees the death of the Son? As far as I can tell, Turretin’s thinking on Amyraldianism is quite cogent. He should have followed through with his principles and favored supralapsarianism.

Of course, supralapsarianism only explains God’s plan to a point. I can’t imagine knowing anything about God if we can’t ascribe teleological reasoning to him (i.e. God sent his Son to save me from my sins), but teleology cannot be exhaustive. Any final end point we postulate as what God wanted is always somewhat contrived because time will go on forever and forever has no final end point.

But still, it must be true that God sent his son for a reason and that he ordained the fall for a reason.

Continued from Part One.

Based on the above, not only does the system of doctrine presented in the Westminster Standards leave room for a vigorous and Biblical view of the sacraments and sacramental efficacy, but practically demands it

The Sacraments

A sacrament, according to our Confession, is not simply a tangible token of a Spiritual truth, but consists of both the sign and the actual grace which is signified by the sign. These two elements are bound together by "a spiritual relation, or sacramental union" (27.2).

The sacraments serve as markers identifying their participants with the Church as opposed to the world (27.1). Since outside the Church there is no ordinary possibility of salvation, this in itself is quite an important point.

But sacraments also efficaciously exhibit and confer grace, not "by any power in them," nor by virtue of "the piety or intention of him that doth administer" them, but by virtue of "the work of the Spirit and the word of institution." To those who receive the sacrament worthily by faith there is a "promise of benefit" (27.3). This simply follows from the definition of a sacrament as both sign and thing signified united by the Spirit.

Thus, not only do the sacraments "strengthen and increase [the] faith" of "those within the covenant of grace," but they actually "signify, seal and exhibit . . . the benefits of [Christ’s] mediation" (Larger Catechism, q. 162). Thus, redemption itself is sealed and exhibited to us in the sacraments. The sacraments ability to "confirm our interest in" Christ, depends precisely on their role in efficaciously conferring that interest. Our faith is strengthened and increased precisely because we know in the sacrament we objectively experience "the working of the Holy Ghost" (LC, q. 161).

What is the nature of the grace conferred by the sacraments? Jesus Christ Himself: "Christ and the benefits of the new covenant are represented, sealed, and applied to believers" (SC, q. 92; emphasis added). Not simply the benefits of the new covenant, nor even the benefits of Christ, but "Christ and His benefits" are "the spiritual part of " the sacraments (LC, p. 176). The person of the Savior is "applied" to us by faith ("believers") in the sacraments. As discussed above, Christ’s benefits are not available apart from their Source. Christ’s benefits are applied to us precisely because Christ Himself is applied to us.

Putting it all together, in the sacraments Christ Himself is efficaciously communicated, represented, signified, sealed, conferred, and applied by the working of the Holy Spirit to those who receive Him by faith. Thus, the sacraments are "effectual means of salvation" (LC, p. 161).

Notice how the centrality of union with Christ, and the importance of the covenant, the institutional church, are both consistent with this view of the sacraments. Salvation results from Christ being applied to us by the Spirit; the sacraments are used by the Spirit to indeed apply Christ. Christ is received by faith; the sacraments exhibit Christ so that he may be apprehended by believers. Christ is offered "according to the Covenant of Grace" and calls people into the Church, His Kingdom; the sacraments are the objective means by which one is admitted into and continues in the Church.

These observations about the Westminster Standards and the sacraments in general, will be amply affirmed by a brief look at each sacrament in particular.

Baptism

Baptism admits the person baptized into the Church (28.1). This applies to both adults and infants. While the Catechism affirms that the children of a believer are "in that respect within the covenant" (LC, q. 166) this does not change the fact that children, like adult converts, are admitted into the Church by baptism.

The Westminster Confession of Faith guards against formulations that would mislead people into thinking that a person is automatically going to heaven once he is baptized no matter what he does subsequently. Of course, it also guards against the idea that all baptized people receive an identical portion of grace so that the difference between those who end up in heaven and those in hell is attributed to their own abilities and not the sovereignty of God in giving and withholding His grace. Thus, the Confession affirms that it is possible for people to be regenerated who are not baptized and that it is possible for people to not be regenerated who are baptized (28.5). Furthermore, it states that "the efficacy of Baptism is not tied to the moment of time wherein it is administered" (28.6).

But the Confession is emphatic that, despite all these qualifications, "yet notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred, by the Holy Ghost" (28.6). "Grace and salvation" are truly "annexed" to baptism (28.5).

What is the grace annexed to baptism? We have already seen that it would be the person of Christ himself, as is stated about the sacraments. The Confession lists these benefits of baptism: "the covenant of grace, ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life" (28.1). The Larger Catechism adds "adoption" and "resurrection unto everlasting life" (q. 165). All this is conferred by the Holy Spirit in Baptism.

One other qualification which needs to be mentioned is that baptism is said to savingly benefit "such (whether of age or infants) as the grace belongeth unto according tot he counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time" (28.6). Here we seem to have a problem: The Divines wanted to affirm that baptism was efficacious, but not for everybody. Obviously, only the elect are finally saved and thus only the elect can be said to receive these things in baptism. But if that is the case, then how a person have his faith confirmed and strengthened by baptism? How can he trust a promise that might or not be made to him, depending on God’s secret counsel?

I’m not sure why the Divines did not directly address this question. However, they did write out how one should regard his baptism as an objective revelation of the Grace of God. The Larger Catechism, in the answer to question 167, spells out how baptism is supposed to be regarded by all who have been subjected to the rite.

The needful but much neglected duty of improving our baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long . . . by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein; by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements; by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament; by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace; and by endeavoring to live by faith, to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness, as those that have therein given up their names to Christ; and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body (emphasis added).

Here we see that baptism marks the objective starting point of the Christian life. There is no question that baptism has "conferred and sealed" grace. But that grace must be received by faith, and by continuing in the Faith. Remember q. 153 in the Larger Catechism:

That we may escape the wrath and curse of God due to us by reason of the transgression of the law, he requireth of us repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, and the diligent use of the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation.

The sacraments are listed as among those means in which all Christians must continue if they are to escape the wrath and curse of God. Baptism is not a sign that grace is conferred on somebody somewhere, but that it is specifically conferred on the person who is baptized. That grace, however, must be received by faith throughout the person’s life.

Perhaps we can help clarify this doctrine by using the statements on saving faith in 14.2 by analogy:

By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true and receiveth the grace of God promised and conferred in his Baptism, for the authority of God Himself speaking and efficaciously working therein, and acteth differently upon that which each aspect thereof demandeth; yielding obedience to the engagements made therein, walking in conformity to the grace of Baptism, trembling at the threatenings against those who would neglect so great a salvation , and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of Grace.

The gift of saving faith given by the Holy Spirit only to those elected to eternal life is not opposed to the objective grace conferred in baptism, but requires it. Faith needs an object. Faith apprehends Christ as He is exhibited to us in our baptism.

The Lord’s Supper

In the Eucharist, Participants by faith "really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified and all benefits of his death (29.7). The Shorter Catechism states that "worthy receivers" are "by faith, made partakers of his body and blood, with all his benefits to their spiritual nourishment, and growth in grace" (q. 96). Note, they are not said to receive the benefits of Christ’s body and blood, but Christ’s body and blood "with his benefits."

Again, the Westminster Divines guard against abuses and superstitions-denying any local presence as in transubstantiation and consubstantiation. Nevertheless, by the power of the Holy Spirit ("spiritually" twice in the paragraph) "the body and blood of Christ" are made "present" and received by faith (29.7). Thus, there is an objective "spiritual nourishment" and, therefore, a basis for "growth in grace" (q. 96). Partakers have their "union and communion with [Christ] confirmed" (LC, q. 169) because "truly and really" they "feed upon the body and blood of Christ" (LC, q 170).

Conclusion

The Westminster Standards give us a theology which demands and presents the sacraments as effectual signs which, by the power of the Holy Spirit, convey what they signify. Of course, without faith one will not apprehend the grace exhibited in the sacrament. But if the sacraments did not include the promised presence of Christ Himself then there would be nothing for believers to receive in partaking of them. Their faith would be in vain.

The sacraments are not empty signs, but are joined to the reality which they represent.

FOR FURTHER READING

Sacramental Assurance & the Reformed Faith: The Biblical Perspective of the Westminster Standards

Baptismal Efficacy & the Reformed Tradition: Past, Present, and Future

Baptismal Regeneration & the Westminster Confession 28.6

Amazing Congruence of scholarship on the EC!! by Michael Spencer.

Appreciated the comment even though I have no idea how to interpret the baseball reference. Since I haven’t done much (or any?) of the reading Michael suggests, I can’t add my own personal endorsement yet.