One of the pastoral issues that have surfaced in the PCA and elsewhere is a concern about spreading confusion by the way “traditional” terminology is used–specifically the term regeneration. Of course, “traditional” here actually means “relatively novel,” but that consideration would sidetrack us.

What I want to point out to those worried about confusion is that they have a real friend and help in the writings of Rich Lusk. Specifically, his essay, “Baptismal Efficacy & the Reformed Tradition”, while starting provocatively enough to engage the reader’s interest, shows a real careful concern to communicate clearly and bring clarity to the discussion. Thus, Rich writes,

If regeneration is taken in the Protestant scholastic sense, ‘baptismal regeneration’ is absurd, since it would mean that each and every person baptized was eternally elect and eternally saved. Obviously, the earlier Reformed theologians who spoke freely of “baptismal regeneration” did not have this kind of monstrosity in mind.

And also,

This paper is not advocating use of terminology such as ‘baptismal regeneration’ or ‘baptismal justification’ (even though I have used it here and there, following our Reformed forefathers). Such language carries quite a bit of baggage due to its usage in other traditions, and without proper qualification and explanation, is bound to cause confusion.

Rich is a real model as a pastoral communicator. For more of his material, besides what I have posted on Theologia, check out the link on the right hand sidebar to his church, writings, and sermons.