The problem in many contemporary Evangelical Reformed churches is the widespread and institutionalized disbelief that faith and faith alone justifies a sinner in God’s sight. Faith cannot be sufficient. There must be some ritual and some existential crisis, some courageous act of commitment, which puts one right with God.
The secondary problem is the (not as widespread) relunctance to warn God’s people, professing believers, that they must continue in faith in order to be saved, that a true faith not only rests on Christ, but treasures the promises and trembles at the warnings in God’s Word. Thus, once one has made the heroic leap of faith into a justified state, one must never ever be warned or exhorted to pursue what God has promised and reject the temptations of unbelief.
This combination means that anyone who affirms sola fide will find himself the victim of untrue claims that he doesn’t exhort his congregation to faith and repentance rather than leaving them complacent. It also means, that when it is admitted he in fact does make such exhortations, he will be accused of “legalism” and again be portrayed as an enemy of the Gospel.
FOR FURTHER READING:
- Are Good Works Necessary To Salvation / Zacharias Ursinus
- Election: Corporate & Individual / Mark Horne
- Faith Seeks / Mark Horne
- Infants Baptized As Believers / Zacharias Ursinus
- The Necessity of New Obedience / Mark Horne
- Justifying Faith: A Prima Facie Vindication of Norman Shepherd According to Reformed Orthodoxy / Mark Horne (PDF)
- The Justification of a Righteous Man / Benedict Pictet
- Special & Common Election / John Calvin
- Standing on the Promises: Faith & Assurance in the Bible
- The Grace of Justification / Norman Shepherd
- Trustworthy Precepts / Mark Horne
- Whose Legalism? Which Works-Righteousness? The 2002 Auburn Avenue Pastor’s Conference and the Assurance of Grace / Mark Horne
- Admission Into the Church: Biblical Theology & Baptism / Mark Horne
- Calvin on Baptism, Penance, & Absolution / Rich Lusk
- Can Baptism Do Anything / Mark Horne
- In Defense of the Baptismal Liturgy / John Nevin
- Is God the God of the Mature Professing Christians Only? A Reply to Greg Welty (a credobaptist) / Mark Horne
- Sacramental Assurance & The Reformed Faith: The Biblical Perspective of the Westminster Standards / Mark Horne
- Sacramental Efficacy / Peter Leithart
- Samuel Miller, Baptism, and Covenant Theology / Mark Horne
- You and Your Son and Daughter: Christ’s Communion with Young Children
Mark,
You wrote, “The secondary problem is the (not as widespread) relunctance to warn God’s people, professing believers, that they must continue in faith in order to be saved, that a true faith not only rests on Christ, but treasures the promises and trembles at the warnings in God’s Word.”
I attend Southern Seminary in Louisville, KY. Some Baptists believe that Schreiner/Caneday in “The Race Set Before Us” address this very problem. They think it is fully consistent to hold to sola fide and to warn people that they must persevere to the end to be saved.
However, unlike the Federal Visionists, they believe that a breakable new covenant is not necessary in order to properly respond to this problem. What do you think?
Well, the Caneday/Schreiner book is great, so I’m glad it is finding an audience there.
In the realm of pastoral theology and theological polemnics, I’m not sure why this is of any importance. If we stipulate that “new covenant” belongs with “eternal decree to irrevocably save those whom God chooses” then obviously the New Covenant is unbreakable while professing believers (the visible church) needs general encouragements and (when appropriate) warnings.
I don’t see anything substantial at issue.
On the other hand, in the realm of Biblical exegesis and also a substantial part of the Reformed heritage, the New Covenant is obviously breakable. The book of Hebrews is one obvious example, but it is really the consistent way the Bible speaks in all 66 books.
I don’t understand why some people react against the idea that there are new covenant breakers. If one consistently believes in absolute predestination and monergistic salvation, then what is the fuss about?
Mark,
You wrote, “On the other hand, in the realm of Biblical exegesis and also a substantial part of the Reformed heritage, the New Covenant is obviously breakable. The book of Hebrews is one obvious example, but it is really the consistent way the Bible speaks in all 66 books.”
So, you disagree with Schreiner/Caneday concerning the warnings? In their book, they try to show that the warnings of Scripture do not imply that it is possible for someone to fall away. Since they believe that the new covenant only contains the regenerate, no new covenant member ever falls away. It seems like much of the Federal Vision argumentation is that the warnings prove the possibility of breaking the new covenant, which Schreiner/Caneday deny.
You wrote, “I don’t understand why some people react against the idea that there are new covenant breakers.”
The reason it is important to Baptists is because if the new covenant can contain unregenerate people, then one of the main arguments for believers baptism only is gone.
“So, you disagree with Schreiner/Caneday concerning the warnings? In their book, they try to show that the warnings of Scripture do not imply that it is possible for someone to fall away. Since they believe that the new covenant only contains the regenerate, no new covenant member ever falls away.”
Well, as I said, this hardly seems substantial. I didn’t remember this at all. I don’t see who this matters. All this does is mean that “Am I in covenant with God?” becomes as problematic as “Am I truly regenerate?” or “Am I elect?” My takeaway from the book (which may or may not be accurate) was that we’re better off asking things like, “Am I running the race?” and “Do I want to finish?”
“The reason it is important to Baptists is because if the new covenant can contain unregenerate people, then one of the main arguments for believers baptism only is gone.”
Sadly, many people baptized on a Baptist-certified profession of faith are revealed by their subsequent paths to be unregenerate. Refusing to risk baptizing unregenerate people does not entail banning babies from baptism but rather entails that no one be baptized at all at any age.
Limiting the New Covenant in this way accomplishes nothing.
Mark,
You wrote, “Well, as I said, this hardly seems substantial.”
Okay, okay. Take it easy tiger 🙂 I am sure Schreiner would be more than happy to hear that you believe his approach to the warning passages works.
I just thought that you might take issue with his approach in some way because it offers a way of understanding the warning passages that does not require a breakable new covenant. Those in the Federal Vision that I have read usually use the warning passages to show that it is possible for someone to fall away from the covenant. Schreiner’s book offers an approach to the warning passages that does not necessitate that anyone actually falls away from the covenant.
You wrote, “Sadly, many people baptized on a Baptist-certified profession of faith are revealed by their subsequent paths to be unregenerate. Refusing to risk baptizing unregenerate people does not entail banning babies from baptism but rather entails that no one be baptized at all at any age.”
If someone believes (as some paedobaptists do) that God does not normally regenerate their children from the womb, then there would be no reason to baptize them (from a Baptist perspective). Why? Because the new covenant only contains regenerate people (from a Baptist perspective), which means if we “know” that our children are not regenerate from the womb, there would be no reason to give them the covenant sign of initiation. This is much different than “unknowingly” baptizing someone who makes a credible profession of faith, but turns out not to be regenerate.
Surprisingly, some of the Federal Vision guys lock arms with Baptists in saying that there is no reason to baptize someone unless you think they are regenerate. Of course the dividing point between Baptists and the Federal Vision is the presumptive regeneration of infants.
Thanks for taking time to respond. I will understand if you are too busy to keep responding.
Hmm…
Just to make sure I was clear, when I wrote, “Well, as I said, this hardly seems substantial,” I wasn’t referring to the position but to the distance between it and my own view. I don’t think polarizing the two views has any substance to it. It really is more a different stipulated vocabulary for the same thing.
I wasn’t trying to be dismissive of the position on the New Covenant. I disagree that it is the way the Bible uses the language, but I need to re-read the book in order to address the issue.
Mark,
I understood what you meant. You were clear.
Rhirhok wrote:
“Surprisingly, some of the Federal Vision guys lock arms with Baptists in saying that there is no reason to baptize someone unless you think they are regenerate. Of course the dividing point between Baptists and the Federal Vision is the presumptive regeneration of infants.”
Well, not exactly. That is a Dutch position (to baptize on the basis of presumed regeneration). Fvers typically baptize on the basis of God’s covenant promises and anticipate God’s promises to be fulfilled (the regeneration of our children). It is anticipated that this ordinarilly will occur either before or at their baptism but like the actual Baptist New Covenant structure (the unseen theoretical is really useless), baptized people mysteriously slip through the cracks. Hey, you gotta admit, at least Fvers have a strong consistent answer to the Baptist who brings up Jer. 31 to dismiss infant baptism. 🙂
Garrett,
I am not sure what you mean? Your explanation of the Dutch position and Fvers sounds basically the same.
I am not sure how Fvers have a strong consistent argument against the Baptist who brings up Jer. 31. Everyone that is a part of the new covenant is saved. How do Fvers have an answer to this issue that differs from any other answer given by other paedobaptists? Fvers would not agree that everyone in the new covenant is eternally saved. The exegesis that I have seen of Jer. 31 by Fvers runs to the NT warning passages in order to prove that the new covenant is breakable, thus showing that Baptists exegesis of Jer. 31 must be wrong. The problem with this is that Schreiner/Caneday have shown that warnings do not imply that anyone actually falls away from the new covenant.
rhirhok,
Well, that’s why you’re a Baptist (I hope). The difference between baptizing on the basis of presumed regeneration and on the basis of God’s covenant promises is distinctive. Baptising on the basis of presumed regeneration has not been that popular outside of Dutch circles when it was codified at Utrecht at the beginning of the 20th Century (for a quickie treatment on this subject Berkhof is helpful).
You wrote: “How do Fvers have an answer to this issue that differs from any other answer given by other paedobaptists?”
Because they presume the regeneration of all the baptised (this is of course after they have been baptised). This is in marked contrast to much, perhaps most Reformed paedobaptists today.
Re; Jer. 31. Oh well, you’re not convinced. That’s okay. 😉 Pax
For the record, while I do regard the infants of Christians as regenerate, I don’t think that’s why we baptize them. While it is true that I couldn’t baptize infants if I thought the could never be regenerate at that age, I’m not basing my rationale for baptizing them on the opposite position (i.e. that I know they are).
Infants belong to the church and should be admitted therein. Frankly, regeneration is a mystery and I think it is precisely because, in a sense, the Reformers tried to say too much for baptism that they ended up leaving behind heirs who say too little.
Regarding the New Covenant:
1: I think it began at the return from exile under Ezra and Nehemiah
2: And Hebrews is clear that it can be broken.
Mark,
So, do you agree with Rich Lusk in his book Paedofaith? He writes, “How does paedofaith relate to paedobaptism? It simply makes no sense to say that God has authorized us to baptize unbelievers” (pg 108). Again he writes, “Infants belonging to believing parents are fit recipients of baptism precisely because they have faith; and because they have faith, their baptisms are efficacious” (pg 111). Finally, he writes, “We should avoid giving the impression that Baptists believe in baptizing believers while paedobaptists do not. Instead, we should grant to our Baptist brethren that only believers should be baptized…” (pg. 112)
I guess I should probably stick to the language that Fvers use. They baptize infants because they believe God’s promises about them, which includes believing they have faith. I was merely supposing that faith is the fruit of regeneration.
You wrote about the new covenant, “And Hebrews is clear that it can be broken.”
Are you saying this because there is an example in Hebrews of someone actually breaking the new covenant? Or are you saying this because of its warnings?