Remember that Jim Carey movie where his son wished he would only be able to speak the truth, and because he was a lawyer, it ruined his life?
What would have happened to Carey if, instead of a lawyer, he had been a Presbyterian pastor?
I can easily imagine him reading this in Sunday School: “Question 92: What is a sacrament? Answer: A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ; wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, and applied to believers. ”
Then his son makes his wish.
Someone asks him to read the passage again, and it is much harder this time. He starts easily enough with the question “What is a sacrament? And the answer: A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ; wherein, by sensible signs…” And suddenly he words start forcing their way from his mouth: “not Christ, but some of the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, and … and represented and sealed … to believers–and no really important benefits like justification or regeneration but only assurance or sanctification.”
That’s good. And what would happen when they recite the Nicene Creed?
…one baptism for, well not for the forgiveness of sins, but…
Ok I’m way over my head. But I have been wondering this when I read the criticism of baptism.
Hah! That’s classic!
Notice that the Catechism says that Christ and his benefits are applied to BELIEVERS. And according to the WCF, regeneration precedes faith.
Congratulations, Patrick, you’ve convinced me the WCF is incoherent 🙂
Mark,
This is a mischaracterization of the anti-FV position.
WSC 92 says that the benefits of the New Covenant are signified, sealed, and applied to whom? Believers. So, regeneration and faith are necessary prerequisites to benefitting from the sacraments, right?
Does this cause a problem for infant baptism? Not at all, because the benefits of baptism are not tied to the moment of administration. (I know I’ve read that somewhere before).
In short, baptism promises, and faith saves.
Ken, baptism also applies.
Stewart,
applies to whom?
In short, for baptism to be of any benefit, it must give rise to faith.
It does not say it gives faith, but rather applies the benefits of the covenant to those who come to faith. CF WLC 162 baptism is given “unto those within the covenant of grace…to strengthen and increase their faith.”
Who are within the covenant of Grace? WSC 31, The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.
If the chapters that Joel Garver and I wrote on this issue ever see the light of day, I lay out the anti-regenerationalist position a lot more fully than I can here, and do so from Westminster, Calvin, and Scripture.
Oops, misspoke (and Mark thought I was converting for a moment).
I should have written,
In short, for baptism to be of any benefit, it must be ratified by faith.
And, then, I would add, if it does not, it actually adds to condemnation.
As opposed to a non made-up fiction? 😉
Is that like a free gift?
This is a great example of what’s been going on for hte last couple of years. No FV advocate says that the sacraments create faith, nor do they say the sacraments are efficacious unto blessing apart from faith. IN FACT, the FV has been the loudest voice is saying that the sacraments bring down condemnation apart from faith.
And really, Peter says baptism saves. We can qualify that all we want, that’s fine, but at the end of the day we are not allowed to forbid someone from saying baptism saves. The devil is in the details, and perhaps the definitions.
I also think Garver’s latest on baptismal diversity is a help. I think Steve even makes mention of the diversity on the audio tapes, so from the FV side of things, diverse opinions on baptism are historical. The critics seem to be the one who do not allow for this.
I would like to know how the “baptism doesn’t do anything” position avoids Knox’s anathema in the Scots confession: ” And thus we utterly damn the vanity of those that affirm sacraments to be nothing else but naked and bare signs. No, we assuredly believe that by baptism we are engrafted in Christ Jesus, to be made partakers of his justice, by the which our sins are covered and remitted; and also, that in the supper, rightly used, Christ Jesus is so joined with us, that he becomes the very nourishment and food of our souls.”
So what is Knox to us? He’s Scottish. That’s gotta count for something.
Good stuff, Steven. You get smarter by the second.
Okay, if there’s no essential difference, then why the post in the first place?
And, Steven, Peter does not say “baptism saves.” Again, I have addressed this in print, but can’t share because it’s filed away somewhere hoping to be published one day.
What he says is “This baptism now saves you, NOT the washing with water (etc)…but the PLEDGE of the good conscience.” I think Peter is going out of the way to say the baptism that saves is not water, but the pledge of the good conscience towards God.
Somewhat like the circumcision not made by hands, perhaps?
Yes Ken, but the good Calvinist knows about the sacramental union between water and the Spirit.
Or perhaps rather, the Spirit is Himself the union between sign and thing signified.
But not inseperably annexed.
And metonymy –you can score some good points on theology papers using that word!
The struggle is this (and this from Dabney and Ryle, not me):
If baptism regenerates, why does not baptism regenerate all to whom it is applied?
And, since it does not do that, how can we assure all baptized non apostates that they are regenerate, when they aren’t?
Then, how can we treat all baptized members in good standing as if they were regenerate and going to heaven, when some aren’t? Aren’t you, then granting false assurance, the very problem we are all seeking to address, albeit in radically different ways?
Now, you can argue (and some have) that telling the baptized non-apostate, unregenerate (resting on his church membership and obedience and not Christ) that he is not saved does no good, but I suggest there is sufficient evidence to the contrary, in fact, that such people have been awakened and fled to Christ.
For the record, “sacraments” includes the Lord’s supper, in which I believe that regeneration and justification are also applied.
So, nothing here can mean that prior to baptism anyone is necessarily unregenerate and unjustified.
I could say more, but I want to point out just the boundaries of what this question could or could not mean. Both sacraments apply Christ and his benefits to believers.
And since the claim that FV teaches one can be benefit from sacraments without faith is simply a made-up fiction, again there is no issue between us that these things (Christ + benefits from him) are only applied to believers.
Ken,
When Paul says, “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ,” is he offering false assurance?
Ken, I could go into different definitions of baptism, but I feel that they would quickly take us out of the FV discussion into a much bigger picture altogether.
For now, the key is faithful reception. Faith is an open mouth, and the sacraments are poured into that mouth. Without faith, the sacraments don’t change, the mouth does.
*sorry, that first line should be “different definitions of regeneration”
What about the preceding verse? How are we sons of God? Gal 3:26. You can’t view baptism apart from that.
Paul is telling those who have faith that baptism strengthens faith, and yes, assures the believer of God’s good purposes towards them and their new standing in Christ.
But, he makes it contigent on faith, and not on covenant membership, etc.
So, we ought to call baptized non apostate covenant members to faith. Some of them have faith and some don’t. Those that don’t, we can give no assurance based on baptism. Those that do, we can.
Steven,
Since you are presumably studying for the pastorate, I wonder, how do you explain those different definitions to a congregation?
And, which is the definition that ultimately matters? I would argue the one that actually gets you right with God so you can enjoy life abundant now (reconciliation with God), and life eternal, too. Anything that falls short of that is pretty worthless at the last.
I guess redundancy reveals strong feelings.
Ken,
“But, he makes it contingent on faith” When have we ever said otherwise?
Ken,
I think I see what’s going on here. Are you concerned that saying that God uses something as a means, that is saying that God works through something, somehow detracts or lessens the need for faith?
The FVists want much more than merely baptismal regeneration. They want the full antichrist roman catholic program instituted into the last remaining faithful Protestant churches. God knows what is in your filthy, satanic hearts. Rest in pain, devils.
Not precisely, Stewart. I think we all agree GOd uses means –it is just how they use them.
I am concerned that you grant false assurance to people by saying, in effect:
If you’re baptized, and not apostate, you’re saved. That appears to me to make conversion a passive thing.
And, since all freely grant that within any congregation there are baptized, outwardly obedient folk who are not finally saved, that to tell an entire congregation they are regenerate by virtue of baptism and covenant faithfulness is, in effect, a lie, and promotes false assurance.
But if we, like Ryle did, recognize that there are many good moral baptized professing Christians who are lost (ie that whole “nominal” category that Doug Wilson denies exists), and urge them to trust in Christ, that indeed the Holy Spirit may use that as a means to bring about their conversion.
Pastorally, I don’t know how anyone who serves a church, especially in the Bible Belt, who can deny the category of nominal Christian!
Rather, how HE uses them.
Maybe I need some help from Mavis Beacon for my typing skills.
“If you’re baptized, and not apostate, you’re saved. That appears to me to make conversion a passive thing.”
So, how is “not apostatizing” a passive thing? It the same as saying, “If you are baptized and remain faithful, you’re saved.” These are two objective things that a person can look too for assurance. The look to the promise God made to them in Baptism and their faithful walk.
Ken,
I just wanted to say that despite our disagreement, you seem like a charitable fellow and all-around nice guy, and it is good to have you here giving us some back and forth on this. I wish more people involved in this controversy were as willing as you are to debate all this in the open.
Well, Mark could tell you that I am not always so nice, and he wouldn’t be telling a lie.
Mark, not sure I’m condemning Paul. Obviously, this is the crux of the debate , is it not. If I thought Paul were telling the whole congregation they were in Christ by virtue of baptism and fidelity, then I wouldn’t have a problem with it.
As for when Paul speaks like Ryle? 2 Cor. 13:5
This discussion is helpful – thanks to you guys who are participating in it.
Rev. Pierce, you talk about the pastoral implications of saying:
“If you’re baptized, and not apostate, you’re saved.”
But I’m not sure I hear it the same way. The implication that your interpretation gives to that sentence is that “not apostate” describes the lack of doing something only – as you say “passive” rather than working out one’s salvation with fear and trembling and running the race in such a way as to complete it. I don’t think the FV people speak this way. The other thing in the sentence that strikes me as something FV people wouldn’t want to say is “you’re saved” because they tend to speak of salvation as a living, ongoing connection – that life in Christ is life in “the regeneration” in Christ who is “the propitiation.”
On the one hand, we have confessional documents that simply do not define regeneration, on the other hand we have theologians who speak of “being regenerated” as the instillation of a new principle of life in the soul. The FV people tend to speak about a vital union with Christ – that he is their salvation, that he is their new principle of life. Perhaps the appeal of the vital principle’s being infused is that it is a “once for all time” type of thing. And this gets us to perseverance. I think we could have the conversation about regeneration and baptism forever, and never make much headway because there is systematic pressure in modern calvinism from the doctrine of perseverance that gets exerted against sacramental efficacy. We Presbyterians are careful to admit anyone into the category of “saved” because that category is like a roach motel where people check in but they cannot check out. We can’t allow baptism to effect something in the realm of salvation because that something would have to be permanent. And so we look for another way, systematically, to connect baptism more loosely with what it signifies. This accounts for the “disclaimer-fest” that infant baptisms have become in most PCA churches.
The FV synthesis seems to me to be an attempt to formulate things in such a way that God’s promises can be believed as well as his warnings. The alternatives seem to get close to saying that we can neither believe his promises nor his warnings. Wilkins’ synthesis seems to be to talk about a category of people, the elect, who receive God’s promises and receive faith, and receive all spiritual gifts in a way that is much richer and deeper than those who are non-elect, but in the covenant community for a while receive them. They receive the promises, and they ultimately perish not because the promises went unfulfilled, or because they were non-elect, but because they lacked faith and perseverance. Being non-elect is a kind of cause of damnation, but it is not a primary cause or an efficient cause or any of the other kinds of causes that we can rationally use in theologizing to assign blame, etc.
Does this help at all or am I confusing things further?
Ken, do we ever see Paul’s letter’s sounding like Ryle? Does Paul ever say that there are unsaved members of the Church who need to truly trust in Jesus? Does Paul ever directly ask someone to question there salvation unless they are on the brink of church discipline (how Ryle was supposed to follow Paul’s example when church discipline was not an option is another question.)
This whole controversy is over whether the Bible can give us adequate direction for pastoral care. What we see in Paul is
1. Your Christians, saved, redeemed, elect, etc
2. You are heirs to future promises
3. You must not depart from Christ in unbelief or you will face judgments rather than glory.
4a. You who I am coming to visit to excommunicate: Are you even in Christ?
4b. Those who apostatized were never part of the elect; the Lord knows his own.
————–
Where do you find in the letters to churches a model for Ryle? Is the example we are given in the Bible an adequate model for pastoral care?
“to tell an entire congregation they are regenerate by virtue of baptism and covenant faithfulness is, in effect, a lie, and promotes false assurance.”
How is this not a direct condemnation of Paul?
“This accounts for the “disclaimer-fest” that infant baptisms have become in most PCA churches.”
hehe…good line. 🙂
It isn’t just a coincidence that the same church that was so big on “spirituality of the church” helped create the nominal Bible-belt where I’ve lived all my life. I know all about nominalism, and it most certainly does not come from the objectivity of the covenant.
I was initially attracted to FV because of the pastoral implications. I always (and still kind of do) thought the justification stuff was an interesting rabbit trail for the academy, but not really the main point. Really, I only started reading N T Wright for defensive purposes. That really back-fired.
The regeneration is simply the new creation, which is the church, the body of Christ that will eventually fill the whole world and thus complete the reversal of the fall. For me the pastoral implications of just this are HUGE, as laity start to see the other half of the gospel that they’ve been deprived of for so long. Salvation is not the Kierkegaardian life we were told it was, but rather an entirely new planet. The work of Christ is located in his resurrected person, and our ecclesiology points us to him. We are Christians because we are in Christ, and that’s what our Baptism says to the world. The Federal Vision: it’s all about Jesus.
So the liturgy helps determine the identity. When we confess sins corporately, you know- when we read the little thingy in the bulletein- a faithful Christian will try and mean it. Even if they don’t feel like it all the time, they have the obligation to try, and this is what everyone does with their kids, no matter the rhetoric. I never wanted to wear my Sunday clothes. They didn’t feel authentic. Mom never fell for that though. She taught me why they were important, and I eventually understood, about twelve years after I’d been consistently forced to wear them.
“Salvation is not the Kierkegaardian life we were told it was, but rather an entirely new planet.”
Amen!
STeven,
If you’re going to blame Southern Presbyterians (might as well through Hodge and Warfield in too) for nominalist Bible beltism, can I blame Schaff and Nevin (especially Nevin!) for the demise of the German Reformed Church? A case can be made…
I think your post highlights well that we are almost speaking two different languages here. That does not mean I don’t think there are real differences. I think that on one vector are the real differences, and on another a completely different use of language. That is why the sides cannot talk to one another.
The truth is these are two theologies headed in two entirely different directions. I am not sure how they can survive under one roof.
I guess I would like to know what the entirely new planet looks like, how life is different, and how practically it is different from the grateful life about which the Reformed faith has always spoken.
And, what is the other half of the gospel?
And who the heck is Kierkegaard? Just kidding.
Well, if you are no longer willing to hold fellowship within the bounds of the Westminster standards (or if the belief in paedocommunion has become to great a burden for you to bear) then that’s too bad.
Where will you go?
Mark,
It wasn’t a statement of what I would like to see happen.
It was rather a statement on what I think MAY happen.
You need a beer, man! Sit back and watch some Buffy. Relax. 🙂
Remember, our mutual denomination was founded on the sentiment, “How can two walk together unless they be agreed.” Now, granted, the original context of that is the Lord and his covenant people, but it sure sounded great as a rationale for separating from liberalism.
And, if y’all want to become full-blown Schilderites (with whom I have some firsthand experience), shouldn’t you seek reunification with the Mother ship PCUSA?
Okay, it’s late, and I need to stop before I say something I’ll really regret.
Rev. Pierce – I would really appreciate interaction with my post; I thought that we were getting somewhere.
Jon,
I am not sure I understand all that you are saying, but I will try to interact. I want to answer in somewhat a roundabout way, but bear with me and I will get around to an answer after laying some groundwork.
Sociologically, I think the FV and experiential camps are part of the strange milieu of the PCA. As others have remarked, you cannot divide the PCA neatly into two camps, and indeed any classification is messy. Yet, I think that the experiential and FV camps are alike chagrined by the unreflective utilitarian broad evangelical wing of the PCA. Then, there is the “arts and croissant” missional/trendy wing (flirting with political leftism, egalitarianism and the like), the strident TR (those who would break fellowship over worship issues, etc), and probably 3 or 4 other identifiable though lesser factions.
It seems to me that many of the FV advocates grew up in decisionistic evangelicalism, discovered the Reformed faith in all its richness, were attracted by a comprehensive world and life view, and, in many cases, an optimistic eschatology, and fled into the arms of the PCA expecting that the whole PCA fit that bill. When they got there, they were surprised (as I was surprised) that the PCA suffered from a lot of the decisionistic revivalism that the churches they had left personified, and they were rightly upset by that.
Yet, I think that the FV has assigned blame in the wrong place. Both experiential Calvinists and the FV, as I said, rightly critique the broad evangelical and decisionistic wing. But, the FV blames the experientialists for the situation as it is, and its theology has developed in reaction against any distinction between visible and invisible church, any call to examine the heart, any subjective aspect to saving faith. Thus, experientialists are derided as rationalistic, decisionists, baptists, revivalists, and the like.
When I came into the PCA, I was attracted to the experientialist segment. Why? I grew up in the moderate-to-conservative wing of the Dutch Reformed Church. No decisionism there, but a bit of pietism. Growing up in the Dutch milieu of Western Michigan, I saw the more objective covenantal view in the CRC and the PRC (and certainly I am only equating the FV with the PRC on objectivity of the covenant, and nothing else), as well as the abuse of the subjective view in the various versions of the Nadere Reformatie churches. It is my view that the objective, anti-experiential, and presumptive view of the covenant that characterized so much of the Doleantie that has made the CRC the most willing victim of real liberalism since, well, the German Reformed church of the late 19th century. I don’t see that as a coincidence. Also, I saw all around me folks who were loyal church members whose main characteristic was pride, and had a mean, joyless, dutiful faith, and whose lives, externally at least, were covenantally faithful.
Why is it that Southern Presbyterianism, alone among the historic branches of the Reformed churches, has a remaining vibrant, conservative contingent? Well, there are cultural factors to be sure, yet the PCA is growing far outside of its native Southland. I would argue a vital experiential piety.
Now, when I say experiential, I don’t mean decisionistic. Decisionism characterizes the utilitarian broad evangelical wing, I think, but is unfairly put on the experiential party. I think the health of the Reformed faith relies on a balance of the objective and subjective sides of the Christian experience. THat is the genius of covenant theology applied.
You comment a bit on the category of “Saved.” I, myself, don’t use that language much, not because I don’t believe there aren’t two ultimate categories, “saved” and “lost,” but precisely because of decionistic misunderstanding, as in ‘once saved, always saved.” Myself, I revert to the older understanding of “converted.” And, I am quick to explain in sermons, etc., that conversion means change: it means repentance and faith, and that true faith inevitably results in obedient faithfulness.
It seems to me, however, that the FV equates saving faith and faithfulness, which is the very thing Paul is careful to distinguish in Eph 2:8-10: not by works, but unto works.
You comment on sacramental efficacy. As I said on another thread, it is not that the experiential side denies sacramental efficacy, it is rather that the two camps locate the efficacy in two different things. The experientialist says that the sacraments strengthen the faith of believers. The experiential accent falls on believing reception (or, in the case of baptism, believing ratification). In the FV, the accent falls on objective benefits. Yet, to me, that is inherently contradictory, because the FV will readily admit that the objective benefits don’t really benefit all. And, there is where I get hung up. If baptism really “saves” then why doesn’t it really “save” everybody to whom it is applied? And, how does that put the FV really believing the “promises” as well as the warnings?
Let me tell you how I do baptisms. I do tell people what baptism signifies and seals. I do tell them what benefits are attached to it. But, then I remind them that those things, in order to become beneficial, must be ratified in personal saving faith. (J. R. de Witt always likened it to an inheritance check. The inheritance is yours, but you must sign and deposit.) So, that’s not a qualification fest, I hope, but rather reality.
IT seems to me the FV denies the very thing that Paul warns the Jews about, namely, covenantal presumption. If a person is presumed regenerate by baptism, and presumed Christian just because he lives an outwardly moral life and never forsakes the assembly, and has some sort of historical faith, that is a recipe for presumption. How many testimonies I have heard of people like that who give a Christless recounting of their religious life: “I am doing the best I can. I give. I come to church, etc.” Yet, there lives manifest no fruit of the spirit, and their lips bear no testimony to Christ.
The Parable of the Soils, I would argue, is used by Luke to frame his whole book after that point. And, it is the parable of the soils that points us to the importance of the heart in all this. The FV, as I read it, spends precious little time talking about the importance of the good soil, the pure heart, where the gospel roots go down deep and find a home. That is the experientialists emphasis. And, of course, that heart is not self-generated, but generated by the holy Spirit.
Now, I am not looking for a long, drawn out, agonizing Damascus Road experience, something more on the order, “I am a sinner, and I cannot save myself. I know that Jesus Christ has done everything necessary, and I believe in him as he is offered in the gospel.”
Now, all this talk about corporate regeneration. I don’t think any experientialist would deny that there is a corporate aspect to regeneration, a redeemed community, and ultimately a redeemed realm in which that community will function (the new heavens & earth). Yet, and I make this point in the aforementioned yet-to-be-published chapter on baptism, personal regeneration must come first. I think the FV misreads John 3. Jesus’ context there is not corporate, but personal. And, even if it were corporate, personal must preceded corporate. There must be regenerate individuals for there to be a regenerate community. This regeneration is effected by the spirit.
I cannot see how it can be any different from the new heart that is promised in the new covenant (Jer. 31, Ezekiel, etc.). For, in the rest of John 3, Jesus goes on to talk about the importance of personal faith, the reaction of darkness against light, the necessity of love for Christ, and how he draws individuals unto himself. I think the FV, in placing the emphasis on the corporate aspect of regeneration has gotten God’s way of working precisely backwards: individuals must be regenerated and redeemed and brought into the redeemed community, not vice versa.
Thanks Ken, that was helpful.
Ken: this is how I hear you
1. Dutch people are cold and dutiful
2. Southerns and scotts are firey and experiential
What if this has nothing to do with theology and everythign to do with national temperment (see James Webb’s book on the scotts-irish)
Since I come at the FV from scotts-irish puritanism, I accept JBJ’s little essay (propositions on Pentecostalism) in Sociology of the Church. The blame for the excesses of decisionism or charismaticism DO fall on the experientialists, for they downgraded the ordianed assurances of the sacraments, the mysteries that God has given us, in favor of unsustainable syllogisms.
This was one of my first “ahah!” moments in moving towards friendliness towards the FVs sacramental emphasis.
Ken, it’s belief in objective benefits that LET the sacraments strengthen the faith of beleivers.
If I believe the supper presents to my physical senses what God declares to us in his word, then I get a benefit. If I think its a useless nuda signa, I get nada.
Paul,
Not all of us Dutch are cold and dutiful, and not all the Scots are warm and fiery. And, I do think it has developed two fairly unique strands of theology (though obviously there are Dutch Puritans, and Scots objectivists).
The Jordan analysis, kooky in the extreme, left me quite cold. For one thing, he doesn’t establish any causality, which, to my way of thinking, is a necessary prerequisite to argument.
If the power of sacraments is objective in the sense you say, how can we “let” them do anything for us, or how can they fail to benefit us?
WHo here is arguing the sacraments are a naked sign?
Mark,
Hmmm. To the best of my knowledge, I don’t have any link on any website I’m associated with such a link, so I guess you are taking the shotgun vs. the rifleshot approach here?
One more thought on the Jordan piece (oops, almost said rant).
Let me give you an analogy:
JW Nevin was the dominant influence in the old RCUS in the mid-nineteenth century.
JW Nevin developed some unique (some might say novel) emphases on the objectivity of the covenant in Reformed theology
By the late nineteenth century, the RCUS fell prey, very rapidly and in a thoroughgoing manner, to protestant liberalism.
The minuscule portion that did not is self-avowedly non-Mercersburg.
Therefore, Nevin’s objective emphases caused the collapse of the RCUS.
Okay, as appealing as the above is to me, the whole thing is one big fallacy of causation.
So, too, with Jordan’s piece.
I figure, if I have equal distaste for both Jordan and Robbins, I’m on sure footing!
I dunno Ken. I guess I’d wave my hands in the direction of the atonement being sufficent for all, but efficient for some. Its water poured out on a rock, rather than permeable ground.
Were not ten lepers cleansed?
I’m not saying YOU claim the sacraments are naked signs. Just that the continuums of FV -> instrumentalism -> occasionalism -> nuda signa are a continuum of objectivity, which includes a continuum of how much benefit can be expected.
Oops, need to edit before I post. The first sentence should read, “To the best of my knowledge, I don’t have any link like that on any website with which I am associated.”
Its all the difference between
“I believe God intends to benefit me by this sacrament”
and
“I believe God intends to benefit me by this sacrament if I believe”
The first is just direct faith. The second leaves room for doubt.
Paul,
Everything is on a continuum to something else, I suppose. I guess one could blame heterosexuality, because homosexuality is its “irrational counterpart.”
And, the interesting thing is, I think most experiential guys would love weekly communion.
I would argue that, in the supper, believers eat and drink life unto themselves, feeding on Christ with grace in the heart, and unbelievers drink death and condemnation. (thus, stressing the primacy of the heart).
Paul,
I think that is an unfair characterization.
Of course one has to be a believer to believe God will benefit him by the sacrament.
But, what if one drinks it without any belief whatsoever?
A Christmas ceasefire? 😉
“WHo here is arguing the sacraments are a naked sign?”
Well, by the established rules of anti-FV inference I should be able to say this about you, right? Isn’t this how this game is played? And if you show me that you teach and preach that they are not naked sign’s I’ll just say you take away with one hand what you give with the other.
And, I’ll post a link to your sermons on my website under the heading Aberrant Anti-FV Theology in their own words.
Welcome to the new PCA.
Ken, I wasn’t really shooting at you at all, neither rifle nor shotgun.
Ken,
I agree the Dutch are a motley lot, and thus we don’t want to just latch on to them as some sort of “golden age,” however with your description of Nevin I can’t help but think we’re reading different guys.
You said, ” JW Nevin developed some unique (some might say novel) emphases on the objectivity of the covenant in Reformed theology.”
Now the Nevin that I’ve read is not really doing this at all. Rather he is more concerned with Christology and the Incarnation. His major influences are Calvin and Irenaeus. Not exactly novel. I think that if you aren’t wrestling with recapitulation at some point with Nevin, then you really aren’t reading Nevin at all.
Christology needs to be the major focus in the future, and I also think that it is precisely once we start talking about Christology, and specifically Chalcedon, that many of the neo-puritans and the baptists will have to jump ship.
Stephen,
Interesting.
A well developed Christology and soteriology are at the heart of the Reformed faith, no question.
But, is it true that the neo-puritans have a lesser interest in the incarnation and its meaning than the FV? I think not. That is a claim you would have to demonstrate to me.
You might say they are different, but not less vs. more, IMHO.
Well I wouldn’t want to talk about levels of interest and importance so much as the implications of proper Christology upon ecclesiology, union with Christ, and the sacraments.
This is why Nevin thought the debate over the Eucharist was the debate over Reformed theology. If one’s soteriology and ecclesiology images a Nestorian or Docetic Christology then the system has big problems. That’s more along the lines of what I’m thinking.
If we seperate Christ’s benefits from his person, I think we’ve got trouble.
Rev. Pierce,
I read your comments with great interest.
The early part of your post was a bit of sociological analysis, the accuracy of which I really can’t judge.
For myself, I was baptized into the PCA as an infant, and so the only experience I have had of decisionism has been when I visited SBC churches with my friends.
I will confine my comments to the theology of the matter; it isn’t that I don’t believe experience has a role in this matter, but we cannot discuss experience constructively. All I can say is that I’m sorry about how things have gone in the denominations you’ve observed, and I hope that whatever the truth is, once we embrace it, we embrace it in such a way as to not become nominalistic Christians.
Your first theological claim is that the FV equates saving faith and faithfulness. I’m not sure what to make of your claim, i.e., whether it is true of FV people, but even if true, I think you are reading a little too much into the idea. Basically, we all believe that salvation comes by our union with Christ. That union results in faith, good works, etc. It is a gift of God. It seems to me, anyway, that most FV people are beyond this issue – salvation is union with Christ; faith is a gift, good works are a gift. In other words, it doesn’t seem like we really have to even have this conversation about faith vs. faithfulness. God provides the medicine, but he also provides the syringe.
Your second set of claims relate to sacramental efficacy. You pit two claims against each other:
a. The sacraments save
b. The sacraments strengthen faith
I’ll make a few claims about why such a division doesn’t seem to work:
1. If salvation is a vital union between the human and Christ, then strengthening faith is nothing other than the maintenance of salvation; infants take a first breath, but they also must continue breathing.
2. No one claims that sacraments save, anymore than people claim that axes chop wood.
3. The FV people do not claim that anyone can disbelieve the promises of baptism. They claim that the promises are valid for any who are baptized. The fact that FV people are calvinists just means that they know that there is a class of people who will reject Christ, baptized or not.
This gets to the point of my post above that we still need to discuss. You say:
“If baptism really ‘saves’ then why doesn’t it really ‘save’ everybody to whom it is applied?”
The answer, assuming by baptism you mean the baptizing Lord, is that salvation, assuming by salvation you mean a union with the Lord, does come to all who are baptized*
Now the asterisk disclaimer:
1. Ordinarily, we’re talking about covenant children here – they are in union with Christ until they apostasize
2. With adults, certainly there are those who immediately reject the promise of baptism; baptized as hypocrites, by force, perhaps for some odd motive like becoming a godfather, etc.
This gets me back to the issue at hand – whether there is a kind of temporary salvation that some of the non-elect experience. I think this is the crux of the whole matter.
Your sociological concerns are met:
a. Nominalism is rejected; nurturing a mystical union is not passionless Christianity
b. Apostasy is met head on by warnings that can be accepted – thus your ‘once saved always saved’ fears are met.
c. Assurance is met head on by the ability to really believe God’s promises to us in baptism
In your point of view, if I can call any connection to God “salvation” then I must view that connection as a permanent one. It is that view, I think, that encourages doubt of one’s own salvation and doubt about God’s promises.
Yes, the heart is important; how we ever got to the point in this debate in which one side thinks the other side cares nothing about the heart is beyond me. I also think it is counterproductive to swap stories about slippery slopes and trajectories. One bit of history that I’ve learned is that despite all its promotional claims, Calvinism has never been able to give its people assurance and has paradoxically fostered a great deal of presumption as well. Calvinism needs apostasy, or else we really do become hyper-calvinists.
And so the FV view is appealing; it enables us to discuss the means of salvation, the means of damnation, etc. We can’t say the fathers ate the sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge. We can say that Joe received God’s promises and then trampled them underfoot. We can tell Susie that her baptized child who died of SIDS is in heaven because he received God’s promises in baptism.
In the final analysis, it *should* only be appealing if it is true, and because it allows us to preach the word of God directly, without a barrel of disclaimers, it has the whiff of truth to me.
Jon,
Thanks. I am going to be occupied for a few days, but I do want to respond when time allows.
Ken
Great comment Jon, in all, and in particular
“One bit of history that I’ve learned is that despite all its promotional claims, Calvinism has never been able to give its people assurance and has paradoxically fostered a great deal of presumption as well.”
Seems very true to me. The confession *almost* seems to revel in the idea that assurance is some second work of grace that is a rare gift.
An interesting survey of this is here:
http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2002i/keathley.html
He looks at various theologies of assurance first before tackling Schreiner, who seems to deal with some of the FV issues. Which is interesting to me because Schreiner is sometimes refered to in anti-NPP arguments.
Keathley rehashes some of the Kendall stuff, but He does include the definition of faith from Calvin
which seems much more senisble and Lutheran than a definition which allows for a lack of assurance (having faith in God’s power to save, but not the knowledge that the salvation has come *to us*). Its this emphasis on the sacraments in the FV, that they are tokens of his benevolence TO US, that is so precious to assurance. If we loose that in attacking the FV, we’re going to keep on damaging people.