Paul writes to the Romans:

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

It has become rather common in the PCA (in line with the wider baptist culture) to say that Paul is not really talking here about baptism, or at leas not about water baptism.

Since there is a lot of blood being spilled over this issue, let me just remind everyone that I am expressing my opinion and nothing more. I love and respect many presbyters who might or do take this position and I have never voted against anyone’s reception into a presbytery because they disagreed with me on this issue.

But in my opinion, this is erroneous. Paul is reminding the Romans that they were baptized with water and trying to remind them of its great significance.

And this is exactly how the Westminster standards understand the passage:

Q. 167. How is baptism to be improved by us?
A. The needful but much neglected duty of improving our baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others; 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.

If one looks at the prooftexts appended to this statement, one will find Romans 6 is used. But even more significantly, the statement is simply a summary paraphrase of what Paul says in Romans 6. Even without a prooftext, we would know this Scripture is being set before us to answer the question about how we are to improve our baptisms.

All I’m saying is that a denial that Romans 6 teaches about water baptism is a contradiction to our standards.

Which is why I was pretty appalled to read this statement in the SJC’s rationalization:

Presbyteries are to determine whether a candidate or member has any differences with the teaching of the Constitution. A difference does not require overt contradiction or denial. It can arise when a member “quibbles” with the sufficiency of the exegesis underlying the proposition of the Constitution. It may occur when a member redefines terms specifically defined in our Constitutional standards. It can arise when a party describes the Constitution as “incomplete, misleading, or inaccurate.” It occurs whenever a position is asserted that “differs” with the authoritative exposition stated in our Constitutional standards.

Once a difference has been stated, or statements suggesting a difference exists are made, the Presbytery has an affirmative duty to explore that difference and to decide whether the difference is merely semantic, whether it is more than semantic but “not out of accord with any fundamental of our system of doctrine”, or whether the stated difference is “out of accord” and “hostile to our system” or strikes “at the vitals of religion.” (RAO 16-3(e)(5)).

The SJC is claiming that any divergence from an exposition in the standards requires a Presbytery investigation. But that is not an honest claim. We would be investigating basically anyone who is not substantially “FV” if we adopted this standard.

The irony here is rather strong. It is precisely because he is “FV” (FV here means: Reformed and not ashamed of the Reformed heritage both in the Westminster Confession and previous regarding baptism) that Steve Wilkins is one of the few ministers in the PCA who does not need to quibble about Romans 6. Yet he has never troubled anyone over this issue, called them heretical, or denied their qualifications for ministry over the Internet. Yet this “standard,” is being used against him. The Presbytery was supposed to use a standard on Steve that, if used consistently, would have mandated an investigation of many other presbyters.

I am somewhat bewildered at this understanding of Leithart’s work on justification (just as I am bewildered at the mess the PCA federal vision committee report made of the issue).

First, is Lane insisting on John Piper’s revisionism regarding Romans 6.7? I can’t imagine that he is, but I was completely amazed that someone of John Piper‘s great (and deserved!) stature would lead readers to believe that the standard Reformed interpretation of Romans 6.7 was an attack on the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone. So anything is possible.

But if Lane is simply saying that the forensic is not identical to the transformative, that is really beside the point. It seems like demanding a nanosecond between justification and sanctification (though I’m not saying Lane would do so, since it would be Arminian). Does the word, “condemnation,” cease to be forensic if it involves an enacted declaration? Nothing in Dr. Leithart’s work merges the forensic with the transformative.
Is it not a straightforward contradiction to claim that justification is “declarative” and that there is no declaration involved? A judge passes sentence with his voice, God justifies Jesus by raising him from the dead, and yet the “declarative” verdict in the justification of sinners is not declared?

So when the Psalmist prays,

The Lord judges the peoples;
judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness
and according to the integrity that is in me.
Oh, let the evil of the wicked come to an end,
and may you establish the righteous—
you who test the minds and hearts,
O righteous God!
My shield is with God,
who saves the upright in heart.
God is a righteous judge,
and a God who feels indignation every day.

the request “judge me” is asking for a change in legal status and not for a change in circumstances?

When God says to Moses before the Passover, “on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments,” he is referring to an invisible change in legal status and not a public humiliation of them?

This is just messed up, in my opinion. “Justification” starts being God doing math in his head. Eternal justificaiton will inevitably follow along with a bunch of other hyper-calvinistic creatures.

And it is all unnecessary. We can admit that justification is an event in time that is declared in history without merging the forensic into the transformative. In fact, if we are orthodox that is exactly what we have to do.

Recently, someone mentioned assuming I agreed with PCA pastor, Steve Wilkins, with the evident understanding that this indicated that there was something wrong with me.

Well, I do agree with Steve as I do with, as far as I know, all PCA ministers. For example, I agree with Steve that,

1. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

2. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.

3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.

4. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.

5. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace.

6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

7. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.

8. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.

Also, we both agree that,

1. Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness, by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

2. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.

3. Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father’s justice in their behalf. Yet, inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them; and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead; and both, freely, not for anything in them; their justification is only of free grace; that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.

4. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.

5. God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and, although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may, by their sins, fall under God’s fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of his countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.

6. The justification of believers under the old testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the new testament.

We also agree on what God requires of us that we may escape his wrath:

Q. 152. What doth every sin deserve at the hands of God?
A. Every sin, even the least, being against the sovereignty, goodness, and holiness of God, and against his righteous law, deserveth his wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which is to come; and cannot be expiated but by the blood of Christ.

Q. 153. What doth God require of us, that we may escape his wrath and curse due to us by reason of the transgression of the law?
A. 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.

Q. 154. What are the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation?
A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to his church the benefits of his mediation, are all his ordinances; especially the word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for their salvation.

Likewise, we both agree on the importance of improving one’s baptism:

Q. 167. How is baptism to be improved by us?
A. The needful but much neglected duty of improving our baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others; 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.

There is one case where our agreement is not shared by all PCA ministers. We both take exception to the idea that the Lord’s Supper is to be given “only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.” You can read about this exception here. The denomination’s official ruling is that

the PCA continue the practice defined in our standards and administer the Lord’s Supper “only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.”

That the Committee on Paedocommunion prepare an annotated bibliography of sources both for and against the practice, and that resources be collected by the Committee for distribution to those who request them (at the requesters’ cost) to study this matter further.

So this is an ongoing matter of study as long as one practices in submission to the present church order.

I hope this clears up any worries anyone might have.

Ever heard the expression, “There’s no such thing as being a little bit pregnant”? It’s used when people try to underplay something in an inappropriate way. “I sort of told a lie.” The fact is, some things are simply either/or. Either you told a lie or you didn’t. Either you’re pregnant or you’re not.

But, then again, pregnancy is progressive–from conception to delivery. Is that a contradiction? No. We’re comparing apples and oranges. The development of a fetus is not in conflict with the status of being pregnant. One is either/or and the other is gradual but they both reflect the same reality.

This simple illustrations might show you why I am so frustrated to hear of educated theological popularizers who demand a “nanosecond” between justification and sanctification in order to “protect” one from the other–typically to protect justification from sanctification (no one seems really to worry about the integrity of sanctification that much).

The Westminster Larger Catechism is a good guide for this:

Q77: Wherein do justification and sanctification differ?
A77: Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, yet they differ, in that God in justification imputeth the righteousness of Christ; in sanctification his Spirit infuseth grace, and enableth to the exercise thereof; in the former, sin is pardoned; in the other, it is subdued: the one doth equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation; the other is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but growing up to perfection.

There is nothing here or anywhere else about the difference lying in differing moments, seconds, or even nanoseconds when they begin. On the contrary, they are “inseparably joined.” There is not even a nanosecond when one is found without the other.

This is amply demonstrated by looking at an earlier question and answer:

Q67: What is effectual calling?
A67: Effectual calling is the work of God’s almighty power and grace, whereby (out of his free and special love to his elect, and from nothing in them moving him thereunto) he doth, in his accepted time, invite and draw them to Jesus Christ, by his word and Spirit; savingly enlightening their minds, renewing and powerfully determining their wills, so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made willing and able freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein.

Notice that the catechism is speaking here of the inception of saving or justifying faith. One embraces “the grace offered and conveyed” in God’s mighty call by “accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace” (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 14, Paragraph 2).

Notice what attitudinal and behavioral change is produced by this “work of God’s almighty power and grace.” Quite obviously, this is a description of the beginning of sanctification as well as of justification. To say that justification precedes sanctification, even for a nanosecond, is to denyjustification by faith alone. Actually, it is to deny justification by faith at all. The only way to get around this would be to claim that justifying faith is within the ethical ability of the natural man.

But if we keep in mind the difference between a legal status and a transformation of character then we realize that they can begin simultaneously without being in any way confused with one another. In fact, to even assert the need for some difference in time of inception, implies confusion either of the nature of justification or of sanctification. If one was thinking clearly, there would have never been any need to postulate the unconfessional and unbiblical nanosecond.