Category Archives: Covenant Theology

Faith, Kingdom, Children, Church, etc

Justification is for the visible Church

One thing that is very clear in Paul’s letter to the Romans is that God’s justification of sinners is an objective and public fact, not a secret. He exults in the confident hope that “we,” professing Christians have:

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we boast in hope of the glory of God. Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us (from Romans 5).

Professing believers don’t wonder if their right with God. They boast in it! They know God loves them and is working all things for their good. They know that all their trials are designed to perfect them.

And they are supposed to know it for their fellow believers as well:

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written,

“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall confess to God.”

So then each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.

God has justified your brother and sister so you need to not pass judgment on them. God is working in their lives to make them stand on the Last Day so you need to stop harassing them! Notice how the reasoning here presupposes that we know our fellow professing Christians are justified before God.

See? That Christian who annoys you is right with God. How can he not be right with you?

Christians are the elect and the Church is the chosen “nation”

Peter writes that Christians are elect just as Christ was elect and just as once Israel was the elect nation:

As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God elect and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture:

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone,
a cornerstone elect and precious,
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,

“The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”

and

“A stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense.”

They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

But you are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

This last paragraph is an appropriation of Exodus 19. Peter is applying what was once the status of a nation to a trans-national institution:

Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the people of Israel: You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.

Of course, Peter has already told the recipients of his letter that they are elect, in his greeting: “To those who are elect” (1 Peter 1.2). So just as Israel was a chosen nation and thus a nation of elect members, so now the Church is an elect institution and a body made up of elect members.

They have been chosen by God to be part of his family and kingdom.

The Kingdom of Christ, the House and Family of God, is not a “merely external” contrivance

According to the Westminster Divines:

The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church

I keep being amazed at how gleefully the accusers of Peter Leithart condemn the Reformed Faith of “heresy.” The visible church we are told is “merely external.”

The Westminster Confession never says it is merely external. Do the above statements make the “visible church” sound so inconsequential? Perhaps human life and faith is more “external” than people realize. (And, by the way, it is simply question begging and silly to import everything you want to believe about some kind of external/internal dichotomy on Paul’s metaphor in Romans 2.28-29).

Another sneaky move is to contrast “the Church” and “the Visible Church.” No. That is not what the Westminster Standards say at all:

CHAPTER 25
Of the Church

1. The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.

2. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

Notice, the whole chapter is describing “the Church.” Nowhere does it say that this is only the invisible Church and the visible church is something else. It simply describes the Church first as invisible and then as visible.

And why is the “invisible Church” unseen? Because it is still in the future! It is the all of those together ” that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one.” And what is it the future of? It is the future of the visible Church! It will be made up of those who will sincerely come into her and remain with her by a true and living faith–“out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. (For more, see my essay, Of The Church)

So denigrating the Visible or Institutional Church, entered by baptism, in order to frame false charges on so-called “Federal Visionists” is outrageous on several levels.

 

Witsius on Final Justification

I thought this was really helpful (boldface mine):

LXIV. Let us briefly explain the whole manner of this justification in the next world. Christ, the judge being delegated to that office by the Father (Acts x. 42. Acts xvii. 32) will pronounce two things concerning his elect. 1st, That they are truly pious, righteous, and holy. And so far this justification will differ from the former: for by that the ungodly is justified (Rom. iv. 5). Whereas here God, when he enjoins his angels to summon one of the parties to be judged, says, “gather my saints together” (Psal. l. 5) if, as many suppose, these words refer to the last judgment. See Mat. xiii. 40, 41, 43, 49. 2dly, That they have a right to eternal life (Mat. xx. 35).

LXV. The ground of the former declaration is inherent righteousness, graciously communicated to man by the spirit of sanctification, and good works proceeding therefrom. For on no other account can any person be declared pious and holy, but because he is endowed with habitual holiness, and gives himself to the practice of godliness, Mat. xii. 37: “by thy words thou shalt be justified,” that is, be declared just or righteous, because words are indications of the mind, and signs either of the good or bad treasure of the heart; “when the the Lord will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsels of the heart; and then shall every man have praise of God,” 1 Cor. iv. 5.

LXVI. The foundation of the latter, can be no other than the righteousness of Christ the Lord, communicated to them according to the free decree of election, which is succeeded by adoption, which gives them a right to take possession of the inheritance. The very sentence of the judge himself leads us to this: come, ye blessed of my Father, whom, on my account, he freely loved (for, in Christ alh the nations of the earth are blessed, Gen. xxii. 18. Eph. i. 3.) Inherit, possess by hereditary right, as the adopted sons of God, who, because ye are sons, are also heirs (Rom. viii. 17) “the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation bf the world;” ordained for you from eternity, whose palace was fitted up in the beginning for that purpose; by the hands of God the Creator.

LXVII. Mean while, in this respect too, there will be room for mentioning good works, for they shall be produced. 1st, As proofs of faith, of the union of believers with Christ, of their adoption, and of that holiness, without which none can see God, and of friendship with God, and brotherhood with Christ. 2dly, As signs of that sacred hunger and thirst, with which they desired happiness, and of that strenuous endeavour, by which, not regarding the advantages of this life, and despising carnal pleasures, they had sought the kingdom of heaven and its righteousness; and it is inconsistent with, the perfection of the infinitely holy God, to disappoint this hunger and thirst, and seeking after his kingdom. 3dly, As effects of divine grace, to which, the communication of divine glory will answer, in the most wise proportion, when it shall come to crown his own gifts. For the more abundant measure of sanctification any one has obtained in this life, and the more he has gained by the talent entrusted to him, it is also credible, that the portion of glory will be the more exuberant; which the divine bounty hath appointed for him. And in this sense; we imagine it is so often said in scripture, that every one shall be recompensed according to his works, not that these works are, on any account, the cause of any right they will have, to claim the reward; but as they are evidences of our adoption and of our seeking the chief good, and as they shew that proportion of grace, according to which the proportion of future glory will be dispensed.

Notice how well this agrees with Francis Turretin:

16TH TOPIC

EIGHTH QUESTION
Does faith alone justify? We affirm against the Romanists.

[excerpt follows]

III. But that the state of the question may be the more easily understood, we must remark that a twofold trial can be entered into by God with man: either by the law (inasmuch as he is viewed as guilty of violating the law by sin and thus comes under the accusation and condemnation of the law); or by the gospel (inasmuch as he is accused by Satan of having violated the gospel covenant and so is supposed to be an unbeliever and impenitent or a hypocrite, who has not testified by works the faith he has professed with his mouth). Now to this twofold trial a twofold justification ought to answer; not in the Romish sense, but in a very different sense. The first is that by which man is absolved from the guilt of sin on account of the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and apprehended by faith; the other is that by which he is freed from the charge of unbelief and hypocrisy and declared to be a true believer and child of God; one who has fulfilled the gospel covenant (if not perfectly as to degree, still sincerely as to parts) and answered to the divine call by the exercise of faith and piety. The first is justification properly so called; the other is only a declaration of it. That is justification of cause a priori; this is justification of sign or of effect a posteriori, declaratively. In that, faith alone can have a place because it alone apprehends the righteousness of Christ, by whose merit we are freed from the condemnation of the law; in this, works also are requited as the effects and signs of faith, by which its truth and sincerity are declared against the accusation of unbelief and hypocrisy. For as faith justifies a person, so works justify faith.

IV. The question does not concern justification a posteriori and declaratively in the fatherly and gospel trial–whether faith alone without works concurs to it (for we confess that works come in here with faith; yea, that works only are properly regarded because it is concerned with the justification of faith, which can be gathered from no other source more certainly than by works as its effects and indubitable proofs). Rather the question concerns justification a priori, which frees us from the legal trial, which is concerned with the justification of the wicked and the perfect righteousness, which can be opposed to the curse of the law and acquire for us a right to life–whether works come into consideration here with faith (as the Romanists hold) or whether faith alone (as we maintain).

And Benedict Pictet:

We have spoken of the justification of man as a sinner; we must now speak of his justification as a righteous man, i.e. that by which he proves that he is justified and that he possesses a true justifying faith. Now this justification is by works, even in the sight of God , as well as of men; and of this James speaks when he declares that “by works a man is justified and not by faith only” (Jam 2:24). To illustrate this, we must remark that there is a twofold accusation against man. First, he is accused before God’s tribunal of the guilt of sin, and this accusation is met and done away by the justification of which we have already treated. Secondly, the man who has been justified may be accused of hypocrisy, false profession and unregeneracy; now he clears himself from this accusation and justifies his faith by his works-this is the second justification; it differs from the first; for in the first a sinner is acquitted from guilt, in the second a godly man is distinguished from an ungodly. In the first God imputes the righteousness of Christ; in the second he pronounces judgment from the gift of holiness bestowed upon us ; both these justifications the believer obtains, and therefore it is true that “by works he is justified and not by faith only.”

From these remarks it is plain that James is easily reconciled with Paul, especially if we consider, that Paul had to do with judiciaries, who sought to be justified by the law, i.e. by their own works, but James had to deal with a sort of Epicureans, who, content with a mere profession, neglected good works; it is no wonder then, that Paul should insist upon faith, and James upon works. Moreover, Paul speaks of a lively and efficacious faith, but James of a faith without works. Paul also speaks of the justification of the ungodly or sinner, James of that justification, by which a man as it were justifies his faith and proves himself to be justified . For it is his design to show that it is not enough for a Christian man to glory in the remission of sins, which is unquestionably obtained only by a living faith in Christ, but that he must endeavor to make it manifest by his works that he is truly renewed, that he possesses real faith and righteousness, and lives as becomes a regenerate and justified person. Hence it is plain, that Abraham is properly said to have been justified, when he offered up Isaac, because by this he proved that he had real faith, and cleared himself from every charge of hypocrisy, of which he might have been accused. In this sense that passage is explained: “He that is righteous, let him be righteous still” (Rev 22), i.e. let him show by his works that he is justified…

 

Training, inducting; not just transmitting verbal information

On Tuesday, Trevin Wax put forth “five nagging questions” about our book What Is the Mission of the Church? Kevin and I both know and like Trevin. He is a friend. We are glad he has gently raised some concerns with our book; we’d like to gently answer and correct his concerns. We hope to provide a lengthier response to some of the critical reviews out there in the coming weeks. But for now Kevin and I want to provide a brief response to each of Trevin’s nagging questions. The following is from both of us.

*******

1. “Can we reduce ‘making disciples’ and ‘teaching Christ’s commands’ to the delivery of information?” Trevin argues that disciple making is more than verbal teaching. It also involves modeling and mentoring. So doesn’t the Great Commission implicitly include loving our neighbor and our work in the world? Of course, Trevin is right that people learn by watching and partnering, not just by listening. We fully support Christian lawyers (or artists or politicians or computer programmers) coming alongside Christian lawyers to teach, model, and mentor what it looks like to be a Christian lawyer. Some congregations may even facilitate such opportunities, and rightly so. And yet, in the Great Commission texts the disciple making work is described as teaching, testifying, or bearing witness. And in Acts we see the mission of the church described not as Christians faithfully living out their vocations but as the word being verbally proclaimed. When Jesus sent his disciples into the world it was to speak. This proclamation was never thought to be the mere “delivery of information.” It was a saving, powerful message to be delivered on God’s behalf with Christ’s authority.

via Some Answers to Some Nagging Questions | 9Marks.

ON THE CONTRARY, I REPLY:

First: The Great Commission doe not describe disciple-making as “teaching, testifying, or bearing witness,” but as baptizing and teaching (in that order, for what it is worth, though I’m not sure how much that might or might not be).

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, by baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, by teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

(Note, I am taking both participles as instrumental because “teaching” is obviously instrumental to discipleship, as all agree; and thus must also be “baptizing” as a parallel verb to “teaching.”)

So it is not simply teaching, but induction into a community through a tactile ritual that is right at the heart of the Great Commission.

And the book of Acts shows exactly the same thing.

Second, in the book of Acts, the Word of the Lord is not simply the message, but the community of Christ, the Church. Acts 6.7:

And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith.

The growth of the Church is describes as the growth of the word of God. The community embodies the word as epistles written on flesh instead of stone (Second Corinthians 3.2-3). We see this again in Acts 12.24:

the word of God increased and multiplied

Meaning, of course, that the Church increased and multiplied (compare 1 Corinthians 12.12, where the Church is called “Christ”). There are a couple of other passages that might bear the same meaning, but it is uncertain:

And the word of the Lord was spreading throughout the whole region. (Acts 13.49)

And God was doing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that even handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were carried away to the sick, and their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them. Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists undertook to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, “I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul proclaims.” Seven sons of a Jewish high priest named Sceva were doing this. But the evil spirit answered them, “Jesus I know, and Paul I recognize, but who are you?” And the man in whom was the evil spirit leaped on them, mastered all of them and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. And this became known to all the residents of Ephesus, both Jews and Greeks. And fear fell upon them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was extolled. Also many of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices. And a number of those who had practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all. And they counted the value of them and found it came to fifty thousand pieces of silver. So the word of the Lord continued to increase and prevail mightily (Acts 19.11-20)

Thus Paul, we see in Acts 20, recalls his ministry as preaching but also modeling and mentoring:

“You yourselves know how I lived among you the whole time from the first day that I set foot in Asia, serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials that happened to me through the plots of the Jews; how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house, testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. And now, behold, I am going to Jerusalem, constrained by the Spirit, not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await me. But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God. And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again. Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all, for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God. Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears. And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. I coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel. You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me. In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”

Obviously, the word is central in this description. But just as obviously the alleged “preaching” of that word would have been an empty sign without a life lived among the people embodying the word of God.

And so Paul describes his own ministry and what should be the ministry of his disciples:

Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us. (from Philippians 3)

For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with the joy of the Holy Spirit, so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia. For not only has the word of the Lord sounded forth from you in Macedonia and Achaia, but your faith in God has gone forth everywhere, so that we need not say anything. For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come (from 1 Thessalonians 1).

Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living (from 2 Thessalonians 3).

Finally, read what Paul wrote to Timothy and ask yourself if Paul, as he asks Timothy to “train” himself, was not also trained by Paul. And is he not asking Timothy to “train” others?

If you put these things before the brothers,you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed. Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness; for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come. The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance. For to this end we toil and strive,because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

Command and teach these things. Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching. Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you. Practice these things, immerse yourself in them, so that all may see your progress. Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

Is this not about “modeling and mentoring”? Does not Paul want Timothy to faithfully live out his vocation so that others will do the same in their various vocatiosn to glorify God and impact others? Is this not what Paul was recorded as doing in Acts? And is it not exactly what the Great Commission is about?

teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you

Zacharias Ursinus: Doctrine is important because God promises the visible church eternal life

Zacharias Ursinus was the primary author of the Heidelberg Catechism, which is considered substantially compatible with Westminster doctrine in the Presbyterian Church in America and elsewhere. Ursinus delivered lectures on his own catechism which were compiled in a book, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism. In the very beginning of those lectures he addresses the issue of why “doctrine” (theology) is important.

…This doctrine is the chief and most expressive mark of the true church, which God designs to be visible in the world and to be separated from the rest of mankind… (1 John 5.21; 2 Cor 6.17; 2 John 10; Isaiah 52.11; Rev 18.4)

God will that his church be separate and distinct from the world, for the following considerations: First, on account of his own glory; for, as he himself will not be joined with idols and devils, so he will not have his truth confounded with falsehood, and his church with her enemies, the children of the devil: but will have them carefully distinguished and separated. It would be reproachful to God to suppose that he would have and acknowledge as his children such as persecute him; yea, it would be blasphemy to make God the author of false doctrine and the defender of the wicked, for “what concord has Christ with Belial (2 Corinthians 6.14).

Secondly, on account of the consolation and salvation of his people; for it is necessary that the church should be visible in the world that the elect, scattered abroad among the whole human race, may know what society they ought to unite themselves, and that, being gathered into the church, they may enjoy this sure comfort, that they are members of that family in which God delights and that which he promises everlasting life. For it is the will of God that those who are to be saved, should be gathered into the church in this life. Out of the church there is no salvation.

COMMENT:

So not only is there (ordinarily) no salvation outside the church, to speak negatively, but the visible church is a “family” that delights God and to which God promises resurrection glory, to speak positively.

Question: So what happens to Reformed pastors in the PCA who agree with Zacharias Ursinus in their teaching and practice?

Answer: They get wrongly charged in the courts of the church and then vindicated.

Big brother v. the end goal of baptism

As I suspect, it always comes back to baptism, infant baptism in particular.

Kahn: “Liberalism has never produced an adequate explanation of the family, because we cannot understand children” without the framing assumptions of liberalism – its assumption that the individual is the primary unit of explanation and its division between public and private. Liberalism “cannot settle whether the state should protect the child from the coercive influences of his or her family, or whether the private family should be protected from the state.” In short, “every individual effort turned toward a public project . . . is a puzzle for liberalism.”

Baptizing infants poses a deep challenge to liberal order: It rejects the notion that the individual child is a self-standing individual, and by placing the child within the church, a public institution with a political history, it disrupts easy public/private divide. By contrast, believer’s baptism looks to be an accommodation to liberal order (though, more precisely, it may be at the roots of liberal order).

via Peter J. Leithart » Blog Archive » Theology of the child.

True.

And the child under his parents is a refutation of the general prinicple that voluntary transactions always mutually benefit both parties to the exchange. Parents know that they can’t allow their young children to interact freely with merchants. That would be exploitation. They want the right and power to monitor and intervene in voluntary transactions.

But, conversely, people are supposed to grow up. They are not supposed to remain children forever. In fact, remaining a child is slavery. People resent being treated like children, being told that virtue lies in remains dependent (and putting an “inter-” prefix on the word does nothing to sweeten the alleged medicine). They want to have children of their own and (if they have any integrity at all) resent the state’s institutionalize encroachments on their families.

So, for all its faults, I think “liberalism” was a needed upraised fist against the powers. Where things should settle is worth discussing. But I don’t think “liberalism” should be blamed for all the faults of its philosophers.

In my opinion, those philosophers came late in the social movement and were explaining what was already happening rather than causing any of it. Philosophers and theologians always rush to lead every parade, and they all started long before they arrived with their batons.

So I’m happy to make paedobaptism a foundational aspect of social theorizing. But I think it will bolster liberty:

Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slavenor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

The Bible is God’s fault, not Peter Leithart’s or anyone else’s

Lets stipulate that there are a bunch of superstitious, overreaching views about baptism that make it magic. OK. Lets stipulate we are not supposed to encourage such views but rather refute them.

That still does not get us out of the woods, in my opinion.

If you teach people that

BAPTISM SAVES YOU

means that baptism does not save you, I think Jesus is angry with you.

Or again, if you teach that,

Now you (plural) are the body of Christ and individually members of it.

means that some of those addressed are individually members of the body of Christ and some or not, then, I submit, God doesn’t think you are a trustworthy teacher of his Word.

Is this even debatable among Christians?

Quotations from Letham on Baptism as used by the Leithart defense

Here are the quotations Peter Leithart’s defense culled from Robert Letham’s book, The Westminster Assembly: Reading Its Theology in Its Historical Context. I’ll make some personal comments at the bottom of this post. But here is the Letham material that the Leithart defense thought was relevant to the case (emphasis are all mine):

The Assembly’s discussions of baptism occurred in connection with both the Confession and the Directory for the Publick Worship of God… Much debate concerned practical administrative matters. However, the theological meat had to do with baptism’s efficacy and how it relates to elect infants. This point has been lost for most modern Christians. Conservative Protestants have distanced themselves from the remotest connection with the Roman Catholic doctrine of baptism and, since the nineteenth century, from High Church Anglican sacramentalism too. In doing so, they have left themselves with a truncated sacramental theology in which the signs have been reduced to symbols. The classic Reformed sacramental theology has been largely lost. 325

In the next session, S259 TU 16.7.44, the divines debated the proposed words “they are Christians & holy” in relation to infants presented for baptism. A lengthy dispute pertained to what Paul had in mind [in 1 Cor 7:14]… Thomas Goodwin claimed that the holiness in view is such that if they die they will be saved. [And Goodwin was exactly right – MH] He was uncertain whether they have the holiness of election or regeneration, but he thought they have the Holy Ghost. In short, Goodwin thought that those baptized are to be regarded as really holy, rather than simply federally holy. 329

The Directory eventually concluded that the children of believers are Christians and federally holy before baptism, and therefore they are to be baptized. Goodwin’s argument for the real holiness of the infants aroused great concern. It appears either to mean that all infants would certainly be saved, or to undermine election and reprobation. In the end, the exegesis of the passage was left unresolved. 331

Much discussion centered on the relationship between baptism and regeneration. This is a connection that conservative Protestants tend to deny or ignore, but was a commonplace in the classic Reformed period. On the one hand, Westminster did not share the Roman Catholic belief that the sacraments are efficacious ex opera operato (by the fact of being performed), but neither did they sympathize at all with the Anabaptist view that they were merely symbolic. In the debates on the Directory for the Publick Worship of God, in S260 F 19.7.44, the Assembly considered the proposed words “joyne the inward baptisme with the outward baptisme.” Except for Gataker, there was consistent agreement on the connection between baptism and regeneration. 331

Wright notes that the word “exhibit” was stronger in meaning than it is in modern English, being closer to “convey.” In earlier debates (see S302 F 11.10.44), Dr. Smith had averred “that baptism saves sacramentally is noe such incongruous speech.” Wright agrees that “the Westminster divines viewed baptism as the instrument and occasion of regeneration by the Spirit, of the remission of sins, of ingrafting into Christ (cf. 28:1). The Confession teaches baptismal regeneration.” While the Catechisms speak only of baptism as a “sign and seal,” the Directory’s model prayer goes much further. Wright calls this the Confession’s “vigorous primary affirmation.” In it, the minister declares of the children baptized that “they are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized.” This is accompanied by prayer that the Lord “would receive the infant now baptized, and solemnly entered into the household of faith, into his fatherly tuition and defence, and remember him with the favour that he sheweth to his people,” and that he would “make his baptism effectual to him.” D. F. Wright, “Baptism at the Westminster Assembly” in The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century: Essays in Remembrance of 350th Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly. Vol 1. Fearn: Mentor 2003 332-33

Before the Assembly convened, two prominent Westminster divines wrote important treatises on baptism, addressing the connection between baptism and regeneration in detail. Cornelius Burgess, in his Baptismall regeneration of elect infants (1629) cites [long list of fathers]… He refers to the Second Helvetic Confession, the Scots Confession, the French Confession, the Belgic Confession, and the Heidelberg Catechism. Burgess’s argument is that regeneration is twofold. There is an infusion of grace by the Holy Spirit at the baptism of elect persons, including elect infants, while actual regeneration, which produces faith, occurs at effectual calling. 333-34

For both Burgess and Featley, all elect persons are regenerate in the initial sense at baptism and in the actual sense at effectual calling. On the other hand, nonelect persons are not regenerate in the initial sense at baptism, nor are they in the actual sense either. However, since we do not know who the elect are, we are by the judgment of charity to judge that all who are baptized are regenerate at baptism in the initial sense. 334

The Reformed confessions are clear on the connection between baptism and regeneration. While they consistently oppose the Roman Catholic doctrine of ex opere operato, which asserts that the sacraments are efficacious by the fact of their use, they are equally severe on those who would reduce baptism and the Lord’s Supper to mere symbols. 334

The Tetrapolitan Confession, drawn up by Martin Bucer in 1530, asserts that baptism “is the washing of regeneration, that it washes away sins and saves us.” The First Helvetic Confession of 1536, composed by a committee consisting of Bullinger, Grynaeus, Myconius, Jud, and Menander, assisted by Bucer and Capito, maintained that the sacraments are efficacious; they are not empty signs, but consist of the sign and the substance. “For in baptism the water is the sign, but the substance and spiritual thing is rebirth and admission into the people of God.” All sanctifying power is to be ascribed to God alone. Baptism “is a bath of regeneration which the Lord offers and presents to his elect with a visible sign through the ministry of the Church.” Both of these early Reformed statements clearly allude to Titus 3:5. 334

The Belgic Confession (1561) points in article 33 to the sacraments as “visible signs and seals of an inward and invisible thing, by means whereof God worketh in us by the power of the Holy Ghost… the signs are not in vain or insignificant, so as to deceive us.” … Article 34, on baptism, states that the sacrament “signifies that as water washes away the filth of the body… so the blood of Christ, by the power of the Holy Ghost, internally sprinkles the soul, cleanses it from its sins, and regenerates us from children of wrath unto children of God. Therefore the ministers administer the sacrament, that which is visible, but our Lord gives what is signified by the sacrament, namely, gifts and invisible grace; washing, cleansing, and purging our souls of all filth and unrighteousness; renewing our hearts and filling them with all comfort; giving unto us a true assurance of his fatherly goodness; putting on us the new man, and putting off the old man with all his deeds. Neither does baptism avail us only at the time of baptism but also through the whole course of our lives. 336 [Cochrane, Reformed Confessions, 213-214]

The Scots Confession, composed by John Knox in 1560, in article 21, asserts that the sacraments are instituted to “seill in their hearts the assurance of his promise, and of that most blessed conjunction, union, and societie, quhilk the elect have with their head Christ Jesus. And this we utterlie damne the vanitie of thay that affirme Sacramentes to be nothing ellis bot naked and baire signes. No, wee assuredlie believe that be Baptisme we ar ingrafted in Christ Jesus, to be make partakers of his justice, be quhilk our sinnes ar covered and remitted.” 336 [Schaff, Creeds, 3:467-70]

The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (1563, 1571), in article 25, “Of the Sacraments,” maintains that they are not only badges and tokens of Christian men’s profession, but “certain sure witnesses and effectuall signes of grace and Gods good wyll towards vs, by the which he doth worke invisiblie in vs, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirme our faith in hym.”… Thus baptism, says article 27, is “a signe of regeneration or newe byrth, whereby as by an instrument, they that receaue baptisme rightly, are grafted into the Church: the promises of the forgeuenesse of sinne, and of our adoption to be the sonnes of God, by the holy ghost, are visibly signed and sealed: faith is confyrmed: and grace increased by virtue of prayer vnto God.” 336-37

The Second Helvetic Confession (1562, 1566), drawn up by Bullinger and the most widely accepted of all Reformed symbols, discusses baptism in chapter 30. Inwardly we are regenerated, purified, and renewed by God through the Holy Spirit; outwardly we receive the assurance of the greatest gifts in the water, by which also those gifts are represented, and, as it were, set before our eyes to behold. [Cochrane, Reformed Confessions, 282. No quotations marks in Letham’s paragraph.] 337

A later work, demonstrative of mainstream Reformed opinion shortly after the Synod of Dort, is the Leiden Synopsis, composed by four leading Dutch theologians in support of the Canons of Dort, and first published in 1625. Here, citing Titus 3:5, baptism is said to seal remission of sins and regeneration. There is a connection between the outward sign and the washing away of sins (Rev. 1:5; 1 Cor. 6:11; Eph. 5:27; Titus 3:5), a sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified… This is a relative conjunction – the signum and the res – and it is set before the eyes on condition of faith (sub conditione fidei). Christ by his Spirit unites us with himself; no creature is capable of this. Thus God appeals both to our ears and to our eyes. The Synopsis rejects Rome’s doctrine of ex opera operato, and also that of the Lutherans – the ubiquitarians – who tie regeneration to baptism. On the other hand, it opposed those who distinguish between adult and infant baptism, granting that adult baptism is a sign and a seal of regeneration, but thinking that infant baptism is an instrument of regeneration just begun. … This distinction is nowhere found in Scripture, since baptism is of one kind. 337

In summary, the Reformed confessions teach a conjunction between the sign (baptism in water in the name of the Trinity) and the reality (the grace given in Christ, regeneration, cleansing from sin, and so on). From this, it is legitimate for the one to be described in terms of the other; this is found in Scripture itself in such expressions as “baptism saves” (1 Peter 3:21). The divines repeatedly refer to baptism as “the laver of regeneration.”… The reality is distinct from the sign, yet the sign cannot be detached from the reality, for the two go together. As the Belgic Confession puts it, “The ministers dispense the sacrament… the Lord gives what is signified. 338-9

On the question whether the parents of an infant to be baptized should be required to make a profession of faith, the debate was spread over four sessions – S300 W 9.10.44 through S303 M 14.10.44 – and the Assembly was evenly divided for and against… The Assembly voted 28-16 to include a parental affirmation of faith by affirming answers to creedal questions, but Parliament deleted the sections in early 1645. 343

However, baptism is more than an admission into the visible church. It is also a sign and seal of the covenant of grace. It is a sign because it is a sacrament, and so points to what is signified. It seals because it is a mark of ownership, for Christ as taken the one baptized as his own. The covenant of grace, of which baptism is a sign and seal, consists of ingrafting into Christ; the one baptized is a member of Christ and thus of his body, the church. This ingrafting into Christ includes regeneration, remission of sins, and sanctification. Thus, at the very start, in WCF 28.1 (and also in LC 165), baptism is brought directly into connection with the whole of salvation, from regeneration to sanctification. It signifies these things and it seals them. It is more than admission to the visible church. It is certainly more than a symbolic representation. 344

WCF 28.5, in opposition to Rome, denies the necessity of baptism for salvation. However, as Moore argues, the first clause – “Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance” – was probably directed against antipaedobaptists who fail to present their infant children for baptism. There are no complimentary references in the minutes to antipaedobaptists. They are uniformly described as “Anabaptists” and invariably linked with antinomians. 345-46 [Jonathan D. Moore, The WCF and the Sin of Neglecting Baptism, WTJ 69, 2007: 63-86]

This latter point [Rome’s ex opera operato] is challenged more directly in WCF 28.6. Baptism is efficacious for salvation, the Confession insists. However, this needs qualification. It is not to be understood in a temporal sense, as if at the moment of baptism the person baptized is regenerated and saved; there is no such temporal connection. Baptism is efficacious in uniting a person with Christ, regenerating and sanctifying him “in [God’s] appointed time.” Moreover, baptism is not efficacious for everyone who receives it. It is not automatic. It is effective for God’s elect, “to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto.” Since the Holy Spirit makes baptism efficacious as a means of grace, it is beyond the power of the church or its ministry to do this, nor does it happen automatically. It is in this same section [28.6] that the heart of the Assembly’s view of baptism appears most clearly. Allowing for the above caveats, “the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost.” It is not the case that baptism simply offers or demonstrates the grace of God, which is then received by the one baptized. Nor is it merely the fact that baptism is a visible demonstration of the gospel, setting forth washing from sins, death, and resurrection to newness of life. It is, of course, both of these things. However, it is something more. In baptism, the promised grace – regeneration, remission of sins, sanctification, and above all union with Christ – is conferred by the Holy Spirit. We have seen how this differs from the doctrine of the Church of Rome. Union with Christ, regeneration, cleansing from sin, and sanctification of the elect people of God is achieved through baptism by the Holy Spirit “in God’s own time.” This is not by any power of the sacrament itself; the Holy Spirit confers grace; the efficacy is entirely his. Moreover, the Spirit can work as and how he pleases, so baptism is not absolutely indispensable for salvation. However, anomalous situations aside, God’s promises of grace in Christ are dispensed by the Holy Spirit through baptism, as long as we bear in mind the divines caveat that this is so in inseparable conjunction with the Word. The connection is neither automatic nor temporal, but theological. [Footnote: This is not the theology of baptism commonly held today in conservative Protestant circles, or even in many Reformed and Presbyterian churches. Yet so integral to Reformed theology is its sacramentalism that claims to being Reformed must be challenged that lack this vital element.] 346-7

Original document

Comment (in no particular order):

  • This reminds me of a time of joy in my life, from about 1994 to 2001, when reading and studying the Reformed and Christian heritage was a constant adventure due to a sense of discovery. This was stuff that was all over the Calvinistic tradition and yet was largely down the memory hole among modern Evangelical “Calvinists.” In some cases one found transitional figures who seemed to remember part of it now forgotten and encourage amnesia in other ways (Charles Hodge comes to mind here). But it was all a grand banquet before the accusers started their defensive work.
  • Obviously, “the Federal Vision” is quite firmly building on the Reformed heritage. I knew this from many hours finding and reading old Reformed confessions. But it has been awhile and it is nice to see that someone who managed to stay out of the debate finds the same material. This means fighting FV is going to prove to be like the “war on terror” with drones ever expanding to new countries and new groups. Unending purge in order to protect Predestinarianism with wet baby dedication.
  • Just as obviously, “the Federal Vision” was a discussion that was never simply a repristination project. How can one repristinate diversity anyway? Peter offers new ways to look at the data (as do others).
  • I earlier complained that trials are a misallocation of resources. Still true in terms of efficiency but I now see people are waking up to the fact that what they have heard about Leithart in conferences, biased articles, and mostly blog posts, is highly tendentious and even untrue. So perhaps trials should be counted as joy. Heard that somewhere…

Why is Peter Leithart in the PCA?

Ultimately, Peter will have to answer that question for himself. But for what it is worth, here is my answer:

Why I joined the PCA (NAPARC) – Mark Horne.

What really made me look for a Westminsterian denomination is that I thought Westminster’s covenant theology had done a really good job at capturing what was involved in following Jesus the way the Gospels show us Jesus demanding.  While not all my commitments are summed up in the following four questions and answers my core beliefs are expressed well in them.  They directed me both as a layman, as one called to the ministry looking for a seminary, and as a trained candidate looking for a pastorate.

Q. 76. What is repentance unto life?
A. Repentance unto life is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby, out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, and upon the apprehension of God’s mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, he so grieves for and hates his sins, as that he turns from them all to God, purposing and endeavoring constantly to walk with him in all the ways of new obedience.

Q. 101. What is the preface to the Ten Commandments?
A. The preface to the Ten Commandments is contained in these words, I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Wherein God manifesteth his sovereignty, as being JEHOVAH, the eternal, immutable, and almighty God; having his being in and of himself, and giving being to all his words and works: and that he is a God in covenant, as with Israel of old, so with all his people; who, as he brought them out of their bondage in Egypt, so he delivereth us from our spiritual thraldom; and that therefore we are bound to take him for our God alone, and to keep all his commandments.

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. 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.

 

In reading my own answer, readers might decide that the real question is: Why are Peter Leithart’s accusers in the PCA?