I mentioned a post of his yesterday.  This morning, he expresses more concerns about the way Wright and FV are portrayed.  He also posted a quotation from Charles Hodge that used to be a favorite of mine but that I had not thought about in awhile.  Enjoy:

How then is it true that baptism washes away sin, unites us to Christ, and secures salvation? The answer again is, that this is true of baptism in the same sense that it is true of the word. God is pleased to connect the benefits of redemption with the believing reception of the truth. And he is pleased to connect these same benefits with the believing reception of baptism. That is, as the Spirit works with and by the truth, so he works with and by baptism, in communicating the blessings of the covenant of grace. Therefore, as we are said to be saved by the word, with equal propriety we are said to be saved by baptism. (Commentary on Ephesians)

“some concerns”

Here are a three extracts. First, on the New Perspecive on Paul:

The report concludes this section asserting that “Needless to say” the NPP “stands in stark contrast to the confessional formulation of these themes” (2209:26-27). One might argue, however, that the contrast in question is more an artifact of the report’s own presentation of the NPP than it is of the actual materials in question.

Second, on Peter Leithart:

In none of the texts cited, however, does Leithart “collapse” or “confuse” categories or doctrines. To say that God’s justifying verdict of right-standing before the divine court takes the form of deliverance, is to say that God performs a single act (being raised with Christ) that has both legal/forensic and transformative dimensions or aspects. Yet that is not to say that the transformative is the basis for the forensic. Nor does it mean that the various aspects cannot be properly distinguished. Neither does it discount that “justification” refers to the forensic and “sanctification” to the transformative. The report’s criticism does not appear warranted by the evidence cited.

Third, on the Federal Vision:

The report seems to put less than fully charitable constructions upon FV discussions of the covenants, covenant faithfulness, and election. In so doing, it suggests that FV proponents collapse the covenants of works and grace into a univocal notion of “covenant” and its conditions, that they propose our good works are part of the grounds of our standing before God, and that they hold to an Arminian understanding of election.

None of these suggestions, however, appear to bear up under scrutiny. By presenting FV views in this manner, the report could have the practical effect of sullying the reputation of Reformed pastors and writers who hold to the teaching of our Standards and yet have some sympathies with FV views. Moreover, the report, if embraced by the PCA, could make it difficult for any PCA theologian or scholar to engage in creative exploration of these biblical themes without immediately arousing mistrust.

Jeff has just released this paper. He gives 30 reasons not to vote for the adoption of the report. I have another one to add, for anyone who cares.

The report attacks paedocommunion as a result of the so-called “Federal Vision”:

A major consequence of covenantal objectivity is that membership within the covenant is viewed in an undifferentiated manner. One upshot of this is that the BCO distinction between “communing” and “non-communing” members is set aside or eliminated.

Paedocommunion has been granted as an exception for decades in many presbyteries. Indeed, when the General Assembly voted on paedocommunion, it ruled:

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.

Plainly, no one thought that paedocommunion was some sort of heresy striking at the “vitals of religion” (would resources both for and against Mormonism ever be sent to people by the denomination?).

What is worse is that this statement is simply inserted into the committee’s deliberations without any real connection to the issues the committee purports to be dealing with. In context, the committee is discussing the issue of “election.” But the distinction between the elect and the reprobate within the covenant (which no one denies, by the way, but that is another issue) is not and never was the same as the distinction between children and adults in the church. Everyone knows that there are (alas, far too many) communing members in our church who are determined to have a credible profession of faith who later demonstrate that their faith was not genuine saving faith and depart from the Church. If the committee mixes up this question with the question of paedocommunion it would be forced to rule that no one should ever be permitted to partake of the Lord’s Table.

There are, in fact, small denominations of Reformed believers in which the vast majority never take communion but simply attend. Their behavior is explained on grounds much like this, so it is not merely a hypothetical worry. This sort of thinking would massively change the religious culture of the PCA. If the Bible demands such a thing, then let the committee demonstrate the fact. This bare assertion should not be allowed to stand. Even if one is opposed to paedocommunion, one should still get the report fixed so tht the distinction beteen communing and noncommuning members is not equated with the elect and reprobate in the visible Church.

PostScript (3:55 pm): One thing I feel I should emphasize some more here, is that the entire distinction between communing and noncommuning membership has never been based on some abstract theological commitment to either a “differentiated” or “undifferentiated” covenant in the way the committee seems to presuppose.  John Calvin argued exegetically for the distinction from Exodus 12 and First Corinthians 11.  It had nothing to do with various definitions of election (though Calvin was aware of them and used them in interesting ways).  I happen to disagree with Calvin’s exegetical arguments.  But the point is exegesis, from which the details of the nature of the covenant should be derived, rather than some overarching idea of Covenant to which God’s mouth is shaped.

This justification requires no transfer or imputation of anything. It does not force us to reify “righteousness” into something that can be shuffled around in heavenly accounting books

So wrote Rich Lusk. I defended him here (and perhaps expressed a different way of speaking of the issues). I kept Rich’s name out of it because I was keeping his critic’s name out (and I kept his name out because I thought more highly of him than the quality of his public sermon. And somehow the impulse to not use names spread to Rich. Besides, I occasionally still dream of theology as about truth without the spirit of party besetting it at every side, so I wanted to try to keep personal references to a minimum.

The thing about Rich is that, as a theologian and as a man, he is a major treasure for the Church. If you live in Birmingham you should try to get some benefit from his ministry there. For the rest of us, his church resource site is a treasure trove.