I’m waiting for someone to point out to accuse anyone who claims that Jesus had twelve disciples during his lifetime must be guilty of “another gospel.” After all, Jesus said, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples” (John 8.31). That settles it right? At most Jesus had eleven disciples and no more. Anyone who claims there were twelve disciples is obviously redefining orthodoxy in order to come up with an “objective” discipleship.

And what about people who speak of “unbelieving Jews” in the First Century? Isn’t this a clear-cut demonstration that the speaker doesn’t believe that Romans 2.28-29? “For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.” Obviously, anyone who treats ethnic Jews as an identity that obtains with both the regenerate and the unregenerate has been submitting to Second Temple Jewish literature rather than to Paul here or in chapter 9.

After all, if one can be a disciple of Jesus whether or not one is elect and/or regenerate then what is the difference in claiming one can be in God’s covenant whether or not one is elect? If we allow this sort of objectivity of discipleship or of Jewishness, we will not be able to refute those who claim that the preface to the First Commandment teaches all professing Christians that God “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 delivers us from our spiritual thraldom; and that therefore we are bound to take him for our God alone, and to keep all his commandments.”

But now perhaps I am merging into another series of posts (PART ONE / PART TWO).

Regarding this post:

The internet monk liked it and Dave strongly pushes it as an antidote to Chalke.

But frankly, I remain unsatisfied. The silence in certain quarters is more evidence, if any more is needed, that there is no reasoning with some accusers.

I haven’t read this book by Donald Miller, but I’m getting tired of being able to predict what a negative Reformed book review from a Reformed will always sound like.

When a book is rather one-sided, why not praise what is good about it and then recommend other perspectives? Given the fact that the reviewer seemed unable to produce evidence of anything rising to the level of false teaching, I think that would be both more responsible and more profitable for all involved.

In any case, here is the Internet Monk’s review. There are also responses from the Boar’s Head Tavern. The 9marks review is first mentioned here, and then we get further response here, which leads to this rant.

I think it is all worth reading, though I’m still on the fence over whether I need to pick up Miller’s book. Frankly, I’m picking up a “we be cool” vibe from it that sets me on edge.

For me, the operating principle is, “Don’t go around cleaning other messes when your own back yard needs work.” Evangelicalism, I will guess, has probably a few worse books than Millers–even if Millers book were twice as bad as what the 9marks review claims. I doubt Evangelicalism is being damaged. Whatever might (or might not) need to be augmented in Miller’s book, is not nearly as threatening to the future of Reformed Christendom as the level of tribalism now affecting it.

Back on my old blog, before I suspended it, I got a book out of the CTS Library and blogged about it. I thought it might be helpful to have it available again:

The Doctrine of the Church of England as to the Effects of Baptism in the Case of Infants by William Goode

These lectures were published in book form in 1849. Goode was an Evangelical Anglican defending the Evangelical faith from an Anglo-catholic. In this post I want to quote some sources Goode cites since I have never seen them before (or, if I did, I don’t remember it now). Here are a couple:

What, therefore, do we say? Do we take away all grace from the Sacraments? Far be it from us; although they [the Romanists] misrepresent us as so doing. For we say that they are most efficacious instruments of the Holy Spirit, and are also instrumental causes of grace: and this they also say; but we sa it in one sense, they in another (W. Whitaker [often cited as proof that the Westminster Assembly was inerrantist]).

Of the efficacy of the Sacraments. 1. We teach and believe that the Sacraments are signs to represent Christ with his benefits unto us. 2. We teach further, that the Sacraments are indeed instruments whereby God offereth and giveth the foresaid benefits unto us. Thus far we consent with the Roman Church (Reformed Catholic, pt. 19. Wks 1616. Vol 1. p. 610.)

Much of the first chapter is devoted to showing that the Anglican Church under Cranmer was greatly influenced by the Reformers and no other branch of the reformation. The Anglo-catholic opposition was arguing on the basis of the language of sacramental instramentalism in the early Anglican formularies that the Anglican Church had outgrown her calvinism. Goode replies by showing the same language is in the Second Helvetic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, etc. Against the argument that a high view of baptism means the decline of calvinism, he argues that calvinism has always had such a high view and thus is not evidence for the Anglo-catholic position. He writes on page 129 of 2ndHelvetica:

Now, take these general statements, and you may no doubt reasonably draw from them the doctrine of the universal efficacy of the Sacrament of Baptism. No limitation is implied in the words, intimating that the Sacrament is efficacious only in certain cases.

But what is meant by these passages is clear, both from the known doctrine of the author, and from other parts of the Confession.

And he goes on to show how the Second Helvetic Confession is clearly particularist.

I’ll write one thing more. Goode shows the Heidelberg Catechism has the same material and then quotes from Zacharias Ursinus’ commentary on the catechism to show that only the elect are ever regenerated. Then this Evangelical apologist states:

Consequently the meaning of the Catechism, so far as it seems to connect regeneration with baptism, is this, that regeneration takes place in baptism in the case of the elect; but it does not admit that this effect is produced in any others at that time, for it denies that in such it is ever produced. And this was the common view of the period.

How weird. In our milieu that claim sounds more “catholic” than Evangelical.

By the way, I’m not advocating this authors interpretation. I’m just studying history.

This book is full of other interesting stuff. Example: Luther defended infant faith by pointing out that we are still believers even when we sleep.

MARTIN BUCER

Luther figures in Goode’s book because, In 1536, Martin Bucer took part in a conference with him in which they hammered out an agreement regarding baptism. After this conference Bucer, published a second edition of his commentary on the four Gospels. In that commentary Bucer retracted some previous language regarding baptism. Goode extracts:

That external words and sacraments were the certain seals, channels, and instruments of the grace of Christ, in which the Spirit of Christ is most certainly received, appeared to him to favor the error and superstition of those who seek salvation from outward ceremonies without true faith, it was his wish to vindicate as fully as possible to Christ the Lord, all remission of sins, relief of conscience, and participation of the Spirit of Christ, and diligently to teach that lesson, that we receive here by faith only what he bestows and works for our salvation. And on this account we said, that ministers absolve from sins, when they pronounce men to be absolved through Christ, and that they confirm the consciences of men, and establish and advance their faith, when they proclaim that Christ confirms consciences and increases faith: that they wash away sins by baptism and regenerate, when by words and the sacred sprinkling they represent and bear witness that Christ washes from sins, and that they feed with the body and blood of the Lord, when in like manner by words and signs they proclaim, that Christ himself nourishes us with himself. We described the principal use of baptism to be, to be received into the Church, and make a profession of faith; of the eucharist, that we should be reminded of our redemption, and profess our perseverance in faith and love. We never thought, nor wrote, that the signs are empty signs: on the contrary, in those very passages which I retract, I clearly testified at Scripture speaks of the sacred signs as they are when truly received, in which case the thing signified is annexed to the sign, and that is really performed which is represented by the signs. It is not our view that the ministers do nothing, since with Paul we wrote, that they plant and water. This only we wished to urge, that without the power of Christ by which he draws us to himself, the work of ministers, and moreover the words themselves and external signs administered, cannot bring salvation to any one. In these things any one may see that there is nothing contrary to piety: but, as I have said, they are so written that they may twisted so as to be made use of for lowering the sacred ministry below its proper place. I confess therefore first, that I have not sufficiently explained the authority of God, and the true benefit in the Word and Sacraments, in not carefully inculcating that truth, that Christ uses the minister as his organ, that above all things he may set forth in his Word and Sacraments the remission of sins and communion with himself, and that the true profit in these things is, if the minister as diligently as possible commends this exhibition, and the others embrace it by a true faith. The profession of religion is here secondary. For faith precedes the profession of faith, and the preaching of the mercy of God and the redemption of Christ, which ise object of faith, precedes faith. Moreover the symbols in the Sacraments are nothing but visible words, by which the preaching and offering of the grace of Christ becomes more influential and more effectual to rouse the mind. Further, I acknowledge, that those metaphors, that the Sacraments are instruments, organs and channels of grace, are agreeable to the Scriptures. For St. Paul writes to the Corinthians, “I have begotten ou b the Gospel” (1 Cor 4). In Second Corinthians 3 he writes that he had administered to them the Spirit, not the letter, and that he had made them an epistle of Christ. To the Galatians he writes that he had received the Spirit by the hearing of faith. Hence he called baptism the laver of regeneration, and the eucharist the communion of the body and blood of Christ. He affirms that by baptism we are buried into the death of Christ, incorporated into Christ, and have put on Christ. From all of which, as it is evident, that the Gospel and the Sacraments, which are as it were visible Gospels, were instituted by Christ the Lord for this purpose, that he might communicate to us through them his own redemption; so it is very clear, that these are to the lord to a certain extent instruments and channels of his Spirit and grace, and thus that there is nothing absurd in these metaphorical expressions; if only this is carefully pointed out for observation, hat ministers and the ministry are such instruments of our salvation that they have nothing of it, nor supply anything, in themselves, but only so much of it as Chrsit, using them according to his own spontaneous mercy, condescends to give and supply through them. And in this way we ourselves have never denied that the words and Sacraments of the Gospels are Christ’s organs by which he gives us the benefit of his redemption. This only we deny, as we have clearly expressed it, that Sacraments and sacred words are such instruments and channels of grace as that they bring salvation with whatever mind or faith ou partake of them. For some have so tied the grace of Christ to them, that these external things seem of themselves to work salvation, even though the mind never seriously raises itself to Christ, so that the superstition of the common people, who are yet ignorant of the true faith of Christ, rests in these things.

Moreover, as they seemed to us so to speak of the word and Sacraments of the Gospel, that we considered that there was danger from their words lest that superstition of the common people shoule either be strengthened, where it still cleaves, or be brought back where it had been driven out; so they in their turn, when we, desirous of guarding, lest any one should seek salvation for himself from ceremonies, without certain faith in Christ, wrote that Christ bestows his grace and Spirit according to his will upon whom and when he pleases, and that what is performed by man can effect nothing of this, thought that we attributed nothing else to the Sacraments than that they are external marks of our communion in Christ, and that we did not acknowledge that they are symbols of grace, and hat grace is given through them. But the Lord has now granted , that both they should acknowledge that we, and we that they, think and teach that respecting the word and Sacraments that Scripture delivers, namely, that they are effectual signs and organs of communion with Christ, that is, of our salvation, by which the lord bestows upon us communion with himself; but that according to the good will of the Father and his own compassion towards us, with no merit of any creature; on which account they require faith. Therefore each error is excluded on both sides, both of those who seek salvation for themselves from ceremonies without faith in Christ, and of those who so pretend that they seek salvation for themselves from Christ, that they hold in small estimation the sacred ministry of the Church.

Interestingly, Goode says of Bucer in relation to his tractarian target: “He is quite ready to maintain with the Bishop of Exeter himself, that God has appointed them [ the sacraments] as instruments in the use of which he conveys grace to the soul, but not indiscriminately to all that use them.”

Here is Martin Bucer again, via Goode, in a letter prefixed to his work on the Gospels:

Christ truly washes from their sins and regenerates those upon whom the Church bestows baptism, which is in fact the laver of regeneration…

Since we ought to speak of the Word and Sacraments as the lord has commended them to his Church, and wishes them to be used, I some time since acknowledged, and reassert, that it is rightly said of the Word and Sacraments, when we speak simply of them, that they are the administration of salvation, channels, vehicles, and instruments of the Spirit and grace…

We shall then speak most fully, clearly, and certainly concerning these point of faith, when we speak according to the rule and form of the Scriptures. Now therein the Lord clearly says, that his Gospel is his power for salvation to every one that believes, that baptism is the laver of regeneration, that the eucharist is the communication of his body and blood, that his ministers bind and loose, retains sins and remit them; why therefore should not we also speak thus?

Goode also quotes him from that same work saying, “by baptism we are said to be loosed and washed from our sins, because by baptism, through the power of Christ and the ministry of the Church, we receive pardon and cleansing. Goode writes: “he callse the laver of water in baptism ‘a true and exhibitive sign,’ and says that in baptism ‘the renewal of the Spirit is exhibited and received.'”

Nor will they be offended if any Scriptures seem to attribute justification to baptism; for they will observe that Scripture ascribes to those Sacramental signs what belongs o the thing signified. For they are exhibitive signs; and when it speaks of signs truly recieved, in which case that which the signs signify is present together with them, it is in the habit of joining the internal things with the external, that is, the sign and the thing signified, and thus to speak of them unitedly.

Goode’s point, remember, is that the presence of general statements about baptism in the Anglican heritage do not indicate and abandonment of calvinistic particularism. Bucer is important because Cranmer invited and brought him to teach in England. Thus, Goode goes on to point out that Bucer insists those who apostasize prove that they never received regeneration or justification. Nevertheless, our ignorance of who such people are indicates that we must offer to all except those who reject it the means of grace, especially our children:

Whence, indeed, we, who cannot reject any from the grace of Christ except the deniers of it, ought not only to permit, but also to exhort, that all children indiscriminately should be brought to the Lord, htat is, offered to his Church, because that which he himself commands cannot but be best. If they already belong to the Church, and theirs is the kingdom of heaven, why should we deny them the sign of Baptism, by which they who belong to the Church of Christ are in the habit of being received into it. If there are any goats among them, they will then be to be excluded by us, when they shall have shown themselves to be so. Meanwhile let us not be more scrupulous than Christ, who pronounced children indiscriminately brought to him to be citizens of the kingdom of heaven, and on that account was angry that they were driven away from him, and ordered them to be brought to him, and when brought took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them and blessed them. By so many signs he wished to show that they belonged to him, and were by no means to be sut out of the kingdom of heaven. Ans since by far the greater number are snatched hence in childhood, who, I make no doubt, are saved by the mercy of Christ, especially those born of believers, I believe that the Lord wished in this place [Matthew 19.14] to signify, that no period of human life gave more citizens to the kingdom of heaven.

Moreover, from the fact that infants are destitute of faith, nothing less follows than that, as some think, the therefore cannot please God or be holy. Since John the Baptist is said to have been full of the Holy Ghost from the womb (Luke 1); the child was not said to have been endued with faith, and yet he was great in the sight of the Lord. For God leads his own as is suitable to the age and condition of each. Faith ought to proclaim the glory of God, and to be efficacious through love; and as these things do not belong to infants, what if also they have not faith, being nevertheless marked for salvation by the Spirit of God. But as to what they object from the las chapter of Mark, “He that believeth not, shall be condemned,” they show that they have not rightly weighed the passage. For there a command of Christ precedes concerning preaching the Gospel in the whole world, and then it is added, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned;” which is as much as to say, he that has faith in the Gospel preacyed by you and shall confess it by baptism, shall be saved, but he that has not shall be damned. And thus this sentence by no means applies to those who have not heard the Gospel. Therefore, with elect infant the Spirit of the Lord is present, by which, so far as it suffices for their age and condition, they are led, and when they grow up,at the time ordained by the Father, it teaches them to believe the word of God, and leads them by faith to salvation. But they who depart hence before they grow up, since they are Christs, they shall allso be with him, and be happy.

I don’t know Latin but I want to record what follows. Goode writes “And he maintains that those who are not thus elect, but are ‘hoedi et vasa irae,'” (hardened and vessels of wrath?) “grow up and lose the simplicit of children and thus are shut out of the kingdom of heaven.” Here is the footnote: “Qui vero hoedi sunt, et vasa irae, ii ut adolescentes alios animos assumunt, ita tales non perseverant, et regni coelorum redduntur extorres.”

More Latin for whoever wants to help me. Goode points out that in 1550 Bucer spoke on “‘the force and efficacy of baptism,’ while he distinctly lays down regeneration as its effect, and maintains this to be the meaning of such passages as John 3.4, Ephesians 5.26, Titus 3.5, he as distinctly limit this effect to ‘the elect.'” The Latin is appended:

Ex his jam omnibus locis clare perspicimus, baptisma commendari nobis, ut instrumentum divinae misericordiae, quo Deus non sua sed nostra causa dignatur uti, ut quo electis suis, quibus ipse haec sua destinavit dona, conferat…. regenerationem, &C…. Nec minus efficax est horum omnium donorum Dei instrumentum baptisma electis Dei, quos eo statuit Dominus sibi regignere, quam est ullum remedium…. &c ad conferendam sanitatem corpori.

PETER MARTYR VERMIGLI

Baptism is:

A sacrament instituted by the Lord, consisting of water and the word, by which we are regenerated and engrafted into Christ, for the remission of sins and eternal salvation. Water is a symbol peculiarly appopriate to it. For as by it the filth of the body is cleansed, so by this Sacrament the soul is purified.

Baptism is nothing else but the Sacrament of regeneration consisting of water and the Spirit thgough the word of God, from which we have remission of sins and eternal life according to the promise of Christ…. We draw the conclusion from this place (1 Cor 12.12), that by baptism we are most truly joined to Christ, not less than by the Eucharist…. Reason teaches us that baptism produces it more efficaciously than the Eucharist, just as we obtain more by our birth than by nourishment or food.

These statements are not intended to teach that all the baptized receive these things:

This passage declares [Romans 9.8], that what has been before promised generally was restrained by the secret election of God to certain men in particular… In the same way it happens at this day respecting the children of the faithful. We have a promise that God is willing not only to be our God but also the God of our seed; which promise being indefinite is applied to infants by the secret election of God, not indeed always to all, but to some certain ones in particular, according as it shall seem fit to God’s purpose. And since this is unknown to us, and we ought to follow the outward word which is committed to the Church, under that promise we baptize our little ones as the ancients circumcised theirs. The Anabaptists blame us for doing so; because we know nothing concerning the spirit, nor the faith, nor the election of thos little ones. But we do not think those things of any wight in the matter; we only regard the word of God which is offered to us in the form of a general and indefinite promise. But we commit its fulfilment to God, since we cannot judge respecting his election. But let them in their turn tell us, how they baptize adults, when it is uncertain whether they belong to the election, and whether what they say they believe and profess, they truly say, and come to Christ wih a sincere mind. Here they can answer nothing except that they follow the confession of faith which adults make before the Church when they are to be baptized. But since they may easily be deceived in at confession, and cannot know anything for certain either concerning their state of mind or concernin their election, there is no reason why they should find fault with us. For the same thing altogether happens to us in the case of little ones who are offered to the Church to be baptized, which happens to them in the case of adults.

Here’s another quotation of interest:

Wherefore we may conclude from these words, that as formerly circumcision was given to infants, so now baptism cannot be denied them; for if they have the thing, what reason is there why they should not have the sign? And lest you should doubt whether circumcision and baptism are equal and have the same purpose, Paul shows this most manifestly in his Epistle to the Colossians, where he calls baptism the circumcision of Christ. And they who lay it down, that the infants of the Hebrews ought to be circumcised, but that ours ought not to be baptized, make God more just to the Jews than to Christians. Some inquire, why, when we are ignorant whether infants have the reality of the Sacrament, we give them the sign, and seal that which is uncertain to us. To whom we reply that this question is alleged not against us, but against the word of God. For he clearly commanded and willed that children should be circumcised. Then further let them tell us why they admit adults to baptism or the communion, when they are uncertain of their state of mind. For they who are baptized or communicate, may pretend to be what they are not, and deceive the Church. They reply that they hold their profession to be sufficient. If they speak falsely, what is that to us, they say? they must look to that themselves. So we say concerning infants; that it is sufficient for us that they are offered to the Church, either by their parents, or by those in whose power they are. but if election and predestination concur with the administration of the Sacrament, what we do is ratified; if not, it is useless. For our salvation depends upon the election and mercy of God. But of the former, since to us it is hidden, we judge nothing. We only follow those indications which we can have respecting it, such as these, that those of maturer years profess in words that they believe Christ; which marks, although they are not so certain that they cannot deceive, yet they are sufficient for us for making them partakers of the Sacraments.

URSINUS & MORE THOUGHTS ON GOODE’S CLAIM

One reason I have a son named “Nevin” is that Jennifer ruled out Zacharias Ursinus. Re-readng him now, I get wistful. His lectures on the Heidelberg Catechism (of which he is the author) are incomparable. William Goode claims that Ursinus thought the elect baptized infants were regenerated at baptism. I can see where Goode gets that idea, but I’m sure it is wrong (at least defining “regeneration” in the way Goode, as an good Evangelical anti-tractarian would define the term). Ursinus insists that the sacraments are not absolutely necessary. I don’t see any way that is compatible with Goode’s view. Plainly, while Ursinus affirms strongly that grace is conferred in baptism, he doesn’t think the children of believers are normally in any danger.

Just as plainly, Ursinus believes the children of Christian are Christians.

That is old news for all Reformed readers, of course. What is interesting is that Ursinus provides interesting information for those who want to claim that any such Christian status of uncomprehending infants is rulled out by the Westminster Confession of Faith:

The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened (Chapter 14, paragraph 1).

This is interpreted in a way to clash with Calvin’s claim that baptism is inextricably involved in the ministry of the Word for baptized believers:

I know it is a common belief that forgiveness, which at our first regeneration we receive by baptism alone, is after baptism procured by means of penitence and the keys (see chap. 19 sec. 17). But those who entertain this fiction err from not considering that the power of the keys, of which they speak, so depends on baptism, that it ought not on any account to be separated from it. The sinner receives forgiveness by the ministry of the Church; in other words, not without the preaching of the gospel. And of what nature is this preaching? That we are washed from our sins by the blood of Christ. And what is the sign and evidence of that washing if it be not baptism? We see, then, that that forgiveness has reference to baptism. This error had its origin in the fictitious sacrament of penance, on which I have already touched. What remains will be said at the proper place. There is no wonder if men who, from the grossness of their minds, are excessively attached to external things, have here also betrayed the defect, not contented with the pure institution of God, they have introduced new helps devised by themselves, as if baptism were not itself a sacrament of penance. But if repentance is recommended during the whole of life, the power of baptism ought to have the same extent. Wherefore, there can be no doubt that all the godly may, during the whole course of their lives, whenever they are vexed by a consciousness of their sins, recall the remembrance of their baptism, that they may thereby assure themselves of that sole and perpetual ablution which we have in the blood of Christ (John Calvin, Institutes, IV, 15, 4).

This basic position was still considered orthodox and Reformed as late as the time of Francis Turretin:

Does baptism… take away past and present sins only and leave future sins to repentances? Or does it extend itself to sins committed not only before but also after baptism? The former we deny; the latter we affirm against the Romanists.…

II… [T]he Romansists teach… “The virtue of baptism does not reach to future sins, but the sacrament of penitence is necessary for their expiation.” Thus, the Council of Trent expresses it: “If anyone shall say that all the sins which are committed after baptism are either dismissed or made venial by the recollection of faith of the received baptism alone, let him be anathema (session 7, Canon 10, Schroeder, p. 54)….

XII. …However, we maintain that by baptism is sealed to us the remission not only of past and present, but also of future sins; still so that penitence (not a sacramental work and what they invent, but that which is commanded in the gospel) and especially saving faith is not excluded, but is coordinated with baptism as a divinely constituted means of our salvation (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 3).

What is interesting about Ursinus is that he makes statements that sound very much like the statement produced from the Westminster Confession of Faith:

The Holy Ghost ordinarily produces faith … in us by the ecclesiastical ministry, which consists of two parts, the word and the sacraments. The Holy Ghost works faith in our hearts by the preaching of the gospel; and cherishes, confirms, and seals it by the use of the sacraments (Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, p. 340).

Faith is begun and confirmed by the word; by the sacraments it is only confirmed, as in the supper. The word teaches and confirms without the sacraments, but the sacaments not without the word. Adults are not saved without a knowledge of the word; but men may be regenerated and saved without the use of the sacraments, if this omission be not accompanied with any contempt. The word is preached to unbelievers and wicked men; the church should admit none to the sacraments, but such as will have us to regard as members of his kingdom (p. 356; emphasis added)

I’m not going to bother producing the copious quotations of Ursinus explicitly saying that the infants of Christians are those to be regarded as members of God’s kingdom and are not to be considered “unbelievers and wicked.” The requirement that they be converted by some event in which they understand the preaching of the Word is foreign to Ursinus’ way of thinking. They are to be nurtured by Word and Sacrament as believers. Adults are the ones who must be brought to conscious faith through the word, infants can be raised in it.

Thus, A. A. Hodge, a rather famous Westminsterian, wrote:

When the child is taught and trained under the regimen of his baptism–-taught from the first to recognize himself as a child of God, with all its privileges and duties; trained to think, feel, and act as a child of God, to exercise filial love, to render filial obedience–-the benefit to the child directly is obvious and immeasurable. He has invaluable birthright privileges, and corresponding obligations and responsibilities (A. A. Hodge, “The Sacraments:Baptism,” in Evangelical Theology: Lectures on Doctrine [Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1990], 337, emphasis added).

I am sure that other views were meant to be encompassed by the Westminster Assembly, but there is certainly no reason or method by which Ursinus’ position can be ruled out of court. Consider the Larger Catechism as it applies to someone who was baptized as an infant:

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

Notice, pardon is a possession that has already been sealed to you in baptism. You are supposed to grow into assurance of it.

Hebrews is written to people who are wondering why they have to die. As far as we can tell, they were primarily Jewish Christians facing the imminent threat of persecution and death. According to chapter 10, verse 32 and following, they had already suffered for the Faith, been publicly humiliated, and joyfully accepted the seizure of their property. But that was nothing compared with what they were about to suffer. According to chapter 12, verse 4, their blood had not yet been shed for the sake of the Gospel, implying that they will soon reach that point. They were now tempted to renounce Christianity and go back to Judaism. This must have been an extremely tempting option, one that could be rationalized all too easily. When I think of some tragedy happening to my children, my heart melts. Imagine how much worse it would be to be given the opportunity to prevent suffering and death not just for yourself but for your family. All you would have to do is renounce the Faith.

To this situation the Holy Spirit inspired the author of Hebrews to begin his exhortation by speaking of the Son of God. But not, not, just the Son in His pre-incarnate divine glory (though that’s mentioned in verses two and three), nor simply of the incarnation (though that is obviously presupposed in this passage), but also of something more: Something that the Hebrews needed to remember if they were to keep the Faith. Something at the heart of the Gospel as revealed in the New Testament. Something we need to think about, if we are to understand God’s plan for our salvation.

Hebrews 1.3: “When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high; having become much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.”

Wait a minute! “Having become much better than the angels”? Didn’t the he just describe the Son as the one through Whom God created the world? As the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature? Wasn’t God the Son always infinitely greater than the angels? Wasn’t His name always greater?

Yes, the Son always was equal to God because He Himself was and is and ever will be God. But that is not the primary concern of the author of Hebrews. His concern is that the Hebrews realize what the Son achieved in His earthly ministry and how He achieved it. As the second Adam, Jesus had to become something in order to bring about His Kingdom. Look at Hebrews 2.9 and 10:

But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste of death for everyone. For it was fitting for Him, for Whom are all things and through Whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.

Jesus became the “author” or “leader” or, perhaps better, “pathfinder” of our salvation through suffering and death. According to chapter 5, verses 8 through 10, Jesus “learned obedience through the things that He suffered, and having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation, being designated by God as a high priest.”

As the pathfinder for the salvation of the Hebrews, Jesus is not only the source of their salvation, but their leader in salvation. He is their example because of what He did in His humanity. The Hebrews are about to suffer. Here they are told that by suffering they are following their savior. He passed through death to life so that they too could pass from death to life. In other words, they can’t attain to the resurrection, without dying first. While the writer of Hebrews initially glosses over Christ’s humiliation and death, that is what he begins to unfold for them as his letter progresses. Christ who was equal with God, put himself not only lower than the angels, but submitted Himself to death.

But while the author of Hebrews does not mention Christ’s humiliation right away, he does mention Christ’s exaltation right in the beginning of his epistle. In fact, he mentions first and foremost the resurrection. The resurrection of Jesus is the basis and cause of the resurrection of believers in glory. But where does he mention the resurrection?. Flip back to Hebrews 1.5. Here, he quotes from Psalm 2. “You are My Son, today I have begotten You.” What does that Psalm mean?

We might think of the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary so that he is the Son of God. Or we might think of how God the Son is eternally begotten by the Father. But, the author of Hebrews, I would suggest, is using the verse in line with the Apostolic preaching of the Gospel. Flip back with me to Acts 13.32. Here we find Paul preaching in the synagogue in Antioch. And here is His message:

And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, “You are My Son; today I have begotten You.”

Did you get that? David, inspired by the Holy Spirit, was not primarily referring to the inter-Trinitarian relationships, or to the Virgin Birth, but to the resurrection of Jesus. Jesus being raised from the dead is described for us as God begetting a Son.

And this is not something unique to the Apostle Paul. The Apostle Peter preached the same basic message in that first Pentecost sermon in Jerusalem. Flip back with me to Acts 2.22-24. Hear Peter’s inspired interpretation of what happened to Jesus:

Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know–this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. And God raised Him up again, putting an end to the birth pangs of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.

Now, if your translation says “agony of death” so does mine, but the word means birth pangs and it’s the same word used in Matthew 24.8, Mark 13.8; and 1 Thessalonians 5.3 where it is translated as birth pangs. Somehow it seemed too weird to portray the grave as a mother from which a son is born, but that’s exactly what Peter is presenting to us. This should not surprise us. Twice, Jesus is called the firstborn from the dead–by Paul in Colossians 1.18 and by Jesus himself when He appeared in His Transfigured, Glorified human body to the Apostle John in Revelation 1.5.

Welcome to the to the weird and wild world of the Bible where the tomb becomes a womb for a new glorious creation.

But Peter didn’t originate this message in Acts 2–that resurrection from the grave was the birth of God’s son. He heard that interpretation of resurrection from the lips of our Lord. If you’ll flip back even further a few pages to Luke 20.34 and following, you’ll hear how Jesus explained the resurrection to the Sadducees. The Sadducees, if you remember, were the political/religious party of the priests who ruled Jerusalem for Rome. They did not believe in the resurrection, and in this passage, they try to make the doctrine of the resurrection look stupid by asking about a woman who had been married to seven brothers who each died in turn. At the resurrection, they asked, to which brother would this seven-time widow be married? Listen to Jesus’ reply:

The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage; for neither can they die anymore, for they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

That is Jesus’ interpretation of what it means to be raised from the dead. One is a child of God by being a child of the resurrection. And if this applies to those who will be raised to life in union with Jesus, how much more must it apply to Jesus himself. That’s exactly the point of calling Jesus the firstborn from the dead. He is firstborn because he has gone through the same process that must occur for all of us who are promised an inheritance of glory by becoming children of the resurrection.

What we need to realize that the term “son of God” does not always mean the deity of Christ. We all know this is true in cases where believers are called the sons of God. It is also sometimes the case when Jesus is called the son of God. For example, when Luke records in chapter three of his Gospel how, at the baptism of Jesus, a voice from Heaven said, “You are my Beloved Son,” he immediately launches into the genealogy of Jesus. And that genealogy goes all the way back to Adam who is called, “the son of God.” Luke is interpreting for us what God was saying from Heaven. Jesus is the second Adam. The title “son of God” is a reference to His humanity. He is going to succeed as the perfect human being, where Adam failed. And just as Adam brought death and destruction to His posterity, so the second Adam is going to bring many sons to glory.

What I’m arguing here, is that the term “son of God” is also used in the New Testament for something beyond what Adam ever experienced. It is used to refer to those raised up from death and glorified by the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the pre-eminent human being who went through that process for us.

No one knew this better than the Apostle Paul. Turn to Romans 1.1-4 with me. In this passage we have Paul’s nutshell summary of His Gospel, which he elaborates, develops, and applies through the rest of Romans.

Paul, a bond servant of Christ Jesus, called an apostle, set apart for the good news of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born by a seed of David according to the flesh, who was appointed the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of Holiness by the resurrection from the dead…

Now some of your versions may say “declared the Son of God,” but the word means to determine something, whether to set a limit, or to make a decision, or to designate an office. It is used in those ways in Luke 22.22; Acts 2.23, where it refers to God’s predestination; Acts 10.42; 11.29; 17.26 and 31, and Hebrews 4.7 where it is said that God has appointed, or fixed, a certain day. Now, “declared” can have that meaning as well, but it’s not the first thing we might think of. So I want you to be aware of Paul’s meaning here, because it is so important to his Gospel.

Indeed, it is his Gospel. The Gospel is about God’s Son (there’s the reference to His Deity, by the way) who humbled himself to be born by the seed of David but was then appointed the Son of God in power by the resurrection (Most English translations change the prepositions so you don’t notice the parallelism which the Apostle Paul is giving us). He incarnated himself according to the flesh, and as a true human being, He was raised, according to the Holy Spirit.

Time would fail if I showed how this two stage view of the work and life of Jesus runs all through the message of Romans. What can I say about the immortal glory promised in Romans 2. Or the resurrection of Sarah’s womb in Romans 4. Or, having been justified by Jesus’ death, the hope of salvation by His life in Romans 5.1-11. Or the two ages in the rest of Romans 5–the first age of Adam, the flesh, the Law, and death; the second age of the Son, the Spirit, grace, and resurrection life. Or about the death to sin and life to God which we have in union with Christ by His death and resurrection, given to us in baptism, in Romans 6.

As I said, time will fail, so lets look at Romans 8, jumping into the discussion at verse 11:

But if the Spirit of Him who raised Christ Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you.

Notice how this harks back to Paul’s brief summary of His Gospel at the beginning of Romans. Jesus was raised, “according to the Spirit of Holiness.” Now, that Spirit has been given to us and promises us resurrection. The same power which gives you faith in Jesus will burst you from your grave and clothe you in glory.

In the next paragraph, verses 12-17, Paul elaborates this. He begins by talking about the suffering which we undergo in our struggle against our sin. He tells us not to live according to the flesh but to be led by the Spirit. Again, we see the same two stage scheme which Paul gave us in Romans 1. And just as Jesus was appointed the son of God according to the Spirit of Holiness, Paul tells us that we are children of God by virtue of the Spirit of God. Look at verse 17: “and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him in order that we may be glorified with Him.”

Having mentioned suffering, Paul elaborates it in the next paragraph in verses 18 to 25: Paul says in verse 18 that our present sufferings are not even worth considering in comparison to the glory to come. And this time, the sufferings he specifically mentions are the sufferings brought about by the curse. Look at verses 22 and following:

For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only this, but we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.

But wait a minute: Aren’t we already sons? Isn’t that what Paul has already told us up in verses 14 and 16? Let’s keep reading:

For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one hope for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.

For Paul, the Spirit is the guarantee of our resurrection. And thus, we who have received the Spirit–who confess Jesus as Lord–have the promise that we will be sons of the resurrection. As he puts it, the redemption of our bodies will be our adoption as sons. But, this involves hope, based on faith in God’s character that He will keep the promise He has made to us.

If you go to a store and buy an item with a check, you have paid for that item, even though no cash has yet been transferred from your possession to the store’s possession. The future promise counts and really is a present reality. God has marked us with His signature by His Spirit and His checks don’t bounce. We are His children because He promises to beget us from the dead, to cause us to be born from the tomb. And we must believe His Word.

Now Paul goes on to elaborate all this all over again in the rest of chapter 8. And that culminates with his famous list starting in verse 35:

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Just as it is written, ‘For Thy sake we are being put to death all day long; we were considered as sheep to be slaughtered.’ But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Now if you read this as, no matter what happens to us, no matter what we suffer, no matter what trials we experience, still somehow, in some way, we will manage to endure, we will get to Heaven despite all these things, you are not doing justice to Paul’s Gospel. Jesus didn’t get enthroned beside the Majesty on High despite being born in an animal trough, or despite being rejected by men and misunderstood by his disciples, or despite being betrayed with a kiss, or despite being beaten and tortured, or despite being crucified and killed. No, he attained to glory through these things. He attained to glory by means of tribulation, by means of distress, by means of persecution, by means of famine, nakedness, peril, and sword. He has reinterpreted suffering and death forever. Death is supposed to be the curse for sin and a foretaste of Hell, but He has turned it into the glory road.

Look up at verse 28. Paul doesn’t say that even though many things work together for evil for those who love God nevertheless, by God’s grace they manage to endure these things and inherit glory despite them. No, all things work together for good. All things! Whether death or life or angels or principalities or things present or things to come or height or depth or anything else–all these things work together for good because of the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Paul here first speaks of martyrdom, but then includes every other trial as well, including the general curse for sin under which we with all creation are groaning. He is including cancer, and car accidents, and the various painful sicknesses that we get and worse that our children get. He is including even the small things like headaches and colds and the daily physical and mental grind.

I remember once when Calvin was just born. Holding him and rocking him and singing to him, trying to get him comfortable enough to not cry. Nothing would work. And I remember thinking and even praying, “Lord, what is it to you if Calvin should stop hurting and get some sleep.” I wonder if Mary and Joseph ever had thoughts like that when they were up all night with their first crying baby.

In humbling himself, Jesus Christ has made all these things the way to heaven. We are walking in his steps when we suffer, because he loved us enough to walk ahead of us on a road he did not deserve and on which he was not obligated to set his foot. He used the route of the curse to trail blaze a path to glory. Though he was already God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, he became a man under the curse that he might become the son of God, the glorified second Adam, and bring us to glory with Him as sons and daughters of God.

That’s the message of Romans. It begins by telling us that Jesus was appointed as the son of God by the resurrection and then tells us that the way we will be made sons of God is by becoming sons of the resurrection. That is also the message of Hebrews. It begins by telling us that Jesus became greater than the angels and was born God’s son by the resurrection from the dead, and then tells us that we must die in order to be reborn as God’s children. Both writers begin with the record of the prophets, briefly affirm that Jesus was Himself God, but then summarize what He accomplished for us as the man who was born again from the dead. In both books, Jesus is the firstborn bringing us to glory as his brothers and sisters by the resurrection. Paul writes in Romans 8.28 that those God “foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.” And the author of Hebrews writes in chapter 2, verse 12 that

it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings. For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the good news about the resurrection, which transforms the curse of death into the way of life. There are many other places I could turn to show you this basic theme. I haven’t even touched 1 Corinthians 15 where the Apostle Paul talks about how the resurrection is central to the Gospel message and then compares and contrasts the First Adam who was of the Flesh and the Second Adam, Jesus, who was raised by the Spirit. Nor have I mentioned 1 Peter and how we are saved or born again through the resurrection of Jesus. The list goes on and on. Resurrection is the consistent message of the New Testament.

But the power of Jesus’ resurrection is not to be totally relegated to the Day of Judgment. Each one of us, when you or I suffer, is getting a slight foretaste of death. That is disheartening except, if we think about it, we should realize that that means we should also expect to experience foretastes of our resurrection glory which Jesus has acquired for us and the Father has promised us. That’s what the Apostle Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 4.7:

But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the surpassing greatness of the power may be of God and not from ourselves; we are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. For we who live are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus’ sake, that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh. So death works in us, but life in you.

The Apostle Paul got to see his suffering result in life and salvation for the churches he formed. He tied this to the death and resurrection of Jesus. In the same way, we see the results of Jesus’ resurrection all around us. Even though we still wait in hope for the resurrection, trusting God to keep his promise and vindicate us from the curse of death, we also see the fruit of Christ’s resurrection all around us if we open our eyes. I’m referring to this church, and all the other Christian churches. I’m referring to the fellowship that we have with one another and the love we get to experience in our congregation and in our families. These things did not come about naturally.

Believe it or not, I’m also referring to the kind of society we live in. It’s getting worse in many ways, and it needs to get much better, but try living in a country without any Christian heritage and see if you don’t notice a huge difference in your quality of life. Think about life for people in the world of first century paganism with chattel slavery and the exposure of infants and the gladiatorial games just to mention of few of the more well-known evils which were taken for granted back then. The resurrection of Jesus changed everything. It is still changing everything. The resurrection of Jesus was the resurrection of the world.

It is interesting that the first real mention of resurrection in the Bible is used to describe reconciliation in society. In Ezekiel 37, God show Ezekiel a vision of dry bones. God puts the bones together, puts flesh on them, and puts His Spirit in them. What did that vision mean? It meant that the tribes of the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judah were now going to be released from exile among the nations and put back together as one new people. Resurrection means reconciliation. Where people come together as one, there we see the power of God’s Spirit granting new life.

It is no accident then that Paul in Ephesians says that the death and resurrection of Jesus is what made both Jew and Gentile into one new man. The resurrection has implications on this side of the grave and it has corporate implications. We need to deny ourselves and bear one another’s burdens, that we might experience the power of the resurrection in our congregation and in our families. In daily dying to self and putting to death the deeds of the flesh, we collectively show ourselves to be the risen body of Christ inhabited by His Spirit.

Rick has a great blog entry about his trip to Uganda. I remember as an MK in Liberia hearing the horror stories from Uganda under Amin (the horror stories from Liberia began after we left). It was unreal because this sort of stuff barely makes a ripple on this side of the Atlantic.

I see here that there is a review of the Guy Water’s latest book in the morst recent issue of the Westminster Theological Journal.

For those who are interested, Here is some fascinating material (I haven’t read it all) on the show LOST. The guy analyzes the material with the help of the DVR and comes up with some interesting things. (i.e. When Kate went to see her non-bio father the TV was on and Sayid’s face was on the screen. Interesting stuff.

The last episode was pretty hard for me to watch. It is hard to admit to oneself that one is simply sheep for the slaughter. I didn’t want Jack or the rest to back down but I knew they had to.

What bothers me is that I can’t figure out any consistency yet; and that leaves open the possibility that the writers simply aren’t bothering. Are The Others superhuman or not. They seem in complete command and yet four have been killed. What is going on?

If you have a house and decide to make improvements, which of these two options should you choose?

• Building a rustic one-room cabin in the back yard complete with stone fire place all authentically aged to the point of including rusty tools hanging from the outside wall: tiling the basement with idyllic hunting scenes in various spaces; building a “shower” down there that is lacking a door and is accross the hallway from another room with nothing but a toilet; filling spaces with extra big sinks and with cabinetry with lots of a “Western” them involving fake wood and hugely visible black metal hinges.
• Buying a dishwater; getting dual sinks to replace the single one; replacing metal locker style cabinets with others that look decent and are actually large enough to hold kitchen objects adding to the two square feet of counter space already there; finishing a basement that other people might be able to use.

I know it is a tough choice, but when you think of all the thousands of dollars you will be spending and then what is at stake when you try to sell the house, it would be a good idea to work through this issue.

Here’s a rule off the top of my head. When you think about what to do with your house, consider what would be advisable if you needed to rent it to someone else.

Part 1

The Missouri Presbytery Report says of Covenant children that, “we understand that by their baptism, they are renouncing the devil, the world, and their own sinful flesh…” What? Surely this is wrong!

Well, if it is wrong, then BCO 56-4.g needs to be amended. Of course, this could be interpreted in more than one way, but that is the whole point. If one wishes to drive out some ways of interpreting the phrase one needs to remove it.

But again, how can we raise our children to say the Lord’s prayer, and thus address God as their Father, if they are reckoned as under the dominion of the devil, the world, and their own sinful flesh? Does Paul not command the Romans (chapter 6) to reckon their flesh dead and to live according to the Spirit, reckoning themselves alive to God? Doesn’t he remind them of the significance of their baptism to get them to do this? Isn’t the Book of Church Order preserving something important from the Bible?