Monthly Archives: April 2010

RePost from 2005: Turretin and Pictet on baptized infants

2 Replies

Francis Turretin, the Reformed theologian of the seventeenth century, carefully distinguishes the Reformed view of infant faith from Lutheran and Anabaptist claims. Anabaptists denied any faith to infants so that they could justify their refusal to baptize them. Lutherans affirmed (rightly) that covenant infants were believers, but made no distinction between that sort of faith that is in infants and that which is possible for those who have matured cognitively and been taught verbally. In Turretin’s terminology, while infants do not possess “actual faith,” they do possess “seminal or radical and habitual faith” (Institutes, 15.14.2, vol 2, p. 583). Actual faith would include a profession of knowledge, intellectual acts, or hearing and meditating upon the word (15.14.3, vol 2, p. 584). Thus, Turretin understands Hebrews 11.6 to refer to actual faith and writes:

When the apostle says, “Without faith, it is impossible to please God,” he speaks of adults, various example of whom he in the same place commemorates and whom alone the proposed description of faith suits (Hebrews 11.1). Now it is different with infants who please God on account of the satisfaction of Christ bestowed upon them and imputed by God to obtain the remission of their sins, even if they themselves do not apprehend it and cannot apprehend it by a defect of age (15.14.7, vol 2, p. 585).

[Note in 2010: calling youth a “defect” bothers me.]

Nevertheless, while Christian infants don’t have or need adult faith in order to be saved, there is some change inaugurated in elect children within the covenant which grows and flowers over time–one which involves the beginning of faith at an infant level: “Although infants do not have actual faith, the seed or root of faith cannot be denied to them, which is ingenerated in them from early age and in its own time goes forth in act (human instrumentation being applied from without and a greater efficacy of the Holy Spirit within)” (15.14.13, vol 2, p. 586). [Note in 2010: as a Lutheran commenter mentioned on the original post, I don’t know why the Reformed have made such a big deal about Lutherans being wrong.  Since both Reformed and Lutherans believe infants are justified by it, why not just call it faith?)

While Turretin’s major work was a massive three-volume theology that dealt with opposing views, his nephew, Benedict Pictet, publicized his positions in a much shorter and simpler Christian Theology. Pictet deals with the possibility of infant faith under his discussion of infant baptism. (pp 418-420). He divides baptized infants into four classes.

  1. Those who grow up unbelieving and impenitent. For these “baptism sets forth nothing and seals nothing.”
  2. Those who grow up unbelieving and impenitent until they are thirty or forty years old. For these, “baptism does not disclose or put forth its efficacy before they are actually converted.” (I have no idea why Pictet is so specific about the age. If I was forced to guess I might throw out the possibility that Pictet thinks that someone who is rebellious at the age of twenty may merely be a backslidden rather than a confirmed unbeliever. But again, I am guessing.)
  3. Those who grow up as believers. In these, “while reason unfolds itself, piety and faith are discovered, corresponding with the good instruction of their parents. For such covenant children growing up believing, “we may say, that baptism has been efficacious, that God has forgiven their original sin, and given them such a measure of the Spirit, as renders them capable of embracing the offers of the gospel, when reason begins to dawn upon their minds.”
  4. Those who die in infancy. In the case of such infants, “we cannot doubt but that baptism … is a public and authoritative declaration on the part of God, that he has forgiven them original sin, and granted them title to life; since infants cannot be saved without forgiveness of sins and sanctification.”

It is in regard to his third class that Pictet elaborates on the possibility of infant faith. It is clear from his discussion that he regards these children, not as converted in youth, but as brought into a saving relationship with Christ while yet infants. He writes:

But should anyone say, he cannot comprehend the operations of the Holy Ghost in these cases; we reply that the thing ought not to be denied, merely because we do not comprehend it. It is not more difficult to conceive the idea of the Holy Spirit restoring the faculties of the infant, and rendering them capable of receiving evangelical objects, as soon as reason shall dawn, than it is to conceive the idea of original sin, which is nothing else but the depravation of those faculties, inclining them to objects of sense. If we can conceive of the principle of evil before any act of it, why not the principle of good before any act of the same? If Adam had not sinned, his descendants would have been naturally innocent; and why cannot it be conceived, that the Holy Spirit places infants, who are born sinful, in some state of regeneration? The cause of our corruption is the proneness of the soul to follow the motions of the body: why then should we not conceive, that the Holy Spirit prevents the soul from following those motions, and gives it the power of directing them aright?

(Readers should note: I doubt that this account of the nature of original sin, as “the proneness of the soul to follow the motions of the body,” is correct.)

While Pictet thinks these considerations are relevant to infant baptism, he doesn’t think that the regeneration of elect infants invariably occurs at the time of baptism. He replies to such ideas that

they may obtain all spiritual blessings from the very moment of their birth, but that these may be confirmed in baptism, which is the seal, pledge, or earnest of them; the infant, indeed, knows not what is taking place, but when he arrives at years of discretion, then he recognizes it, and from the knowledge of it, possesses every motive to holiness. Some infants are regenerated in the womb, and before baptism, others in baptism, others after: we assign no particular period.

RePost from 2005 or earlier: Impute means Ascribe, Reckon, Regard, Attribute

Leave a reply

Here is Mirriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary tenth edition:

impute 1: to lay the responsibility or blame for often falsely or unjustly 2: to credit to a person or a cause : Attribute (Our vices as well as our virtues have been *imputed* to bodilty derangement–B. N. Cardoxo) syn see Ascribe.

Unlike words like “Trinity,” or “Atone,” impute is a normal word translating a normal word used in the Bible. In Greek, the word is logizomai. Webster shows how “impute” is a fine word to use as a translation. This definition works perfectly for Romans 4 where we read

Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”

Notice here that there is nothing inherently transitive about the word logizomai (“count” in the ESV–another perfectly good translation).

So far so good. What has been odd to me is that some treat the English word “impute” as if it were inherently transitive. They point out that logizomai is not inherently transitive (i.e. it works with a sentence dealing with the possibility of reckoning one’s own sins to ones own account) and go on to claim that imputation is not important to Paul’s soteriology. Of these, there seem to be two types. Those who simply leave things vague and those who strongly state and argue from Scripture that believers are represented by Christ so that his righteousness is ascribed, reckoned, attributed, etc, to sinners so that they have right standing with God even though they don’t derserve it (i.e., N. T. Wright). While the first of these could be dangerously confusing (though my perception of vagueness may only reflect my lack of familiarity with and understanding of the posiiton). The second of these is merely frustrating because they are obviously affirming nothing less than imputation.

But the frustration increases all the more when Reformed guardians, instead of pointing out the confusion, spread it and harden it into novel boundary markers, by accusing the second of this group of “denying imputation.”

A related problem here is a shallow view of how the Bible relates to theology. People are being (mis)led to believe that our theological formulations come and are supposed to come straight off the page. If we have a “doctrine of imputation,” then the word “impute” in Scripture must contain and imply the entire doctrine. But doctrines are never simply definitions of words but shorthand headings for longer statements gleaned from a great deal of Scripture. As those living after the publication of The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, I thought we all knew better than to do word-level exegesis and theology. Apparently, the news hasn’t spread. This is odd, since D. A. Carson’s essay in Justification: What’s At Stake in the Current Debates is quite good about acknowledging that we cannot simply read the imputation of Christ’s righteousness straight out of any passage in Paul or anywhere else. The doctrine is not to be derived in that manner.

(By the way, this excellent piece was marred by what appears to me to be calculated cruelty toward Don Garlington designed not only to disagree with him, and not in any way to refute him, but to dehumanize him in the minds of Carson’s audience. Since I am endorsing the article in general I can’t ignore that problem.)

Teaching people to read the doctrine of imputation out of a prooftext using the word logizomai creates triple trouble. On the one hand, it systematically distorts the actual content of the Bible as it ought to be read on its own terms. Secondly, it makes anyone who does read the Bible accurately appear to be an imputation-denying heretic even when he actually affirms the doctrine and grounds it in Scripture. Finally, it makes the doctrine actually appear to be false by anyone who sees the false foundation but doesn’t consider that there is another one available.

I recently had the rather sad experience of listening to a sermon railing against this statement:

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

[Update: the above (and below) is from Rich Lusk in his essay in the book, Auburn Avenue Theology: Pros and Cons] Here is the quotation with some context:

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. Rather, because I am in the Righteous One and the Vindicated One, I am righteous and vindicated. My in-Christ-ness makes imputation redundant. I do not need the moral content of his life of righteousness transferred to me; what I need is a share in the forensic verdict passed over him at the resurrection. Union with Christ is therefore the key.Note well, this does not downplay the significance of the active obedience. Without it, Jesus’ body would still be in the tomb. But to be precise, I am not justified by a legal transfer of his “obedience points” to my account. I am justified because the status he has as The Sinless One, and now as The Crucified and Vindicated One, has been bestowed upon me as well.

Allow me to illustrate. Suppose a woman is in deep, deep debt and has no means at her disposal to pay it off. Along comes an ultra wealthy prince charming. Out of grace and love, he decides to marry her. He covers her debt. But then he has a choice to make about how he will care for his bride. After canceling out her debt, will he fill up her account with his money? That is to say, will he transfer or impute his own funds into an account that bears her name? Or will he simply make his own account a joint account so it belongs to both of them?

In the former scenario, there is an imputation, a transfer. In the second scenario, the same final result is attained, but there is no imputation, strictly speaking. Rather, there is a real union, a marriage.

I would suggest the first picture (the imputation picture) is not necessarily wrong, though it could leave adherents exposed to the infamous “legal fiction” charge since the man could transfer money into the woman’s account without ever marrying her or even caring for her. It could become, as Wright has said, “a cold piece of business.”

The second picture (the union with Christ picture) seems more consistent with Paul’s language, and for that matter, with many of Calvin’s statements. It does not necessarily employ the “mechanism” of imputation to accomplish justification, but gets the same result. Just as one can get to four by adding three plus one or two plus two, or just as one can get home by traveling Route A or by Route B, so there may be more than one way to conceive of the doctrine of justification in a manner that preserves its fully gracious and forensic character.

For Calvin, the central motif of Pauline theology is not “imputation,” but union with Christ….

The writer goes on to quote Calvin, but anyone familiar with Calvin already knows this is true. What I find more troublesome is that few seem to grasp that the Westminster Standards fit perfectly with this central Pauline motif. There is simply no getting around it: the marriage picture is a picture of precisely what Reformed Theology has taught both in Calvin and in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms.

And it is imputation. No one has any rational right to start screaming about “denying the Gospel.” What they should be upset about is the misconstrual of the word “imputation” that somehow identifies it with the more impersonal illustration. Instead, we seem to have a North American changeling of Reformed theology within Evangelicalism that is pushing a heavily nominalist version of orthodoxy as the only allowable version. I am still trying to figure out everything about how this happened. Reformed theologians as far apart from each other as John Williamson Nevin and Robert Dabney both seemed to see it coming. Sadly, one of the best historical studies of it, William Evans dissertation on “Imputation or Impartation” has never been published or made widely available.

Nevertheless, it is perfectly obvious that in the marriage scenario the wife acquires a status and possession from somewhere other than herself or her own resources. This is truly an alien righteousness. In other words, it is just as much an “imputation” as the first scenario. To treat it as an alternative makes no sense. Imputation should not be saddled with a prevailing image of God doing math in his head. That is simply not the doctine. If it were, then eternal justification would be true, or else justification at the time of the cross. But justification is accomplished through uniting sinners to Christ by the Holy Spirit through faith:

God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them (WCF 11.6).

WLC Q. 66. What is that union which the elect have with Christ?
A. The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God’s grace, whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband; which is done in their effectual calling.

WLC Q. 69. What is the communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ?
A. The communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ, is their partaking of the virtue of his mediation, in their justification, adoption, sanctification, and whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him.

WLC Q. 70. What is justification?
A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.

Notice that the marriage scenario comes directly from the Westminster Assemblies doctrinal statements. And that justification is simply a manifestation (Q. 69) of that union.

It has been a true tragedy that the idea seems to be floating around in the Evangelical world that justification is merely a matter of God doing math in His head (and, correspondingly somehow, saving faith gets degraded into the sinner doing math in his head). But those problems should not be laid at the feet of the term “imputation.” Head and body, husband and wife, are reckoned, regarded, or counted as one person. All who are in Christ share his verdict at his resurrection. At his resurrection the Father declared that Jesus was right with him, that he had led a totally faithful life and even willingly died the death we deserved. Thus, in Christ, we are reckoned as utterly faithful and having already passed through the curse our sins deserved. Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us.

Imputation, in other words, is simply the legal aspect, property, or attribute of being united to Christ by the Holy Spirit through faith.

What is the Gospel?

Leave a reply

“Euagelio is a greke worde, and signyfyth good, mery, glad and joyfull tydings, and maketh a mannes hert glad, and maketh hym synge, daunce and leepe for joye. As when Davyd had kylled Golyath the geaut cam glad tydinge vnto the iewes, that their fearfull and cruelle enemy was slayne, and they delyvered oute of all daunger; for gladmess were of, they sange, daunced, and were ioyfull.” – William Tyndale

Jesus’ Gospel is Paul’s 2

Leave a reply

(Yes, this is the most effortless blog series ever!)

18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations,

Jesus’ Gospel is Paul’s

Leave a reply

9 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: 10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ 13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19 Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. 23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.

John Piper’s excellent catechism

3 Replies

I’m not a Baptist, so there are parts of this I don’t agree with, but there are parts that are brilliant and lovely.

For example:

Question 16: What special act of providence did God exercise towards man when he was first created?

Answer: When God had created man, he made a covenant with him that he should live and enjoy all the benefits of creation, but that he would die if he forsook the obedience that comes from faith. God commanded him not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and thus forsake his child-like dependence upon God for all things.

Scripture: Genesis 2:15-17; Galatians 3:12; Romans 5:12.

Comment: The “knowledge of good and evil” is the ability to judge independently what is beneficial (good) and harmful (evil) for yourself. What God is forbidding is that man should choose to be independent from God in his evaluation of things. He is commanding man to walk by faith in the wise and loving care of his heavenly Father. (See the use of this phrase in Gen. 3:5, 22; 2 Sam. 14:17; Is. 7:15; 2 Sam 19:35.)

Question 17: Did our first parents continue in the glad obedience for which they were created?

Answer: No, but desiring to be like God, our first parents forsook the obedience of faith, ate of the forbidden tree, sinned against God, and fell from the innocence in which they were created.

Scripture: Genesis 3:1-7; Ecclesiastes 7:29; Romans 5:12.

Question 18: What is sin?

Answer: Sin is transgression of the revealed will of God which teaches that we are to act in perfect holiness from a heart of faith to the glory of God.

Scripture: 1 John 3:4; Romans 5:13; 14:23; 1 Peter 1:16; Matthew 5:48; 1 Corinthians 10:31.

And then here:

Question 45: What is the duty which God requires of man?

Answer: The duty which God requires of man is the obedience that comes from faith.

Scripture: Galatians 5:6; 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 2 Thessalonians 2:11; Romans 1:5; 16:26; 15:18.

Comment: See questions 16-18.

Question 46: What did God at first reveal to man for the rule of his obedience?

Answer: The rule which God at first revealed to man for his obedience was the moral law.

Scripture: Rom. 2:14; 15; 5:13, 14.

Question 47: Where is the obedience of faith given in summary form?

Answer: A summary form of the obedience of faith is given in the Ten Commandments.

Scripture: Hebrews 3:18-19; 4:2; Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 10:4; Romans 9:32.

Question 48: What is the sum of the Ten Commandments?

Answer: The sum of the Ten Commandments is to love the Lord our God, with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our strength, and with all our mind; and to love our neighbor as ourselves.

Scripture: Matthew 22:36-40; Mark 12:28-33.

Question 49: What is the preface to the Ten Commandments?

Answer: The preface to the Ten Commandments is, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.”

Scripture: Exodus 20:2.

Question 50: What does the preface to the Ten Commandments teach us?

Answer: The preface to the Ten Commandments teaches us that because God is the LORD, and our gracious Redeemer, his commandments are for our good and he does not will for us to depend on ourselves in keeping them, but to trust his grace and power.

Scripture: Deuteronomy 10:13, 16; 30:6.

Great stuff!

RePost: A paragraph that changed the course of my theology and soteriology

3 Replies

J. I Packer, A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life, p. 155.

The final element in the Puritan development of the doctrine of justification was to safeguard it against mis-statement within the Puritan camp. Chapter XI of the Westminster Confession wards off two such abberations. The first is that justification is from eternity, i.e., before faith. William Twisse, first prolocutor of the Assembly, had maintained this as part of his case against Arminianism, but in addition to being unscriptural the idea is pastorally disastrous, for it reduced justifying faith to discovering that one is justified already, and so sets seekers waiting on God for assurance instead of exerting active trust in Christ. The trouble here was the assimilating of justification to election, and the Confession deals with it by drawing the correct distinction; “God did, from all eternity, decree to justify the elect… nevertheless they are not justified until the Holy Spirit doth in due time actually apply Christ unto them” (XI:iv).

I read this some time in the early nineties.  Before seminary.  Maybe while living in Nashville but probably even earlier in Florida before I got married.

Are you mono- or bi-elephantine?

Leave a reply

So, is there one covenant, or are there two?

Might as well ask if Indian and African elephants are one species or two. Are you mono-elephantine or bi-elephantine?

The answer, of course, depends on what features you’re attending to. Nobody believes that the Adamic covenant in the garden was the same in every respect as the postlapsarian covenants. If nothing else, there’s the difference of Adam’s location: In the first covenant, he’s in the garden; the postlapsarian covenant presumes his exclusion from the garden.

Yet, most everyone agrees that there are fundamental similarities: Both covenants have identical parties – God and Adam; both are initiated by God; both include promises and threats; and so on.

Carrying on a debate between bi- and mono-covenantalism is just that – carrying on. It’s sloganizing, not theology.

If the scholastics taught us nothing else, and they taught us much, they would be valuable for introducing the word “quoddamodo” (”in a certain sense”) into theological discourse.

via Peter J. Leithart » Blog Archive » Sloganizing. (boldface added)

Dr. Peter Leithart on the interTrinitarian relationships

Leave a reply

Jesus says that He does nothing but what He sees the Father doing. He has what He has from the Father. He does nothing of Himself (John 5:19-29). It might be objected that this is talking about Jesus as incarnate Son, and talking about His humanity. My working assumption, though, is that the economy reveals the ontology, and thus statements such as these point to the eternal relations of Father and Son. So, in a sense, even the Son’s eternal merit and worthiness before the Father comes in the context of the Father’s eternal, necessary gifts to the Son. (We can isolate the Son conceptually and say He is autotheos, Himself God, but in the actual Triune life, He is never alone as God the Son. He is God not as an isolated Person, but as He is the Son of the Father and the Son who receives and gives the Spirit.)

read the rest at Peter J. Leithart » Blog Archive » Merit, Adam’s and Jesus’.

Which is the proper interpretation of the Eden situation?

6 Replies

I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness. Do bear with me!  For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.  But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.

So what is Paul saying here?

I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness. Do bear with me!  For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I engaged you to one husband, to be perfectly, personally, and perpetually obedient. But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, you will cease to do the required good works that are the meritorious ground of your relationship to Christ.  For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.

OR

I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness. Do bear with me!  For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I engaged you to one husband, to trust and follow Christ.  But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from faith in and allegiance to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.

In other words, even though it is true that Adam and Eve could not sin under the covenant of works (i.e. there was no provision for ongoing forgiveness), and were required to be obedient, is it not also the case that the basic issue for them as for us was faith?  How else could Paul use this analogy if there was no basic similarity?