Marks of the Church: Back on Track

After some mulling over of Articles XXV and XXVII, I have come to the conclusion that I overreacted to my criticism. While I can readily see that there is ample room for confusion, I don't think that a Reformed understanding of these Articles are abandoned. There is a key issue to navigate, but I think that I am consistent with the doctrine. The key is the last paragraph of Article XXV.

The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be guessed upon, or to be carried about; but that we should duly use them. And in such only, as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation; But they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as St. Paul says.

How does one unworthily receive Baptism? I think that this is the issue that I was pushing towards in my most recent example concerning the Baptism of the non-elect. If a non-elect is Baptized, the use of the sacrament does NOT have a wholesome effect, but rather purchases damnation by the person. While we cannot know that this is occurring, we can no more refuse to Baptize than we do fence the table. How can we Baptize infants with any foreknowledge of the person and still hold concern for the person? Indeed, the opponents of paedobaptism gain considerable traction here. Still, we can have comfort in the knowledge that we do not elect. Those other vessels for other purposes have already been passed over regardless of our attempts to use the Sacraments as we were taught. Their damnation was not ours to prevent. 

Returning to the issue of regeneration, it would then seem that there is a dual process occurring. In the elect, the regeneration is simultaneous with Baptism. Article XXVII states that the Sacrament is a "sign of regeneration." This is a different thing that stating that Baptism is efficacious in regeneration as do the Lutherans. We can further extrapolate that simultaneous regeneration at Baptism is expected in the elect, while the simultaneous confirmation of damnation is expected in the non-elect. We cannot hold to a position of the sign of regeneration without also holding to a position of damnation. 

Importantly for my recently one-sided conversation with MDA (Monroe Doctrine Author), this reading of Articles XXV and XXVII is consistent with the later distinction between the sign and the thing signified. Article XXVII is actually quite clear on this point. What is missing from this discussion in the 39 Articles is the fate of the non-elect, an omission that does not seem to concern the church, presumably because it is not in our hands. 

I hope that this has clarified the confusion of my own making. Working through this again has at least put me in a place where I am again comfortable with my own position. It may be, as I have stated several times earlier, that these distinctions are largely lost upon the Anglican Church, but at least I feel that there is consistency between the 39 Articles with the later Westminster Confession on this issue.

-Troll-

Marks of the Church: Retraction and Clarification.

Just so you know, my readers are good. I have been offered a potential correction concerning the Anglican position on Baptism from the 39 Articles, articles 25 and 27. They read:

XXV. Of the Sacraments.

Sacraments ordained of Christ, be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession; but rather they are certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God’s good will towards us, by which he does work invisibly in us, and does not only quicken, but also strengthens and confirms our faith in him. 

   There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. 

   Those five, commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be computed for Sacraments of the gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God. 

   The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be guessed upon, or to be carried about; but that we should duly use them. And in such only, as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation; But they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as St. Paul says.

XXVII. Of Baptism.

Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from other that be not christened:  but is also a sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby as by an instru­ment, they that receive baptism rightly, are grafted into the Church:  the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God, by the holy ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; faith is confirmed; and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.  The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

It is not often that I am called to task for an issue like this, but I must confess that I have been spending so much time in the Reformed world, that I may have missed this point. The Anglican position on Baptism may be exactly the same as the Lutheran position and regeneration is assumed with Baptism, but this will require further study.

As I work through this again, I expect Luther might be the best to read on the subject, but I will be open to suggestions. The issue of the perseverance of the saints is at stake and it will require much prayer and consideration. 

In the mean time, let us assume that I hold to the positions that I have stated whether the Anglican Church does or not, and I will also ferret out the position of the Reformed Episcopal Church within the Anglican Church of North America. 

-Troll-

Marks of the Church: Resumption of discussion.

I was somewhat taken aback with the change in tone by the Monroe Doctrine Author (MDA) in his last post that was written in response to me. So, I needed time to walk away and then come back to our discussion. Let me start by responding and clarifying a small amount before we get into the second hypothetical. 

While MDA claims that I made a “pedantic” statement concerning the nature of the sacraments, it clearly is not a point of minutia to me, and thereby we can see a fairly large point of departure. What I have tried to do is to pin down exactly what it is that is the nature of a sacrament in the Presbyterian world, and it still seems elusive to me. Where I am accused in finding “virtue in confusion” is in actual fact my attempts at clearing my own confusion on the issue, a point that I am no further along than I was three months ago.  

What I have attempted to do in my own posts is to point to a decided difference in ecclesiology that is reflected in the practices of the two churches. Since the sacraments are marks of the church in both systems, it stood to reason that these issues needed to be sorted prior to tackling the Presbyterian third mark. I have failed utterly in making my own points clear as instead I have been characterized as a champion of confusion. Therefore, let me make my own points clear once more.

Baptism in the Anglican world is not the same as in the Lutheran world. “The reformed understanding is that there should neither be confusion (as with Rome) nor separation (as in Zwingli) between the sign and the thing signified.” We agree on this point. MDA asserts that I believe in an ex opere relationship of baptism to regeneration, while I have asserted quite differently. His assertion is consistent with the Lutheran tradition, and I have stated that this is not the Anglican tradition, at least as I understand it. I have tried to make a distinction between the sign and seal of covenant in Baptism with regeneration despite simultaneous occurrence of these events in the elect. This is a distinction that MDA does not seem to recognize in my writing, so I will attempt it again. The example that is useful is the covenant member who is not elect. Baptism brings this person into the covenant community, but no regeneration occurs. This is why this person might be seen to fall away from the church. This example makes plain that the Anglican understanding of baptism is different from the Lutheran understanding. The ontological separation of these events, baptism and regeneration, does not require temporal separation, however. This is an important point, and not at all of minutia.

Similarly, my long dwelling on baptism, ecclesiology and liturgy was in fact to demonstrate a lack of need to fence the table in the Anglican world. I view fencing the table a form of discipline, and in this I may be in error from the mindset of the Presbyterian. But I have not been explicitly told so as of this writing, and it may be that this is accurate in certain circumstances, but not in others.

The question that I have left on the table was basically this: what is the nature of the Presbyterian meaning of “pneumatic presence” in the Lord’s Supper as it is clearly different from that meant by the Anglicans, though I have not been able to articulate either side with sufficient clarity to further the discussion. Perhaps MDA will finally take up this point.

Now, moving on the MDA response to the second hypothetical, I would start with this statement. I chose a particular sin knowing it was difficult. MDA answered the particular question very well, but not the spirit of the question. In directing an appropriate next step in our discussion, I would ask MDA to change the habitual sin to any other one he chooses, so long as it requires the formal discipline process within the church. This will best give MDA an opportunity to forward his view of the discipline process as he understands it.

Remembering that we are both brothers in Christ Jesus, I put the ball back into your court, sir.

Marks of the Church: Pause and Reference to an aside

It will take some time for me to sort out exactly where I need to go next in my debate with the Monroe Doctrine Author (MDA). His most recent response is here. I need time to digest and investigate where our divergence of understand has occurred and try to get on track with his meaning.

In the meantime, I would whole-heartedly commend to you, my readers, his latest effort, in which he shares a view that I find compelling and revealing. It is very well written and I absolutely concur with his sentiment and underlying theology in this regard.

I will try to get us back to the debate soon.

- Troll -