Sacramental issues

After two weeks slogging through one of the toughest subjects in all of Christendom (Baptism), I thought I might try a written response to clear up some of the ambiguity remaining. Let me start by saying that I knew that this was going to be difficult, but my policy is to deal with the subjects that arise in scripture when we come to them rather than find easy topics and find the scripture to go with them. That policy is one I believe strongly in maintaining. We need to think about, pray about, and discuss tough topics.

One general note before I proceed. We are having a Bible Study, not an Anglican Study. Our source material is scripture, not the Book of Common Prayer (origins of this fine prayer book notwithstanding). While there will be Anglican particulars mentioned, the point of this exercise is to explore and learn about the Bible. If you feel that we are losing track of that point, please interject and we will adjust our trajectory.

There are two sacraments instituted by Jesus during his earthly ministry: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. In this we are in agreement. We are also in agreement that the Holy Spirit is the active agent in both sacraments. What follows then is my description of these two sacraments and answers to all of the questions that arose over these two meetings.

A sacrament, according to the Anglican lexicon, is an outward, visible sign of an inward, invisible truth. Some of you may not have heard this definition before, but those of you who have an Anglican background certainly have, and probably also those of you who have a Methodist background. This means that we are doing a ritual, but that there is something unseen going on there as well. As we stated before, the Holy Spirit is the active agent. Therefore, what we need to discover is what the Holy Spirit is doing in both of these instances.

Baptism is instituted as a necessary initiation into the covenant community by Jesus in Matthew 3. We know that this is a necessary part of the salvation equation because in the Great Commission [Matthew 28:19], Jesus specifically states that we should go forth baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. We know that washing with water is necessary from John 13, the baptism of the apostles. We have discussed that the Holy Spirit is present, but the implications of that presence need to be emphasized.

The notion of covenant inclusion is ground that we have covered in our meetings. In the Old Testament (OT), covenant inclusion was set out in the Abrahamic Covenant [Genesis 15-18] with a sacrament of circumcision [Genesis 17]. Circumcision was the outward, visible sign of an inward, invisible truth: inclusion in the covenant family of Abraham. Baptism is instituted as a new sacrament of repentance that is the outward, visible sign of the inward, invisible truth of inclusion in the New Covenant family of Jesus. Following the Jewish precedent, circumcision was not done until at least the eighth day of life [Genesis 17:12], but it was not exclusively an infant event. Many people were brought into the Jewish covenant family by adult circumcision [Genesis 17:12-13]. The difference between circumcision and baptism, then, is a matter of into which covenant are we inviting the new member. The New Covenant in Christ Jesus is the Better Covenant because He fulfilled all the prior OT covenants and established His New Covenant through His blood.

So, while the outward visible sign is clear, water baptism, let us explore the nature of the inward, invisible truth. While only men were circumcised, we baptize all people including women. It is important to understand that the English word “man” comes from German and it means people in a general sense without respect to gender. Likewise, the Greek words used in the institution of this sacrament are not gender specific. Therefore, we can in good conscious baptize women as well as men. This is an important step. Nowhere does Jesus specifically baptize a woman. Importantly, neither is this specified concerning John the Baptist. We can, therefore, surmise that Jesus is MORE inclusive than the OT model.

We can also say that the Holy Spirit was clearly present when John baptized Jesus. In fact, as one of us so adroitly pointed out, this was the first public expression of the Trinity [Matthew 3:16-17]. This presence of the Holy Spirit is a key point that cannot be overstated. The Holy Spirit is present in the sacraments. This is what makes them sacraments.

Digression for a moment is necessary at this point to discuss the condition of sin. We all agree that sin entered into the world through one man, Adam, and his sin is imputed on all of his offspring forever. The wage of sin is death and all men inherit this wage from Adam: we all die. Just as clearly, we are all born into sin. This means that no man is capable of doing good on his own. Indeed, given the choice, no man can or would choose God on his own [Romans 3:1-12]. This means very specifically that every man born is sinful by nature from the moment of conception. It requires the intervention of the Holy Spirit to change this truth. This is an important point and one of which we must not lose sight: we cannot and would not choose Christ on our own. An adult is baptized after an encounter with the Holy Spirit. But who is to say that an adult is not coerced into being baptized or is lying about his faith, and has his first encounter with the Holy Spirit in Baptism. That encounter is genuine nonetheless.

God is faithful all the time; and all the time, God is faithful. The Holy Spirit is God. The Holy Spirit is faithful all the time; and all the time, the Holy Spirit is faithful. If you are predestined before time to be a vessel that the potter has made for salvation [Ephesians 1:3-14], then the efficacy of baptism is 100%. If not, then efficacy of baptism is nil, because the Holy Spirit knows true faith and knows which vessel is to be good. This is a key point between some Protestants, particularly Lutherans, who believe that baptism delivers what it promises: redemption and transformation. Others believe in regard to apparent failure of regeneration in a person one of two possibilities, either that a person may “fall away” from Christ, or that the baptism was not authentic in some way, meaning that the Holy Spirit did not enter into the person being baptized at that moment. Both of these possibilities are troubling. If the Holy Spirit is always present and enters into the recipient of the sacrament, then if a person appears to fall away from Christ, then the Holy Spirit is not always faithful. I cannot, of course, accept that as a possibility. This leaves me with the other possibility: some vessels are meant for salvation and others are not. The Holy Spirit knows the difference. But let us never forget the example of Luke 23:39-43, the second prisoner on the cross next to Jesus. Even in the last moments of life, the Holy Spirit is faithful. We as mere human witnesses are not able ultimately to discern the difference. While true faith and salvation demonstrates good fruit, it is important to bear in mind that we are not God. We do not ultimately decide which vessel is meant for salvation and which is not.

We do as a covenant people hold the keys to the covenant community. In as much as that is true, we hold the keys to the sacrament of Baptism (there is an obvious quandary and corollary concerning the thief on the cross and his baptism). As those who hold the keys to the sacrament of baptism, how do we best control entry into the covenant community?

There are obviously two models: paedobaptism and credobaptism. Paedo is a Greek root meaning child. So, paedobaptism is the baptism of children. Credo is a Latin root that means belief. So credobaptism is the baptism of believers. It is interesting that the root words are from Greek (paedo & baptism) and Latin (credo). Greek is the language of the New Testament (NT), while Latin is the language of Rome. Do with that what you will! I only point it out for academic interest, not a proof point.

When engaging the issue of paedobaptism, I think it is important to go back to scripture. The most obvious point is neither side is given definitive inclusion or exclusion by scripture. Read John 13, particularly verse 7 along with verses 12-20. The apostles did not understand what was happening to them even as Jesus Himself was instituting the sacrament of baptism. The argument can go either way from here. Either, as Jesus states, they will come to understand soon, or the Holy Spirit does the action on them that day, only to bring full understanding to them later.

This leads us down the two roads we discussed above. If we argue that Pentecost completes the baptism of the apostles, but could not occur prior to Easter and is therefore a separate event for them only, then we can say that there is one baptism as in the Nicene Creed and that believers baptism was present for the apostles as well. This is sort of the same way that Abraham’s covenant spills out over 4 chapters rather than being in one neat, concise package. If we argue that Pentecost is either a second baptism or, better, a second encounter with the Holy Spirit that brings understanding, then we have baptism of the apostles without true belief at that point, but with the faithfulness of the Holy Spirit as the agent of regeneration. Still, this is troubling as it leads us to dangerous ground of a second baptism if that language is taken into Acts 2.

For the record, the word ‘baptism’ does not appear in Acts 2. It just doesn’t. What it says there instead is that the Holy Spirit comes and enters them. It does not even say that it is their first encounter with the Holy Spirit, although some may argue that it is implied by Jesus when he says that the Paraclete cannot come until he is gone. So, does this mean that the Holy Spirit was not present at the baptism of the apostles? Remember Matthew 3. The Holy Spirit was already present with Jesus. The difference in Acts 2 is that now the Holy Spirit has come to take residence in all of us. This is a change in locus not a change in function. This is an Easter generated event, a one-time shift from external to internal dwelling of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, we can argue that the apostles’ baptism is unique. While the Holy Spirit was present at their baptism due to the presence and participation of Jesus, the consummation of the new residence of the Holy Spirit in the covenant people is instituted at Pentecost. This is not a second baptism. Subsequent to Pentecost, the Holy Spirit immediately assumes His dwelling inwardly in the recipient of the sacrament of baptism. Therefore, regeneration occurs simultaneously with covenant community entry in those who are known by the Holy Spirit from before time.

This discussion is not meant to say that adults are not or should not be baptized. That is a ridiculous notion. All the apostles were adults. Even in the Anglican Communion today, far more adults are baptized than infants. What is meant here is not either-or, but both-and. Remember what we said much earlier: Jesus is MORE inclusive than Abraham, not less.

Still, we hold the keys as covenant leaders to the sacrament of baptism. Who shall we baptize? Here, we must look again at biblical precedent. If baptism is to circumcision as Jesus is to Abraham, then the eighth day seems to be appropriate if the new infant is born into a covenant family. This is a key point. The family must be a covenant family. If a communicant elder knows the family, then this part is easy. He may baptize the infant. If the elder does not know the family, or only knows one parent, this becomes more difficult. The responsibility of raising the child in covenant community lies not only with the parents, but with the whole covenant community. Let us suppose that a parent desires the an elder who baptized them to also baptize their child, but that parent no longer attends the congregation of that elder. Instead, they attend a congregation in another town. It would not be appropriate for that elder who does not know both parents to do the baptism. Indeed, it would not be appropriate for that elder’s congregation to take on the responsibility for raising that child in covenant community when the parents are a part of another covenant community. I hope that this clears up one of the statements that I made concerning whether I would or would not baptize a particular child. The responsibility is not just on the elder, but on his congregation, in addition to the parents.

Concerning adults, who shall we baptize? Is the Holy Spirit just as faithful for adults as He is for infants and children? Of course. Nonetheless, we have the opportunity with adults to lead them to greater understanding prior to the institution of the sacrament of Baptism. The notion of a believer’s baptism makes greater sense in the context of an adult. But Baptism is not just about belief, it is about repentance. An adult is able to understand that they are sons of Adam and therefore born into sin needing salvation from an external source. An adult can be taught the full equation of salvation: why it was necessary for Jesus to enter the world, why Easter was necessary, why faith is sufficient. An adult is already the head of his own nuclear family, be it only a family of one. His responsibility is greater in that regard. He must repent and accept the futility of his own works. This implies that the adult has already encountered the Holy Spirit prior to baptism (unless there is coercion or falsehood involved). Why would we be surprised about that, that the Holy Spirit has already been at work? What are the means of grace? The means of grace are the preaching of the Word and the sacraments. The Holy Spirit encounters man when we preach the Word (correctly). Again, adult baptism is not the exception, it is the majority.

Finally, concerning baptism, there is the problem of multiple baptisms. Some people feel that when they have fallen away from God for a while or that their relationship with God has gotten stale, that they need to do something to renew their zeal. They will seek a second (or third) baptism. This is not the same as someone who either does not know if they were baptized or whether their baptism was valid due to the apostasy of the celebrant. For those people, reassurance is necessary that the first baptism is valid. The power lies in the Holy Spirit, not in either the elder or the new covenant member. If a second baptism occurs, it is OK. It is not necessary, but it is OK.

Returning to the issue of the person who has "fallen away" and seeks re-baptism for this reason, there is a major flaw with this thinking. There is the assumption that how a person feels about God matters to how God feels towards His people. This very assumption flies in the face of the sovereignty of God. God is faithful all the time; all the time, God is faithful. God does not need us to do anything. It is already done. It is finished. Baptism was designed as a onetime event to bring us into the covenant community, to bring about our regeneration, and to begin the process of sanctification. There was another sacrament designed by Christ and instituted by Christ that is designed for repeat usage, in fact, it is designed for whenever we are gathered together. This is the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, or Holy Communion.

The institution of the Lord’s Supper [Matthew 26:26-29] begins a sacrament of memorial for events yet to come at that point in history (prior to Easter). And yet, we can say truly that the Holy Spirit is present, because the Holy Spirit was present with Jesus at that moment. When Paul is chastising the church in Corinth [1 Corinthians 11], he frames the scene as this: “When you come together as a church….” He proceeds to discuss the Lord’s Supper. The implication here is that when we come together as a church, we share the Lord’s Supper. While many churches do not do communion regularly, some do. My intent here is not to argue an issue of frequency (you already know my views of this point); my intent instead is to argue the issue of the presence of the Holy Spirit in this sacrament.

If we need renewal, and all of us do need renewal from time to time, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is there for us. If as Paul says that this sacrament is available whenever we gather as a church, then surely we should take him at his word. Some saints may argue that repeating this sacrament regularly takes away from the specialness of the sacrament. They might say that they do not feel particularly in tune with that sacrament on a particular day. This is the same error that those same saints make concerning baptism. The power is not in the person administering the sacrament or in the person receiving the sacrament. The power is in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God; the Holy Spirit is faithful all the time; all the time, the Holy Spirit is faithful.

We are so wound up in what we do, that we can lose sight of who is actually doing anything that matters. It isn’t us. Jesus spoke that it was done. The Holy Spirit is sanctifying us as we live and breathe, even when we do not recognize his hand. The means of grace are God’s Word and the sacraments that Jesus has given us. Through those means of grace, the Holy Spirit is working on us despite ourselves. Our reverent mood or zeal is not required. The Holy Spirit is faithful all the time; all the time, the Holy Spirit is faithful. What can we possibly offer that God doesn’t already have? What can we do that hasn’t already been done? I don’t really like the slogan “Let go and let God,” but there is certain applicability to this discussion. We must let go of our desire to control God. We must let go of our desire to believe that we bring anything of value to the table. Salvation is not about us and what we do. Salvation is about God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. It is for us, for all of us whom He has chosen. We have an advocate with the Father; He always wins His cases. Jesus is the Good Shepherd who never loses one of His own.

Let us continue to use all of these tools that we have been given, to the glory of God the Father, and God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Amen.

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.

A Debate on the Marks of the Church: First Clarification

By now, if you are reading this at all, you are aware that this is a series of posts on two blogs that are interacting with each other. At the beginning of each future post in this series, there will be a link to The Monroe Doctrine so that the prior post to which I am responding will be available to my readers. Please take a moment to read the post entitled “Church Discipline: an opening response.”

After carefully reading my foil’s opening remarks, it is evident that I did not adequately present the historical Anglican position. In my desire to reflect the mood of what is actually taught to the laity, I missed proper emphasis on what is taught to clergy. Since this will be a series about ideal ideas as opposed to the relative strengths of particular parishes, I will do well to stick to doctrine over practice. In my own future, I will certainly endeavor to make these two congruent. The issue at hand prior to embarking upon the great issue of discipline is the sacraments.

In a discussion of the marks of the Church, it comes as no surprise that each will impact the others in some manner. Therefore, a clear understanding of the theology behind each will shed light on future remarks. We have little disagreement on the correct preaching of the Word. The only differences arise from the different methods of selecting passages from which the sermons are based. Theologically, it is a wash; by emphasis, however, there is a difference that needs to be underscored.

The Monroe Doctrine author (MDA) asks for clarification on the issue of the sacraments. Let us begin with the issues raised regarding the number of sacraments. While it is true that Anglicanism inherited seven from Rome, it is also true that the Anglican Communion holds that only two were instituted by Christ and are worthy of the full status of sacrament. The other five, which I listed before, are worthy only of the title of “sacramental rites.” This is important because the implication here is that there is an involvement of the Holy Spirit in sacraments.

This brings me to my first key point on Anglican sacraments. The 39 Articles join with the Lutheran Augsburg Confession in rejecting the Zwinglian view of sacraments as anthropocentric ritual. By their very institution by Christ, Anglicans affirm that sacraments do not do any work, but rather God the Holy Spirit works on us through the sacraments. The sacraments are a gift from Christ whereby God does something, as opposed to them being a God-given way for us to declare something to Him or man. This is an important distinction, consistent with the views of Augustine, but one that may not be afoul of Presbyterian thinking.

In terms of Baptism, the laity often view Baptism as an open sacrament because of our (mutual) paedobaptism. In actual fact, far more adult baptisms are performed annually than infant baptisms in the Anglican Church. For the Anglican, this idea of an open sacrament is simply not the case, nor do I image that it is for the Presbyterian. As Baptism is a sacrament, a person who is baptized but does not repent and receive regeneration is as much bringing damnation upon himself as is a person who does not rightly receive the Lord’s Supper. The language of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 is echoed in terms of both sacraments. Interestingly, Calvin states a similar position in his sermon on Ephesians 2:11-13, including Baptism on equal footing with the Lord’s Supper as sacraments that condemn the reprobate. Articles 25 and 26 predate and actually predict the position of the Westminster Confession on this issue and the next.

The specific issue raised by MDA concerns regeneration. Following John Donne in the seventeenth century is Bishop Arthur Lake who developed the covenant model of Baptism within the Anglican Church. A full understanding of covenant theology in terms of Exodus 19 was outlined. What was also emphasized, however, is that election and covenant inclusion are not synonymous. This speaks directly to the issue of regeneration. While regeneration and Baptism are simultaneous in the elect, this does not deliver the same view of the sacrament as the Lutheran view. Covenant inclusion does not guarantee election, as that is involved in predestination. Many Anglicans will be surprised to find this Calvinist idea in their heritage, but one only has to study the divines to see that this is consistent. Lake is clear to strike at the Armininian idea of free will, preferring the liberation of will through grace that Calvinists will recognize. It is fair to say that this is not espoused by all Anglican clergy, but it is important in our discussion to look at the roots of the denomination for the answers to doctrinal issues. It is clear that Anglicanism has developed a doctrinal mud on this issue, but the roots are more crystalline. The 39 Articles clearly promote a view consistent with the later Westminster Confession.

I think that this puts MDA and me on similar footing concerning the issue of falling from grace. This is simply not possible within the context of a truly regenerated saint. The thought process that led me to that earlier quote was one of appearances concerning the practice of discipline. In good time, we will pound out our differences concerning the reprobate within the covenant community.

Returning to the issue of fencing the table, as MDA has reminded me of that expression, we now have another issue to consider. If Baptism is not only a covenant initiation ritual, but also a true sacrament through which God the Holy Spirit operates, then the reprobate is already condemned from the moment of Baptism. This follows logically from the definition of sacrament. Often, the Anglican laity will produce this terse definition: a sacrament is an outward visible sign of an inward spiritual and invisible grace. This definition is an Anglican truth, but it leaves much on the table for discussion. While not often spoken, the implication of the Holy Spirit being at work in the sacrament is all that Paul states in 1 Corinthians 11. But since the reprobate has already been condemned in Baptism, what further purpose is served by fencing the table?

Again, here is where the view of the Lord’s Supper demonstrates both differences in theology as well as differences in purpose. Because of the activity of the Holy Spirit in sacraments, the role of the Holy Spirit in the Lord’s Supper is sanctification. While this is similar to the view of Rome, the economy of grace is vastly different. This is not a finite particle of grace for the repudiation of a particular sin as in the Roman Catholic system, but rather more like a recharging of the battery. The Anglican needs this sacrament and feels unhealthy when going too long between. But I would refer you back to the service order for references concerning the confession and absolution that occur just prior to the prayer of consecration. While this may just be a lot of words to some of the laity, the clergy and certainly Anglican theologians take that portion of the service seriously. The absolution is as efficacious in fencing the table as need be, since the reprobate have already condemned themselves in Baptism.

One final point of clarification is the episcopate. While excommunication is among the possibilities of censure from a bishop, I have not heard of it being used with near the same frequency (as in never) relative to the Presbyterian system, again, my point of reference being my conversations with pastors. The bishop is far more likely to deal with the clergy under his charge in a censure than any laity. The issue of parity among ordained elders is a non-issue under the 39 Articles. The authority resides in the position, not the man. A retired bishop has no more authority than any Joe in the pew. We all Western Protestants fell from the same Romish tree. Anglicans feel less compelled to throw out the baby with the bath water as it were. Rejecting apostolic succession has more to do with political expediency than any theological determinative that I can see at this point.

In closing, I have a humorous observation. While I have chosen to use Luther as my source for the uses of the Law, MDA has selected the same from Calvin. There is little difference other than the ordering of the three. But here is also Luther’s quote on the abuses of the Law.

There are three ways in which the Law may be abused. First, by the self- righteous hypocrites who fancy that they can be justified by the Law. Secondly, by those who claim that Christian liberty exempts a Christian from the observance of the Law. "These," says Peter, "use their liberty for a cloak of maliciousness," and bring the name and the Gospel of Christ into ill repute. Thirdly, the Law is abused by those who do not understand that the Law is meant to drive us to Christ. When the Law is properly used its value cannot be too highly appraised. It will take me to Christ every time.

– Troll –

(I have not footnoted this blog post as it is not my custom in this blog.)

A Debate on the Marks of the Church: Part 2 of Opening Salvo

In beginning of our discussion of the Presbyterian third mark of the Church, it helps from the outset to know that this is not a subject that is viewed lightly or without a very substantial history of vigorous debate. The Westminster Confession of Faith has a section on this topic, and the debate at the Westminster convention or court is interesting reading. There are books on this topic. But first, let me set out a general pattern.

As a pastor described to me, the idea is that most instances are resolved at the first or second level and never get to the last level. What are these levels? First, there is the concerned fellow covenant communicant or church member, but there should be two. They would confront a communicant over an issue of sin, hopefully to guild that person towards counseling with a goal of repentance. The next level of intervention would be the elders, who would similarly seek to correct the communicant, with the goal being restoration of that person by repentance. Finally, things get to the pastoral level and subsequently and organized process of courts within the church that resembles the legal system. This is the last resort and is usually reached only by the communicant either refusing to admit their sin or to be willing to turn from it.

While I will leave it to my friend to polish this process as much as he feels is necessary, I want to focus on the model of Church membership that drives this system. The covenant community has a door in that is baptism and a door out that is excommunication. What follows in the typical Presbyterian discourse on the subject is a lot of discussion about 1 Corinthians 5 and Matthew 16:19. “Binding and loosing” are translated as “forbid and allow,” and there is an implication of oversight based upon a standard.  The Westminster Confession emphasizes that the Church is a Kingdom, the representation of the Lord’s Kingdom in the already, but not yet; the inter-advental time in which we live. Kingdoms have laws, judges and authorities to implement determinations. This is the justification for their system, and all of it has some Biblical footing.

The Anglican Marks of the Church

Before I can point out my differences, I should first describe my system. We will require an understanding by all parties as to the position from which I debate. The Anglican view of the Church and its authority has been described as a three-legged stool, the legs of which are scripture, history and reason. The ultimate authority in the Anglican Church is scripture. The notable distinctives of the Anglican Church are the Book of Common Prayer, the Liturgy (including the lectionary) and the episcopate (that claims apostolic succession.)

The Book of Common Prayer is a misunderstood document. One common criticism is that we use a secondary source for our services rather than the Bible. Actually, the Book of Common Prayer is about 90% Biblical quotation, and about 10% creeds and catholic tradition. Therefore, the criticism is unfounded. The beauty of the Book is that there is little difference between Anglican churches. There is a tradition and a familiarity to any Anglican service to its members, regardless of where they might attend on a given Sunday while traveling. Later, I will address the theology behind this tradition and the similarities and differences with Rome.

The lectionary is a three year cycle of scripture that is read each week. Necessarily, this means that not all areas of the Bible are covered completely. However, the criticism often leveled against the Anglican is that they are Biblically illiterate. Actually, though, they know far more of the Bible than they realize. They just don’t necessarily know where it came from in the Bible or how to find it. The lectionary also means that the same scripture is being read in every Anglican church on any given Sunday.

The episcopate is the most germane point to our topic. All authority in the church is held by the bishops or episcopate, who in turn serve all of their parishes. We will explore in later posts how that authority is used as we now have seen a takeover in the Episcopal Church by utilizing the avenues of power within that body.

Anglican Preaching

While it can certainly vary, the idea is that the sermon is based upon one of the readings for that day. Each day there is a first reading, which can be from any place in the Bible, an Epistle, most often from Paul as you would expect, but the other New Testament letters are not neglected, and a Gospel reading. Most sermons that I have heard have been based on the Gospel. The readings are laid out so that there is a vein of cohesion between them each week. The best sermons find that vein and lay it bare for the congregation. The theology of the preaching of the Word is the same in theory, but in practical application, there is far more importance placed in the sacraments. If I were to ask a random Anglican which is most important, most would point to the sacraments. I wonder and fear if this is a commentary on the quality of the sermons. Still, at root, this is a Calvinist group, born of the Reformation, and shaped largely by Thomas Cranmer. Cranmer was responsible for the creation of the BCP. A perusal of the various versions of this document will reveal a drift in theology from time to time, but a solid foundation particularly in the 1928 version, known as a return to the roots version.

Anglican Sacraments

This section will be a bit confusing for a Presbyterian. The traditional number of sacraments is seven. However, it is recognized that Baptism and the Eucharist are the only two that were instituted by Jesus. The others have been downgraded in some Anglican provinces to sacramental rites. For completeness, those other five sacraments are Confession and Absolution, Holy Matrimony, Confirmation, Holy Orders (ordination) and Holy Unction (anointing of the sick.) Although I was actually taught differently with Evening Prayer substituting for Confirmation, the five I’ve listed here are straight from the 39 Articles and the definitive answer to the question.

There is a decided difference to how Anglicans view the sacraments. Starting with Baptism, let us cover the common ground. Paedobaptism is the rule and the reasoning is the same. It is offered to the children of saints. While the historical background for this practice is both Catholic and Reformed, the theology is not taught in the same manner as the heritage from which it came. It is simply said that Baptism is necessary for salvation. Because of the near miss of a concordat between the Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, it might be justly argued that the Episcopal position on Baptism more closely resembles Lutheran theology than covenant theology. In practice, this might be the case, but I wonder whether this is consistent through all of the provinces. Again, the issue of the Lutheran theology on Baptism that is troublesome is the apparent falling away from the Church that is seen from time to time and its implications to the sacrament.

The real difference, though, is seen in the Eucharist. The first, most obvious distinctive is the location of the altar. It is always the centerpiece of the church, whether raised at the East end of the church or raised in a more central position. This architecture speaks volumes as to the importance of the Eucharist in the life of the Anglican Church. You will not attend many Anglican services that do not involve the Eucharist, the notable exception being evening prayer. The Anglicans view both of the sacraments instituted by Jesus as necessary for salvation, and therefore the Eucharist holds an important position. Looking back on our scale of Roman Catholic to Baptist, the Anglicans are much closer to Rome than perhaps any other church of the Reformation. You will hear the phrase “real presence” here, but not with the same meaning as with the Roman Catholics. Transubstantiation is specifically condemned in the 39 articles, but there is a reliance upon “mystery” as an explanation for the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It is certainly much more than the pneumatic presence of which the Presbyterians speak. This is not just a memorial, this is a sacrament every bit as mystical and important as Baptism.

The next point is that the Eucharist is open to all baptized Christians. This has huge implications to the Presbyterian, as I have outlined previously, but this is just not the issue to the Anglican. The Eucharist is necessary and vital to their sanctification. The full theology of the service order will be explored later, including the role of the Eucharist and its climactic position in the service order. What is important here is that the Eucharist is open; therefore, there is a clear difference in theology at work.

In my discussions about these differences with a Presbyterian pastor, his remarks were that Anglicans sounded as if they were guilty of sacerdotalism. Sacerdotalism is the view that priests are given special spiritual authority to mediate between God and man. Firstly, one read of the 39 Articles will put this view to rest. There is explicit language that the authority of the bishop is in the office of bishop, not the man. Incidentally, we saw this recently in the retiring of Pope Benedict and his view of his current position. It was a refreshingly Biblical return for Rome. Secondly, there is no mediation in play here; there is the administration of a sacrament. The distinction is important. The priest is in the role of servant to his congregation, while each participant in the Eucharist communes directly with the elements and His real presence. Any Anglican clergy would dismiss this charge resolutely.

Anglican Service Order

I must spend a few moments on this subject because it sheds much light on the issue of sin and repentance from the Anglican perspective. The service is modeled on the ancient ritual handed down through our Roman Catholic antecedents. It must be stated from the outset that the economy of grace supported by Rome is not in any way followed by the Anglican Communion. Therefore, some of this will seem odd at first as there is a symmetry of action with Roman Catholicism. In fact, a Roman Catholic would find an Anglican service familiar to a degree. The whole service is modeled as a prayer, as worship is an extension of prayer. If you follow one of the acronyms of prayer such as ACTS, then you will recognize some of the pattern. The full measure of the service order, though, has much more depth and breadth.

The service begins by proclamation and invitation. We are announcing to God that we have come to His house to worship Him, and we invite Him to be present with us. There is an exhortation to the congregation to focus on the worship before them. This is followed by the either the Decalogue or the summary of the law. It must be said that the Reformed Anglicans do the full list far more frequently, usually monthly. Next, the service moves to the readings for the day. This is followed by the Sermon, as you would expect.

What follows is vitally important to our discussion. After the sermon, the Nicene Creed is recited. This is followed by the prayers for the whole church and any specific supplications of the congregation. Next, there is a corporate confession of sin. Anglicans have a preserved sacramental rite of personal confession as do the Roman Catholics, but Anglicans generally stick with the corporate prayer of confession. The instruction is to hold your personal sins in mind as this prayer is recited. The next step is crucial to the discussion. The priest or bishop delivers an absolution to the congregation. In Rome, there is penance attached to this step in accordance to their economy of grace. The Anglican view is that penance of that type is in error and a represents the main point of departure of the Reformation. The absolution is corporate and it is taken very seriously in a theological perspective.

After the peace and offertory, the Eucharist Prayer begins. This is led by priest and there is all of the ritual that you would expect from the Roman Catholics. There is usually the ringing of what are called Sanctus Bells at particular moments of the prayer to draw the attention of the congregation and emphasize that what is happening is solemn, mystical and special. The prayer has a solid overlay of good Calvinist doctrine that can be discussed at some point in the future. Finally, after the Great Thanksgiving, there is a post-communion prayer, benediction and exhortation.

As you can see, the placing of the confession and absolution directly before the Eucharist has a purpose that is akin to the reasoning behind the closed sacrament of the Presbyterians. We will certainly have to evaluate the validity of this absolution at some point in the discussion, and we will also need to understand why the Eucharist holds so much prominence in the theology.

What is clearly missing here is the issue of church discipline. While there are standards to which clergy are held (think of clergy as equivalent Biblically to Elder,) censure coming from the bishop if necessary, there is generally speaking counseling available, but no formal move to excommunicate. Again, this sounds a bit Lutheran, as while there is a door in, there is really no formal door out.  We fully recognize that people drift away from the Church, but I think that there is a lack of clarity as to whether these people fall from faith or if they rather did not have genuine faith from the start. I’ll be working through this critical point as we go.

This concludes my opening salvo. I will leave it to my friend to clarify where he feels it is necessary and to ask questions as needed. Then, when he is ready, we will progress to particular Biblical references and try to work through them in both systems.

--Troll--

A Debate on the Marks of the Church: Opening salvo

This is hopefully the beginning post of a series. I will be linking you to another blog where the responses will take place. This is a dialogue. If I fail to answer your comments or questions immediately, it is because the quality of the other debater requires my concentration. Eventually, I will get back to you.

This started with the following comments that I will reproduce here as context for my opening remarks. 

“Definition of legalism: any attempt to use the moral law as a set of requirements by which a person can attain favor with God; or, for a Christian, any attempt to use the moral law as posing a threat to the believer or creating a system of punishment and rewards.

Definition of antinomianism ("no law") -- failure to recognize the moral law as a universally valid measure for human conduct before a holy God, by which measure we all fall short; or, for the Christian who has been delivered from condemnation, the failure to recognize the moral law as a guide for how we can show gratitude to God.

These two definitions attempt to make clear the proper and improper use of the law, which I consider an important subject badly mangled by many of the devout.”

Before embarking upon this trek, I will supply some background. My foil in this discussion is a good friend who is a Presbyterian (PCA) Elder. I am a former Episcopalian who is now returning to the Reformed Episcopal Church, a member organization in the Anglican Church of North America. We are both Calvinists. This is an important point from the outset as we will be having an in-house discussion between believing brothers in Christ. We hold the vast majority of theology and doctrine as common ground. Therefore, we will likely be making assumptions that not all of our readers will understand or support. You are forewarned and forearmed.

As a point of information, the Presbyterian position on the marks of the Church is that there are three: Word, Sacrament and Discipline. This series will be exploring this third point. Both sides have centuries of theologians lining up behind them, but we want to flesh out the argument as much to understand our own position better as to convince anyone. In fact, it would be highly unlikely that either of us will change our positions. We do not expect or even necessarily desire that outcome. Both of us will want to remain true to the positions of our respective traditions. I will be working from the ESV and I suspect that will be consistent with my foil, but we will know in the rebuttal if I am in error on this point.

Concerning our working definition of Legalism

It appears to me that the conclusion above sets the framework for the definitions. These definitions are designed in terms of their use within the church, both good and bad. I think I would start by expanding the definition and bringing light on various aspects that warrant consideration. The Law can be defined by the Ten Commandments with the addition of general revelation. There is a side issue of Levitical or rabbinical law that needs to be discussed, so that it can be set aside. Here is how this was defined from the first discussion that I am quoting.

“[T]he law is the moral duty that God requires of people, as revealed generally in conscience and summarized in the 10 commandments. Jesus summarized the moral law as requiring us to love God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength and our neighbor as ourselves.”

This definition works well for me, so that we understand that rabbinical law is excluded from the discussion. This follows from basic covenant theology and both sides will agree on this point. I will begin with a general definition of legalism and build to the more specific. Legalism is strict and literal adherence to a legal system. There is an implication of extreme compliance to the point that goes to beyond the purpose of the law. In Biblical context, the Pharisees were legalists in terms of both moral law and rabbinical law. Since Jesus was obviously at odds with that group as his primary foil throughout the Gospels, what did he say about legalism?

Any discussion about Jesus and the law must begin with the Sermon on the Mount particularly Matthew 5:17. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” One can easily take the verses that follow out of context and arrive at the conclusion that Jesus is proposing an extreme form of legalism. Actually, He is pointing out the futility of keeping the law for man at that point in history. He is trying to get men to understand that they are in a hopeless situation under the law without some sort of help or rescue. Both of us will agree on this point.

Turning a moment to the Rich Young Ruler, an excellent example of a legalist, in Matthew 19:16-26, we see Jesus suggest that the key to salvation is to obey the moral law. The young man completely misses the point of the instruction, so Jesus throws yet more law at him until he capitulates. So much attention, particularly in suburban America, is given to verse 23, that it is often missed that verse 26 is closely related to it. The point of this story is that obedience to the law for salvation is impossible for man alone. Again, there will be agreement on this point.

Martin Luther described the three uses of the law, which bears repeating in this space, though I have written on the topic in the past. There is the civil use of the law, which is as a force to restrain sin. This is in the context of general revelation or natural law. There is the pedagogical use of the law, which shows people their sin and points to mercy and grace outside of themselves. This is the use for confrontation and refutation of sin for the purpose of pointing the way to Christ. Finally, there is the normative use of the law, which is the use of the law for saints as a norm of conduct, freely accepted by those in whom the grace of God works the good. The problem arises when the pedagogical use of the law is attempted on saints. This is how legalism begins. When the doctrines of grace are not understood, there is an innate tendency to return to the law. This expectation that the law provides any role in salvation is misguided. Once again, I do not anticipate any issues here.

Concerning our working definition of antinomianism

This definition is very good as it makes specific mention of our gratitude. The problem with the antinomian is that he does not appreciate the overwhelming nature of the gift of mercy and grace through Christ’s earthly ministry, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension. Often, people want to skip to the good stuff and miss the foundation of why Christ was necessary. This is true of the antinomian. Anyone who fully understands the depth of despair associated with sin, particularly the condition of sin and its implications for salvation, and then is taught the doctrines of grace, this person will not fail to be grateful to Jesus for His condescension to become human, his sacrifice and triumph over death, and finally his ascension and role as mediator and advocate. There are no antinomians who understand this formula. This begs the question as to whether an antinomian is a true believer. I would argue against their faith being genuine. This seems to be consistent with the text and doctrinal teaching from both sides of this debate.

Marks of the Church

By now, you are asking, where is the debate? Here is the debate finally: what are the marks of the church? As I’ve said above, the Presbyterian answer is that there are three.

• 1.       The preaching of the Word, correctly and continuously.
• 2.       The keeping of the sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
• 3.       Church discipline.

What is meant by each of these? The preaching of the Word means something very different than the typical “message” many of us hear on Sundays. We are given a steady diet of topical preaching. This phrase refers to preaching through a book of the Bible from beginning to end, and keeping a proper perspective on the relationship between law and gospel. The Reformed notion of the role of preaching is a very high order of importance. It is through the preaching of the Word that the gospel is first heard. The Holy Spirit acts to reveal the truth of the gospel and transform the hearts of the believers. This is a sacred and important task, not just the teaching of some moral checklist each week. The preaching of the Word is active and is the means through which the Holy Spirit moves in regeneration. You will have no argument here from me.

The keeping of the sacraments is a topic that will certainly cause some discussion. First, it is important to define the two sacraments from a Presbyterian perspective, and then discuss the implications of each. Baptism is viewed from a covenant context, paedobaptism is the norm. This is not an exclusion of adult believer’s baptism, but an inclusion of the children of saints into the covenant community. This is Biblically consistent with the Jewish example. However, while the Lutheran believes that baptism delivers what it promises, the Presbyterian still expects the individual to come to a full knowledge of the love and mercy of Jesus, and to believe in the salvation promised in the Gospel. This means that there is a possibility that some Baptized people may not be among the saints. But this is not problematic or inconsistent. There are Jews who are members of the covenant community, but who did not receive salvation, notably Judas Iscariot. What is interesting here is that there is an acceptance of this fact, and yet a reticence to administer the next sacrament to all covenant members. 

The Lord’s Supper can be viewed in several ways, and rather than listing them all, let us look at the spectrum and see where the Presbyterians fall. On one end, there is Roman Catholic notion of transubstantiation. This means that the elements actually mystically transform their substance from mere bread and wine to the actual body and blood of Christ. There is a “real presence” of Christ in the elements. This is a key point of divergence in the Reformation, and one that both sides in our debate will not condone. The other end of the spectrum is a mere memorial. This is the Baptist view on this sacrament, and it is probably a stretch to call the Lord’s Supper a sacrament at all in that context. It is reduced to nothing more than a prayer over food. The Presbyterian view is that first of all, it is a remembrance, but of the death and sacrifice of our Lord. It is akin to a funeral in some respects. But the real telling point here is that the Lord’s Table is placed below the pulpit. This architectural anomaly sheds light on the relative importance of the sacraments to the correct preaching of the Word. Rather than the Roman Catholic understanding of a real presence, the Presbyterian view is of a pneumatic presence, one that stresses the work of the Holy Spirit. I will leave this to others to define this distinction better. What is most interesting to this discussion, however, is that the Presbyterian sacrament is a closed sacrament. This means that it is only open to saints in good standing with the church. The issue here is unrepented sin. The worry is that a person with unrepented sin who takes the elements eats and drinks condemnation upon himself. The closed sacrament is explained as a protection of the person from blaspheming against the Holy Spirit and thus eternal damnation. Notice the vast difference between the covenant theology applications to each sacrament. Baptism is offered to children with no knowledge of their eventual lives, and yet the Lord’s Supper can be withheld from church members who have a particular issue with sin. 

This brings us finally to the third mark of the church, church discipline.

“I would say that church discipline is not an attempt to bring a believer under the condemnation of the law. Rather, it is a warning to someone who refuses to acknowledge and repent of sin that they need to repent, and that a refusal to agree with God about their sin may indicate that they are not in the faith. It is not the fact of sin, but the refusal of repentance, that brings about discipline.”

This definition is completely in line with the discussion above. Notice that there seems to be an implied ability of a person to fall from grace. This is a point of consistency that will have to be addressed later in the discussion. In addition, a full description of the Presbyterian system of church discipline will be required. In the next installment, I will lay out that system and then begin my presentation of the Anglican perspective. 
 

– Troll –

Baptism of the Holy Spirit?

It was asked of me this past week, whether I believe in baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is a complicated topic. First, I will describe what is usually meant by the concept of baptism of the Holy Spirit. Second, I will describe what I would refer to as a more orthodox theology concerning this issue.  Finally, I will demonstrate through textual references, which of these two positions is more biblically authentic.

The concept of baptism of the Holy Spirit is usually put forward by Pentecostal groups concerning the idea of a higher level of Christian. In this theology, what we find is that the individual is baptized into Christ through water, and then requires a second baptism by the Holy Spirit, or by fire, into the higher, more complete realm of being a Christian. The basic theology this mode of thinking requires is a separation of justification from sanctification. What this entails is that justification occurs at the time of water baptism, while sanctification occurs sometime later based upon an experience of the individual involving the Holy Spirit. This also leaves several areas of concern regarding the relationship between true believers and the idea of the so-called “carnal Christians."  Carnal Christians are justified by baptism, but continue to lead lives of a lower level of piety, never making Jesus “Lord of their life” and continuing to live as if there was no baptism.  In fact, they could become atheists and still claim their baptism for salvation.  But the higher level Christian, the "mature Christian," has a baptism of the Holy Spirit, an experience in which that person feels the touch of the Holy Spirit transform their lives.  The usual manifestation that is considered proof of this baptism by the Holy Spirit is the skill of glossolalia or speaking in tongues. Other gifts of the Holy Spirit are also considered within the realm of proof of this baptism by the Holy Spirit. Typical of this group are prophecy, dreams, visions, healing, and other such activities.  The rewards of this higher level are usually discussed in terms of “jewels in my crown,” referring loosely to Zechariah 9:16, 2 Timothy 4:8, Revelation 2:10, and 1 Peter 5:4.  There is no true exegesis that occurs in this theology, but rather an eisegesis based upon a whole house of cards created by bad hermeneutics.  What this means is that when we give away logic to the devil, we have no framework in which to interpret the Word.  Said another way, if two passages seem to say the opposite, then your understanding of one or both is wrong.

The orthodox Reformed look at this theology is decidedly different. First of all, sanctification is not considered a separate event from justification. Rather, sanctification and justification occur simultaneously at water baptism. Because justification and sanctification occur simultaneously, there is the possibility, nay, the necessity, of a person being justified, sanctified and in the process of becoming sanctified, all three simultaneously, based upon the single event of water baptism.  Therefore, there is no category for separate events of justification and sanctification. The categories of carnal Christian and higher level Christian are nonexistent.  There is only one category of believer.  There are two types of people in church, but the categories are decidedly different.  In a future post, if reminded by the recipient of this missive, I will breakdown these reformed categories based upon Covenant Theology.

Coming back to our discussion of the Holy Spirit, once again, a full systematic theology is helpful in discerning the differences between these two views of the works of the Holy Spirit. Starting with the impact of original sin, and using the classic debate between Augustine and Pelagius as a template for the discussion, we can lay out three basic positions on the impact of Adam's sin on humanity. In the full Pelagian position, the sin of Adam is not imputed to all of mankind. Adam merely introduces the possibility of sin into the world.  Free will remains untouched.  Adam is a bad example. In the semi-Pelagian position, Adam tarnishes humanity with sin; and the ability to choose well, free will, was tarnished, but is redeemable by Christ. The Augustinian position is decidedly different. Augustine viewed original sin as introducing a condition of sin to mankind whereby all aspects of mankind were affected by sin. This includes free will. Therefore, mankind became incapable of following the law. Mankind became incapable of seeking God.  A full Pelagian has no need of Jesus.  A semi-Pelagian is grateful to Jesus for making salvation possible, but still has to work out his own salvation.  The Augustinian is in a real jam.  He is in a desperate plight and has no way out on his own.  The Augustinian is in desperate need of divine intervention. 

The role of the atonement is likewise viewed through different lenses. The full Pelagian view of the atonement is that Christ was the perfect example, where as Adam was the sinful example. There was no real need for Christ to die, because it was his good example that matters to us.  He teaches us ultimate virtue and morality.  The semi-Pelagian view of the atonement is that Christ wipes our slates clean including our free wills making us now capable of filling the law. Again, Christ makes salvation possible.  The Augustinian view of the atonement is that Christ imputes righteousness to believers, justifying them on judgment day, but it does not affect our free will or our condition of sin. We remain in Adam while we are in this world.  But the righteousness of Christ has been accounted to us and our sin has been accounted to Christ in the great exchange.

Extending each of these logically to the area of sanctification, we can now make the following conclusions. A full Pelagian worldview actually has very little need for Christ. In this system, Adam is merely a bad example, while Christ is a good example. Since a believer in this system really didn't get much from Christ's death, resurrection and ascension, there is plenty of room for "something else." It is into this feeling of emptiness, that the Pentecostal places this idea of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Because nothing much was attained by the sacrifice of God’s son, more is required to attain our full eternal reward. The semi-Pelagian view of sanctification is one in which we are constantly working towards perfection. Because our slate was cleaned by Christ, we are now on a cosmic balance scale of sorts hoping to tip our scale towards the side of righteousness. The Holy Spirit's job in the system is to lend assistance in our endeavors toward righteousness. The Augustinian view of sanctification is different. We are at once justified and simultaneously sanctified at the time of baptism. We are in a lifelong process of being sanctified simultaneous with our declaration of justification and sanctification. Our efforts are genuinely in the direction of righteousness because we are covenant members with Christ and through Christ. But these works have no bearing on our righteousness, because our righteousness was declared to us as being imputed from Christ to us at time of baptism. Similarly, our sin is imputed to Christ; so that time of judgment, we may approach the throne of God with confidence clothed in the righteousness of Christ. Christ has already bore the sin of the believers, having once and for all time been the perfect sacrifice for our sins.

So, which argument has the best support from Scripture? Let's start by looking at the Prophets.  In Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel and others, mankind is clearly declared incapable of following the law. Several of the Psalms echo this problem. Paul's summary of this Old Testament view of the sin of mankind can be found in Romans 3: 1-20.  No one does good; no, not even one. No one seeks God. Their mouths are an open grave. Several places discuss this as well within the parables and teachings of Jesus. Matthew 5: 48 gives us the words be you therefore perfect.  So, logically, if Jesus is telling us to be perfect, and Paul points out that we can't be perfect, we have a problem. Therefore, the bigger view of Jesus, that is, the Augustinian view, becomes necessary to solve this problem.

So, if the Holy Spirit isn't here to give us a second baptism of sorts, why did Jesus send the Holy Spirit? Lucky for us, Jesus answers this question for us.  John 14 to 16 gives us a detailed description of the work of the Holy Spirit. The job of the Holy Spirit is to testify about Jesus, his work, his purpose, his identity, and his saving grace. It is the Holy Spirit that gives us the gift of grace, the gift of faith, the gift of knowledge in the redeeming work of Christ through his death, resurrection and ascension. The Holy Spirit is actually quite busy without doing parlor tricks on our command.  The reason the Pentecostal believes that there has to be more, is that the Pentecostal does not understand original sin, the Holiness of God, and just how absolutely desperate his plight actually is.  Without a full understanding of sin and the condition of sin, we cannot appreciate how truly amazing Grace really is.  The bigger the problem, the bigger the solution has to be.  Augustinians have no need for something more.  The work of Christ and his Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, has to be absolutely huge beyond imagination to accomplish redemption for the believers.

The usual places to which the Pentecostal references the Holy Spirit are Acts 2 and 4, 1 Corinthians 12 and 14. A basic tenet of hermeneutics is that the Bible should interpret the Bible. Interpretation of these passages without account for the John passages is bad hermeneutics. But more than that, interpretation of Acts 2 without regard to the actual sermon by Peter in that same chapter is bad hermeneutics. A reasoned approach to all of these passages is to keep things in Biblical and redemptive historical context. Look and see what the context of speaking in tongues is in Acts 2.  The apostles are not babbling senseless noise. They are speaking in the native languages of all of the different peoples who are there to hear them. 3000 people were converted that day, not because of some emotional experience, but because of the convincing words of the apostles in their testimony about the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Therefore, I can say that is because of the work of the Holy Spirit that I believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore, I can say that because of the work of the Holy Spirit at my baptism, I am a new covenant member in Christ. Therefore, I can say that because of the work of the Holy Spirit, I have knowledge of the gospel, of Christ's redeeming work on the cross, and of the justification and sanctification that his death, resurrection and ascension earned on my behalf and was imputed to me at baptism, but that I will not actually receive until death or the last day, whichever comes first. Truly, the Holy Spirit has been very busy in my life.

Heidelberg Catechism: The Second Part--Baptism

I realize that it has been quite a while since we discussed the Heidelberg Catechism, but we must finish what we started.  Here is the last section that contains the introduction to the section on the sacraments.  Today, the topic is Baptism.

 Of Holy Baptism

26. Lord's Day

Question 69. How are you admonished and assured by holy baptism, that the one sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is of real advantage to you?

Answer: Thus: That Christ appointed this external washing with water, (Matthew 28:19) adding thereto this promise, (Matthew 28:19; Acts 2:38; Matthew3:11; Mark 16:16; John 1:33; Romans 6:3-4) that I am as certainly washed by his blood and Spirit from all the pollution of my soul, that is, from all my sins, (1 Peter 3:21; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3) as I am washed externally with water, by which the filthiness of the body is commonly washed away.

This is the notion of not only atonement, but expiation of sin.  Sin is completely wiped clean, through the Blood of Jesus and His meritorious work on the Cross.

Question 70. What is it to be washed with the blood and Spirit of Christ?

Answer: It is to receive of God the remission of sins, freely, for the sake of Christ's blood, which he shed for us by his sacrifice upon the cross; (Hebrews 12:24; 1 Peter 1:2; Revelation 1:5, 7:14; Zechariah 13:1; Ezekiel 36:25) and also to be renewed by the Holy Ghost, and sanctified to be members of Christ, that so we may more and more die unto sin, and lead holy and unblamable lives. (John 1:33, 3:5; 1 Corinthians 6:11, 12:13; Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12)

This section is thick with talking points.  Starting with the Hebrews, 1 Peter and Ezekiel quotes, we have wonderful scripture for those who insist that sprinkling is not Biblical.  Hmmm.   Maybe, just maybe, sprinkling is, in fact, Biblical.  Next we have the wonderful Revelation 1:5 quote that uses the words firstborn of the dead.  We see that Jesus is the firstborn of those who will receive resurrection bodies.  He is the first to be whole and complete.  He will usher in the Age to Come, but through Him, the Age to Come is already bleeding through into this current evil Age.  That's some two kingdom stuff for you.  The second set of quotes includes language about us dying with Christ through Baptism and being raised with Him through faith.  This gets to the heart of the sacrament.

Question 71. Where has Christ promised us, that he will as certainly wash us by his blood and Spirit, as we are washed with the water of baptism?

Answer: In the institution of baptism, which is thus expressed: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matthew 28:19) And "he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned." (Mark 16:16) This promise is also repeated, where the scripture calls baptism "the washing of regenerations" and the washing away of sins. (Titus 3:5, Acts 22:16)

The little verse from Mark is not trivial.  This verse is a problem for the Lutheran view of Baptism, and this is why I prefer the Covenantal  view on Baptism.  Here Mark says something very similar to what Paul says to the Galatians concerning circumcision.  In essence, the argument is that if you take the covenant seal of Baptism, believers are saved.  But by the same mechanism, unbelievers seal their doom.  All will, of course, be sorted out on Judgment Day, but accepting the Seal of the New Covenant without true faith in the meritorious work of Christ on our behalf is as much as seal of doom as it is a seal of faith for the believer.  This is tough teaching.  It means that there are souls who are Baptized and in our pews who are doomed.

27. Lord's Day

Question 72. Is then the external baptism with water the washing away of sin itself?

Answer: Not at all: (Matthew 3:11; 1 Peter 3:21; Ephesians 5:26-27) for the blood of Jesus Christ only, and the Holy Ghost cleanse us from all sin. (1 John 1:7; 1 Corinthians 6:11)

More interesting stuff from 1 Corinthians.  This verse states that justification and sanctification are both instantaneous and conferred at Baptism to the believer.  While many passages discuss the process of Sanctification, the reformation argument is that Sanctification is both instantaneous and a process.  This is a difficult concept at first, but the point is that sanctification will never be complete during this lifetime.  We make only small steps towards it.  But our faith freely given to us by the Holy Spirit confers both justification and sanctification instantly.  It is because our bodies remain IN Adam, that we require a process while we are still IN Adam. 

Question 73. Why then does the Holy Ghost call baptism "the washing of regeneration," and "the washing away of sins"?

Answer: God speaks thus not without great cause, to-wit, not only thereby to teach us, that as the filth of the body is purged away by water, so our sins are removed by the blood and Spirit of Jesus Christ; (Revelation 1:5,7:14; 1 Corinthians 6:11) but especially that by this divine pledge and sign he may assure us, that we are spiritually cleansed from our sins as really, as we are externally washed with water. (Mark 16:16; Galatians 3:27)

No new stuff here.  We do get the image of "putting on Christ" from the Galatians passage, which meshes well with the idea of being clothed in His righteousness.

Question 74. Are infants also to be baptized?

Answer: Yes: for since they, as well as the adult, are included in the covenant and church of God; (Genesis 17:7) and since redemption from sin (Matthew19:14) by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult; (Luke 1:15; Psalms 22:10; Isaiah 44:1-3;Acts 2:39) they must therefore by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, be also admitted into the christian church; and be distinguished from the children of unbelievers (Acts 10:47) as was done in the old covenant or testament by circumcision, (Genesis 17:14) instead of which baptism is instituted (Colossians2:11-13) in the new covenant.

Just when you thought that it was safe to go into the water, someone let the kids come to the party.  The best argument for infant Baptism, of course, is the covenant argument.  The Colossians passage hammers home the point concerning covenant, while the other passages bring the children into the discussion.  Of particular interest in the discussion of circumcision taking place on or after the eighth day after birth.  This truly opens the door for Baptism as the New Covenant Seal.

Baptism has the potential to spark tremendous debate.  This section of the Heidelberg Catechism does an excellent job of outlining the Covenant argument for this sacrament.  In the next post, we will examine the other sacrament: Holy Communion.

--Troll--