Infants and Sacraments

My recent post on the role of the church in Christian education (link) brought to mind a post from several years ago in which I argued that only baptized persons can be "participants" in corporate worship:

...elders administer discipline to their sons, the visible flock over which they shepherd. If infants are never members of the visible church, then they are never disciplined by elders. You might discipline your son, but just because his friend is around when you do doesn't mean his friend is a "participant" in that discipline. To the extent one wants to speak of someone as a participant in worship and yet without discipline, I think such a person would be an illegitimate child rather than a son (Hebrews 12:7-8). (link)

To develop this further, unbaptized persons are onlookers. They are spectators rather than participants in liturgy. They are not, during corporate worship, authoritatively led, represented, instructed, or disciplined by elders. Just as elders guard the Lord's Supper, so too does baptism fence off participation in worship. Just as the Lord's Supper communicates covenant blessing or judgment, baptism analogously initiates one into either covenant blessing or curse. Sacraments are neither ex opere operato nor ex opere operantis. 

In this way do we see how sacramentology is tied to ecclesiology. Liturgical participants draw near to God. Those who do so in an unworthy manner will be judged more severely than those who do not draw near at all. Judgment begins at the house of God, after all. In a sense, it is for their own protection that unbaptized persons are not counted as participants, although it is obviously not good that they should remain as they are. Insofar as the Lord's Supper is proleptic of the marriage supper of the Lamb, everyone will have to reckon with the [Sabbath] day of the Lord sooner or later.

If Baptists agree - as they should - that unbaptized persons are not, in public worship, authoritatively led, represented, instructed, or disciplined by elders, that has significant implications. If one denies this by affirming that an elder, in his authoritative capacity as an elder, ought, in public worship, to instruct and discipline the unbaptized, I will only say that such a denial appears either 1) misconstrues liturgical duties of an elder or 2) trades on semantic ambiguity: some teaching, admonishment, etc. is proper or particular to an elder, whereas some teaching or admonishment is informal and not exclusive to that which only an elder can offer. 

Considering the second point first, we can say that in one sense, a Baptist elder can "teach" or "admonish" persons who are not members of the visible church (or even the invisible church). But to the extent that all men are needful of spiritual and physical nourishment, all Christians are capable of "teaching" or "admonishing" others by being living testimonies of the light of the gospel. In living such lives, through the work of the Spirit, some needs of all men may be met. Of course, that one has these needs met does not suggest that all his needs are met.

Case in point, what is being spoken of here is not proper or particular to an elder. I would argue that some of man’s spiritual needs can only be met by being members in the visible church. That is, I am not questioning whether Baptist elders are capable of meeting some needs of persons who are not in the visible church, needs that can also be met by laity in non-liturgical settings. Rather, I question whether Baptist elders are capable of meeting specific needs of unbaptized persons, particularly in the context of worship. 

I think a consistent Baptist would agree that Baptist elders can no more meet certain needs of unbaptized persons than a Presbyterian elder could - until the persons in question are baptized. Recognizing this would avoid the semantic ambiguity alluded to above and confirm a distinction in belief regarding ecclesial scope of authority, as Presbyterians baptize infants whom Baptists would not.

Now, given Baptistic thought that believing parents of infants have no obligation to incorporate said infants into the visible church (quite the contrary, in fact), it looks to be a straightforward inference that these infants are not, during worship, authoritatively led, represented, instructed, or disciplined by Baptist elders. And if a Baptist elder would say that he does not authoritatively lead, represent, instruct, or discipline unbaptized persons – if he attempts to be, as I see it, relatively consistent with Baptistic thought – then while one can certainly tell infants (or, for that matter, any unbaptized persons) that they need full, spiritual nourishment, while they remain unbaptized, a Baptist elder cannot be said authority or responsible for their spiritual nourishment.

This leads to another consideration: it seems Baptist elders should leave the extent to which unbaptized, infants are exposed to "teaching," "admonition," "discipline," etc. that is proper and particular to elders to parental discretion. In other words, if parents decided not to bring their infants to public worship until or unless they have made a credible profession, on what grounds could a Baptist elder voice a legitimate problem with that?

I find that most Christian parents want their infants (or unbaptized) children to be present for worship of God. However, the question is whether this intuition can be backed such that a Baptist elder could, consistent with Baptistic principles, morally obligate parents to bring their infants to worship by and in the midst of a visible, covenant community to which the infants do not, on Baptist grounds, "belong." Worship is a time particularly intended for the visible church to draw near to God, whereas the infant is implicitly told by Baptists that he does not belong as a worshipping member to the visible church. 

That I've met with resistance from Baptists on this question indicates to me some tension between Baptistic principles and Baptistic practice. Indeed, one wonders about the implications of the London Baptist Confession XXII.6 when it states, "God is to be worshipped everywhere in spirit and in truth; as in private families daily..." If infants can be counted as worshippers in private families, why not in the visible church? Or if they cannot be so counted as worshippers in private families, are they then not members of the private family worshipping? The tensions compound.

Turning to another argument for infant baptism, on Baptistic thought, ecclesiology and sacramentology don't mirror soteriology. Soteriologically, Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians agree that the Father monergistically elected and regenerates men, both of which [logically] precede the faith of these men - even dispositional faith (on how this importantly relates to infants, see here). Yet ecclesiologically and sacramentally, Baptists invert the order such that mature articulation of faith ought to precede [a holy parent or parents choosing the] baptism of [their] infants. This is odd, as baptism signifies regeneration.

I find Baptistic ecclesiology, sacramentology, and argumentation to be more unfortunately tied to pragmatism. Interestingly, some Baptistic arguments against infant baptism intentionally highlight this inverted order of events as experienced by members of the invisible church compared to those experienced by members in the visible church, arguing on pragmatic grounds that since infants can't remember their baptisms, the baptisms are of no use. Perhaps this is why some Baptists have historically gone further in expecting an articulation of a memorable conversion experience before admittance into the visible church.

In any case, this is like arguing that because one doesn't remember being named at the time of his naming, there is no use in the naming. On the contrary, those who belong in the midst of the visible covenant community just are those who have been named in baptism (Matthew 28:19). Both in the case of my personal naming and in my baptismal naming, testimonial evidence is sufficient for my "knowing" my own name (at least in an externalist sense); I don't need video evidence or to have been conscious during the namings for the namings to have had and continue to have significance. Not only are such pragmatic objections weak, they function to show how Presbyterian ecclesiology and sacramentology align with Presbyterian soteriology and anthropology. On further ways in which "-ologies of places and people at least tend to mirror one another," see here, here, here, and here. 

Finally, there is the objection that anyone who is baptized also should be allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper. In this way, Baptists actually agree with those of the Federal Vision movement like James B. Jordan, the latter of whose arguments for paedocommunion I find more challenging than pragmatic, Baptistic arguments against infant baptism. Jordan's ecclesiology and sacramentology are connected to his understanding of biblical theology. Take the following, which I cannot recall if I found through Jordan himself:

It is well known that the words of the nineteenth Psalm (1-4), mainly on the strength of St. Paul's adaptation of them (Rom. x. 18), have constantly received a spiritual application. The Church is the firmament which shews the handywork of God; in which day transmits to day and night to night in unbroken succession to the end of time, and to all the world, the wondrous story of the glory and grace of God. (Richard Chenevix Trench, Sacred Latin Poetry, pg. 206, link)

Jordan also argues that this symbolism is biblical (link). One enters the firmament-church through baptism just as entrance into the holy place of the tabernacle required passing by the bronze sea and through the veil. Once in the holy place or firmament, there is, before the priest, bread and wine. Bread is food that enables work, whereas wine signifies rest. Bread is protological and wine is eschatological. Thus, an OT tabernacle priest could eat bread but could not drink wine or sit down, for his work was never finished. 

Jordan further argues that bread and wine throughout the Old Testament tends to stand for a contrast between priestly infancy and kingly maturity. The OT was a time during which the people of God could participate in priestly rites but not kingly rest in the throne room; hence, only the high priest entered the holy of holies, he did so only entered once per year, and even then, his work was never finished such that he could enjoy rest. 

For priests to have drank wine at this point in redemptive history would have implied an over-realized eschatology. An over-realized eschatology is an eschatology which counts as having already happened cosmological events which we ought to still anticipate, such as the return of Christ (thus, Jordan argues against hyper-preterism). 

Before Christ, we were collectively as children and required guardians and tutors (Galatians 3-4). Christ, having completed the groundwork for our salvation and eschatological telos, has enabled His priestly people to move forward in redemptive history as we follow the directive of our enthroned King and drink the wine (signifying His blood) that the priests of the OT could not. Each Lord's day, we can enjoy anticipation of consummated, kingly rest in Him, our perfect sacrifice and High Priest. 

Even if we do not agree with Jordan in all the particulars, there does seem to be something to all this. There is a sort of macroecclesiastic, corporate, redemptive-historical progression the church had to experience before members of the church could drink wine. The whole of that which is invisible to us - the elect, the invisible church - are progressively being individually and visibly gathered into one (WCF XXV.I). As this has been and still is being realized in history, there has also been covenantal progression which, in turn, mirrors the sorts of progressions seen, for instance, on the anthropological, physical, or biological level - i.e. children eat bread long before they drink wine. 

In this way, Presbyterians avoid an over-realized ecclesiology, an ecclesiology which counts as having already happened ecclesiological events which we ought to still anticipate. Whereas now, the visible church has been given new privileges in administering sacraments which were not able to be administered under the older administrations of the covenant of grace, there is still more ingathering, maturing, and progressing to do before the members of the visible church are co-extensive with the invisible church, at which point we will enjoy the privilege of feasting with Christ face to face (Matthew 26:29).

Allowing all this, however, I suggest Jordan misses mirrors at the microecclesiastic, individual, soteriological level. We've just spoken of how the visible body collectively progresses and some analogues to it. At the same time, the whole grows only as the individual members who comprise the whole themselves grow. There must be recognized an individual progression in sanctification toward glorification as individuals put to death the deeds of their bodies (Romans 8:13). 

Just as we want to avoid an over-realized eschatology and over-realized ecclesiology, so too we want to avoid an over-realized soteriology, a soteriology which counts as having already happened soteriological events which we ought to still anticipate - such as the complete eradication of the subjective presence of sin. Jordan recognizes this much and argues against perfectionism (link).

...we must hold that indwelling sin remains and cannot be eradicated until the resurrection. Only the penalty of sin has been removed, and no matter what one does, he cannot reach a sinless state of pure fellowship. Whether he perceives it or not, sin is always present. Confession is important, but it is not magical. Certainly God wants man to confess his sin, but not to manipulate or penetrate the secret will of God. To think that confession can accomplish such things implies perfectionism. 

Rather than take this observation and consider analogues which might be found on this level, however, he follows: 

Today, Chafer’s book has tremendous influence in evangelicalism. Campus Crusade for Christ has popularized what Chafer taught in its Holy Spirit booklet, calling it “spiritual breathing.” Many other groups show the effect of this book in their emphasis on introspection. If confession of sin is emphasized apart from the objective worship of the people of God, it is individualized and internalized. Historically, the Christian Church has practiced objective and corporate confession of sin. It helps to prevent that kind of subjective introspection. It should not be overlooked, however, that Chafer’s theology is essentially Anabaptistic and has extended Anabaptist thought. It separates the objective from the subject in the same way Platonic thought did, and is in the final analysis an internalized subjective theology. 

Any retreat into the inner, personal, and subjective world of man takes him away from God’s righteous objective law. Even the scripture memory of the Pharisees and the Antonians obscured the Scripture itself because it was performed in the context of bad theology and practice. A subjective emphasis carries one away from objectivity. Once this happens, man begins to see his sin in terms of himself. As a result his sin disappears because of his own self deception. In other words, he thinks he is perfect, when he may in fact be in deep sin. Putting it another way, break the mirror and the shame disappears. The knowledge of sin comes via the law. All of the perfectionistic movements of history have rejected both a knowledge of the law and the knowledge of sin.

This is strange. Jordan seems to understand that progression is not merely a corporate phenomenon but a subjective, individual one as well, yet he seems to refuse to admit that dimension has a place in one's doctrine of worship. 

For example, Jordan understands that an over-realized physiology is a physiology which counts as having already happened physiological events which we ought to still anticipate, such as unrealistic physical expectations of those whose bodies have not yet sufficiently developed. As such, Jordan argues that youths should not play football:

...we have to agree with the opinion of physicians that football is unhealthy for young men. The Bible tells us, as does medical science, that our physical frames are not fully set and mature until we are around thirty years old. Up until that time, severe physical stress can do considerable damage to our young, developing bones and cartilege. Thus, God said that the Levites had to be between thirty and fifty years old in order to carry the heavy golden furniture of the Tabernacle (Numbers 4; this is also symbolic, since a man should be at least thirty years old before taking church office upon his shoulders.) Physicians complain that football is too risky for high school and college age youth. Many Christian schools have taken this advice seriously, and have turned to other, less dangerous sports. (link).

Likewise, can we not acknowledge subjective, relevant distinctions in worshippers? In fact, mustn't we acknowledge such distinctions in, say, considering who is qualified to function as an elder? I think Jordan conflates macroecclesial and microecclesial levels, leading him to an over-realized sacramentology, a sacramentology which counts as having already happened sacramental events which some ought to still anticipate - such as setting unrealistic spiritual expectations on ones who have not yet sufficiently developed to examine himself and discern the body (1 Corinthians 11:28-29). Jordan's understanding of this passage flattens it to such an extent that the subjectively diverse experiences mentioned in verse 30 become unintelligible.

When Jordan argues for paedocommunion, I think he misses that a progressive dimension exists in sacramentology just as in most other -ologies. He treats as what is now available to the visible covenant community - due to redemptive-historical progression - as being available to each member of the said community. In short, a fallacy of division.

Much more could be said regarding arguments against paedocommunion (or, for that matter, arguments for infant baptism). Here, I've only tried to organize some thoughts I haven't seen discussed much elsewhere. For those interested, I recommend this book and this series, the first video of which provides further biblical-theological reasons against paedocommunion.

Energetic Objections

I came across the Energetic Processions channel recently and took some time to listen to a few videos lodging objections to Protestantism on justification. It's a three and a half hour video, so I'm going to pick on just a few things the Eastern Orthodox panel mention. This originally was a longer post, but I already cut and published certain material in other posts, not all of which I can remember. For one example, though, see Robinson's comments at 52:20 in the video, which I address here and touch on again here).

One of the participants, Cyril Jenkins, says: 

The Bible's not a systematic theology. And systematics kind of has its place, but I would think only long after historical theology and biblical theology have done their work and that's that's not really what Calvinism largely is at all.

Setting aside the Eastern Orthodox professor's presupposition against sola scriptura in his prioritization of historical theology (a point Steve Hays dealt with long ago), fascinating about this is that Seraphim Hamilton - the young man in the video whose debate was being reviewed - self-admittedly owes much of his learning to the Calvinist theologian James B. Jordan, whom Seraphim has described as providing an "ocean of biblical material. It's a kind of a crash course in the whole Bible" (link). It's a shame Seraphim had dipped out of the conversation by this point, or he might have mentioned this to them. 

Likewise, Seraphim has favorably mentioned Peter Leithart's book A House for My Name. I'm probably missing other references, but Meredith Kline, Geerhardus Vos, Warren Gage, G. K. Beale, J. V. Fesko, etc. are a few other leading figures in biblical theology with whom Jenkins might want to become familiar.

Earlier in the discussion, an Eastern Orthodox pastor (De Young) offered the following comment on a lexical argument made by a debate opponent to Seraphim Hamilton on the topic of justification.

One of the the real issues especially with the Reformed approach to this is, as you said, they're going to Greek Lexicon and they're only talking about the New Testament. And a lot of this stuff really falls apart when you get into the Old Testament. And it's not a place where they really want to go, and so as a general future reference, you know, kind of dragging them there... I mean just as one example - as one example - the bit that he would consider Old Testament that's closest in time to the New Testament that talks about justification is Daniel 8:14. And that's where in the Aramaic, Daniel talks about the temple being trampled underfoot for a period of time, at which point the temple will be justified. It's tsadeq in Aramaic, and that is so clearly talking about cleansed, purified, re-established, right? Put back in order right? Any English translation you look at translates it that way.

De Young's intimation is that the justification has an ontological aspect to it along the lines of what EO espouses. Let's compare that to how James B. Jordan translates Daniel 8:14 - And he said to me, "Until evening morning two thousand and three hundred; and a sanctuary will be vindicated." Jordan argues:

The period of time from sometime in 64 A.D. to the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70 is about seven years, or just short of it. This period fits well with 2300 days, taken literally. During this time, a wicked host of priests performed the Continual, after usurping it from the righteous, from the Chief of chiefs. During this time also, both a (new) sanctuary, the Church, and its host (pastors) were trampled and persecuted in the Great Tribulation. After this time, the new sanctuary (the Church) was vindicated by the destruction of the Temple, Jerusalem, and the apostate Circumcision wherever they were. (The Handwriting on the Wall, pg. 437)

According to Jordan, then, De Young is suggesting the apostate temple order was "cleansed, purified, re-eastablished" when, in fact, it was destroyed (70 A.D.)! In contrast, Jordan's biblical-theological interprets the destruction of the apostate temple (vs. 13) as not only not cleansing or transforming the new, antitypical temple of the church (vs. 14), rather, the former (vs. 13) vindicates the latter (vs. 14).

While Young's Literal Translation of Daniel 8:14 is rather wooden, its translation of וְנִצְדַּ֖ק as "declared right" undercuts the Eastern Orthodox pastor's contention regarding English translations. This is even more ironic in that after he criticized Seraphim's opponent for apparently failing to exegete the proof-texts he offered during the debate, De Young does the very same thing. 

If De Young is willing to attempt to rebut Jordan's interpretation with an interpretation situated within a biblical-theological context, I should like to see it. Note EO apologists are even relying on Jordan - to repeat, a dastardly Calvinist! - to such an extent that they're using their own money to translate his commentaries (link). 

By the way, I mention Jordan so much because I think he could be an important figure in future dialogues, not just with EOs, but with others. I indicated as much four years ago when I mentioned him as only one of two examples (the other being Gordon Clark, of course) of someone worth researching (link) before I discussed how I recommended going about research. He appeals to many people whose faiths differ from his own. Even those who view him as dangerous seem to find some comments of his insightful. 

Moving on, a final comment is on the extreme opposition the EOs in the video have to the idea Reformed believers can have assurance of their own salvation. I'll skip over but note in passing a particularly out of place (and certainly fallacious) reference in the video to deathbed anecdotes as evidence that Calvinists have no assurance. This type of manipulation is not qualified to be called apologetics. 

Here is Robinson at minute mark 2:22:29:

On the reformed view can you know that you're elect? How? There's nothing external that happens in the world that's inconsistent with you being reprobate. There's nothing internal to you in terms of your thoughts or states of your soul that are that's inconsistent with you being reprobate. All of your data is consistent with you being elect or reprobate. There's nothing you can point to - "Oh, I have faith." Well, I can't have your toothache, right? So it's not like I can take my experience of having faith and compare it to your experience of having faith and say, "Ah, see, mine's genuine."

I find this objection very weak. Robinson is suggesting that we need to be able to compare experiences of faith to have assurance of which is genuine. But where did he find that as a criterion of assurance? Why can't I compare my experience to what the definition of faith just is: understanding of, assent to, and trust in the gospel of Jesus Christ? 

Does Robinson think he needs to compare himself to other dental patients to determine if he has a toothache? Did Adam need to ask anyone else if he heard God correctly in Genesis 2? Does Robinson not realize he has just prevented members of his own faith from having assurance? EOs can no more compare their experiences of toothaches than can Reformed believers. Here is what Gordon Clark has to say of Robinson's illustration (link):

Since two people cannot have the same sensation, for my toothache is not yours, two people never sense the same thing. Each person lives in a separate world of his own perceptions. Therefore whatever a man thinks is true, that is true for him, and no one else can judge. This is the theory of relativism, the denial of fixed, eternal truth.

Perhaps Robinson projects his own experience while he believes he was a Calvinist onto Calvinism itself (minute mark 2:11:28ff.). He struggled with assurance, asking himself whether his faith was "great enough" - there are, unfortunately, a minority of Reformed believers who do teach that assurance is of the essence of saving faith, and these men can have the tendency of pushing younger men and women into doubt. See the last link in this post where I specifically refute one such person. Robinson's experience is sad, but it cannot be taken as the marker for what Reformed theology actually is.

Another point Robinson makes involves Calvin (minute mark 2:23:09):

You look at Hebrews 6. What Calvin says there - Calvin says that God actually begins the process of regeneration in the reprobate and then withdraws it so that they feel like they're actually being regenerate and so that they end up falsely believing. Well, let's put aside God's moral character as a question at that point. Let's ask the question of, "Okay how do I discriminate between that situation and mine?" I don't know how Calvinists have any Assurance at all. Zero. Goose egg.

We can set aside the point that Calvin is but one exegete. It isn't necessary to make this observation (see below), so I only do so because I know - but readers might not - that this would just lead to EOs begging the question: "if we don't respect what the [alleged] founder of our religion says, then that says it all about his and your religion itself, huh?" 

It's an escape-hatch EOs (and RCs) use if they can, especially if they see no other way out of a conversation in which they no longer wish to participate: make Calvin to be the straw head of a straw man, call the man "Reformed theology," and chop off Calvin (Luther/Protestantism, etc.). A recipe for frustration on the part of the Reformed believer, unless he is willing to let lies and nonsense go. 

This is often called for and recommended. Knowing for yourself that Reformed theology is based on God's revelation is enough. Not every misrepresentation or bad argument should be responded to. There are better things to do.

Anyway, I believe Robinson is referring to Calvin's comments on verse 4 here:

God indeed favors none but the elect alone with the Spirit of regeneration, and that by this they are distinguished from the reprobate; for they are renewed after his image and receive the earnest of the Spirit in hope of the future inheritance, and by the same Spirit the Gospel is sealed in their hearts. But I cannot admit that all this is any reason why he should not grant the reprobate also some taste of his grace, why he should not irradiate their minds with some sparks of his light, why he should not give them some perception of his goodness, and in some sort engrave his word on their hearts. Otherwise, where would be the temporal faith mentioned by Mark 4:17? There is therefore some knowledge even in the reprobate, which afterwards vanishes away, either because it did not strike roots sufficiently deep, or because it withers, being choked up.

Robinson's argument is epistemic: two people experience different things (regeneration vs. taste of grace), yet they cannot distinguish themselves (regenerate vs. unregenerate). Thus, assurance is impossible. So goes the argument.

Firstly, I missed where Robinson got the idea Calvin says God "begins the process of regeneration in the reprobate and then withdraws it." Calvin's first line seems like a fairly straightforward statement to the contrary.

Secondly, does Calvin consider the reprobate to be believers or unbelievers at the time they taste God's grace? If the former, that would make him Augustinian. That would be inconsistent with Reformed theology and indeed undercut Calvin's ability to be assured (cf. link below)... but it would also in turn undercut Robinson's appeal to Calvin insofar as Robinson would no longer be objecting to Reformed theology. 

Now, if the latter - reprobates are never believers - do they ever believe they are? If not, there is no dilemma. If so, then (just as importantly) what are their epistemic grounds for the belief? We are returned to: do these people understand, assent, and trust in the gospel of Jesus Christ? Since we've assumed they are not believers at this point, the answer is no. So it is just a matter of discerning what they misunderstand or reject about the gospel.

These are questions which can't be skipped over, yet are. This is also where the "toothache" illustration turns out to be handy. It is true that I can never experience someone else's toothache or alleged experience of faith. That just means I can't have [infallible] assurance about their salvation, not mine. It also means I may remain ignorant about just what others are having trouble with when it comes to the gospel. Again, though, that has nothing to do with my faith in the gospel and whether I can be assured.

This might turn us to questions about how someone can know he is not ignorant of what saving faith entails. Having myself written a rather long excursus which preemptively answers most of the objections about assurance in the video and goes more deeply into the doctrine, I'll leave this link for those who want to read more, as we're turning more to the question of what is saving faith and less to whether Reformed assurance is possible.

But I will just remind readers that while we are called to full assurance, such not necessary to be saved. This is not to diminish the importance of assurance, but the author of Hebrews also recognizes a hierarchy of foods, some of which are more foundational to others. Assurance is typically something that comes with maturity in faith, and it can also be lost as well as be found again. 

This is not so on Eastern Orthodoxy. These men must admit that they could apostatize from the faith. Therefore, while they may say they are assured now, they cannot with boldness claim that when Jesus returns, they will be found with him. They note that any "divorce" (apostacy) can only initiated by themselves. Okay, are they that confident about themselves? Minute mark 2:26:31:

I'm in control of whether or not I decide to turn my back on Christ. Again, I'm totally capable of it. I do it in small ways all the time, right? But as long as I keep coming back, I know he's not going to turn his back on me.

"As long as I..." is not comforting to one stuck in sin. This almost comes off as cavalier. In their minds, their wills are decisive in salvation, not God's. I really do find it strange that they brought this topic up when it is so clear that what they offer is not the full assurance to which we are called: 

Colossians 4:12 Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ Jesus, greets you, always struggling on your behalf in his prayers, that you may stand mature and fully assured in all the will of God.

Of What Advantage is Baptism [for Infants]?

Much in every way. Firstly, I think a good way to frame the question is in terms of advantages and privileges, for baptism does not always communicate or indicate grace. No one ought to question that the world aside from Noah's family, Pharaoh's army, or unbelievers at the parousia were or will be fearfully judged, for example. Baptism can point to this eschatological reality as well as to blessed salvation. Likewise, one baptized into the visible body of the covenant community is privileged to be a member of it - properly able to be instructed and disciplined by elders-fathers, as I will return to below - though not without warning should they rebel and fall away (Hebrews 6:4-8, 10:26-31).

Anthropologically, soteriologically, and ecclesiologically, we are (or can be) newly born into households. Only those born into these houses are, properly speaking, discipled and disciplined by the fathers of said houses. Only sons and daughters consistently receive fatherly instruction, training, and correction. The potential blessings should be obvious. But this too means judgment must begin at the house of God - since, a fortiori, it is obvious what judgment befalls those who are not members of the house (1 Peter 4:17-18). Now, we know sons and daughters can rebel against fatherly authority. But such cases, as heartbreaking as they are, does not mean there is no reason for sons and daughters to have been in a position to receive instruction and discipline in the first place. At the very least, it must cause sober reflection upon our own relative births and positions into the various, divinely appointed households. But we must remember that all things work together for good to those who love God and are called according to His purpose, not all without exception.

Or, to put the point another way. In addition to the anthropological, ecclesiological, and soteriological households, we can consider the cosmological household of God of which we are all a part, believer and unbeliever alike. Nature has a way of instructing and disciplining men (Romans 1:18-32), because we are all God's offspring (Acts 17:29), His image, in His macrocosmic house of creation (Genesis 1). This too comes with its own advantages and privileges, for life is good.

However, it might be a bit difficult to understand, from a bird-eye view of the reprobate, how he has been divinely favored by the rain and sunshine God sends and makes (Matthew 5:45). That is, should we view such as grace? Gordon Clark thought we could:

One theologian argues that the gospel is both a savor of life unto life and also a savor of death unto death. To the reprobate the preaching of the gospel is no favor because as it increases their knowledge, it increases their responsibility and condemnation. Better if they had never heard the gospel. One can reply, nonetheless, that in some cases the preaching of the gospel may restrain an evil man from some of his evil ways. Since therefore sins are not all equal, and since some are punished with many stripes, but others with few, the preaching of the gospel results in the lessening of the punishment. Thus preaching would be a small favor, a modicum of grace. (link)

I am less sure. We could regard it as an advantage or privilege for anyone who already exists and sins to not be immediately cut off from his sinful life, and to that extent what Clark says above can hold true. It is, likewise, certainly a privilege to have once been enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come. Perhaps this restrains one from committing as much evil as he would otherwise have done. Yet it seems to me that the privileges of these new births which even reprobates can experience must be balanced against the strong language of, for example, Mark 14:21 - spoken of one who was a disciple of Christ (how much more advantage or privilege towards a sinner can one conceived?) - and that baptism can be unto fearful judgment. To whom much is given, much is expected (Luke 12:47-48). If one tramples underfoot the advantages and privileges of God, it would be better for that man if he had not been born.

Nevertheless, this bird's eye view is not available to us. We can only speak in regards to what we know, and what we know is that one is advantaged or privileged to hear the gospel, for one can only please God and be at peace with Him through justification by faith, and faith can only come by hearing the gospel. We cannot know, in this lifetime, who will hear and reject the gospel, and it is far beyond our purview to presume upon who will or won't heed its call. Much less are we able to determine whether, even if it is rejected, it may yet be beneficial to the extent that those who hear and reject it sin less and are punished less severely as a result. Similarly, we may consider the case of baptism to be a privilege and advantage, if not necessarily a means of grace, even in the case that it leads to negative judgment.

Suppose instead that our infants are only welcome to church meetings to the extent that other unbelievers are. In the first place, we should probably think harder than we do before inviting open unbelievers to what is supposed to be a family communion with and worship of God rather than an evangelistic outreach. What is the goal? Unbelievers should normally find our worship strange and alien because in it, we draw near to God (precisely where they usually don't want to be).

But is this normally how our infants grow to view our assembling to worship? They may, of course, have questions of the worship service (Exodus 12:24-27), but do they normally shrink back as we draw near to God and He to His church? Are not our children participants in corporate worship? If not, I do not see how church can even be considered a foster home to unbaptized children. Rather, it looks as though these children get (have?) to visit a family not their own once a week without participating in the corporate life of it then and there, much less throughout the rest of the week.

On the other hand, if they are participants, fathers discipline sons. Likewise, elders administer discipline to their sons, the visible flock over which they shepherd. If infants are never members of the visible church, then they are never disciplined by elders. You might discipline your son, but just because his friend is around when you do doesn't mean his friend is a "participant" in that discipline. To the extent one wants to speak of someone as a participant in worship and yet without discipline, I think such a person would be an illegitimate child rather than a son (Hebrews 12:7-8).

The same could be said regarding instruction. Fathers are to instruct their children (Ephesians 6:4). The elder instructs his sons, the visible flock, in worship. But if infants are never members of the visible church, then they are never instructed by elders. You might instruct your son, but just because his friend is around when you do doesn't mean his friend is a "participant" in that instruction.

Whether or not your son rebels against your discipline and instruction is a separate question. But it is without question he is a legitimate son of yours because of how you behave towards him. Likewise in regards to God towards His elect sons and the elders towards their sons-flocks.

One final question that bears pastoral reflection: if infants are not treated as sons, how will they come to think about the church? Frankly, as a child, I would have felt awkward and out of place in the presence of my friend being instructed or disciplined by his father. I would be viewing an internal family matter as an outsider. To say in the first place that infants cannot be participants in worship - that they are presumed to be outsiders - then, would naturally seem to lead them to doubt, uncertainty, or anguish. Being cognizant of the manner in which we, as the visible church, treat our children from birth as well as how they grow to perceive themselves in virtue of our treatment is easier said than done, especially if some of us actually view them as looking in from the outside of God's visible household.

The Day Draws Near

Hebrews 10:24-25 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

As I was listening to Dr. Masters preach at our church yesterday on Hebrews 10:19-25 (link), I was drawn, so to speak, to the last phrase: you see the Day drawing near. 

At first glance, I supposed the reference was to when an event would happen. The Day "drawing near" would then mean that the readers should keep in mind a future, destined event that would become a present one. Similar to the way in which Paul writes that salvation is nearer to us than when we first believed and then draws out the inference that we ought to remain awake and watchful (link), the author of Hebrews would then similarly be exhorting his readers to stir up one another to love and good works, meeting together as the means by which such takes place. 

If true, one could think about what event might be in view, like the destruction of Jerusalem or eschatological Parousia. In favor of the former, the vanishing of the old covenantal (8:13) is certainly a concern of the book, and the destruction of the second temple was a sort of visible seal of judgment of the obsolescence of that covenant. Christians were being persecuted by the Jews, and so the author's call that they should not shrink back (10:39) or neglect to meet was a timely injunction. His timely injunction is matched by his timely encouragement. The author would be following his own advice in stirring up his audience to love and good works. [Incidentally, this would suggest Hebrews was written well before 70 A.D.]

On the other hand, I don't think we need to pit one interpretation against another. The Bible depicts many pictures of our salvation, each of which has been drawn by God in the course of history. Even if the above is true, history is rhythmic. The judgment of Jerusalem was typological of the final judgment, when all of God's enemies will experience fearful punishment. Peter wrote that Christians in every age should pattern their lives accordingly (2 Peter 3).

Peter also wrote that God's word is sometimes difficult. The author of Hebrews differentiates between basic and mature principles of the oracles of God (Hebrews 5). Let's face it: God's word is sometimes vague. Why? Well, one benefit is that in order to understand the whole counsel of God, the reader has to actively meditate on the word, not just passively receive it. Jacob wrestled with God while day had not yet broken and prevailed, receiving a thigh wound and a new name (Genesis 32). We wrestle with God through learning to wield the sword of His word while "Day" has yet to break. When Day does break, will we have prevailed? Will we receive blessing? Though we may limp, will we be named Christians after the name written on the thigh of the sword-wielding King of kings and Lord of lords (Revelation 19:16), Jesus Christ? Holding fast until (or "in"?) the Day is a theme of Hebrews (Hebrews 3-4, 10).

Another benefit of vagueness is versatility. Thus far, this post has used the word "draw" in four or five different ways: I was "drawn" or attracted to God's word. We can "draw" or figuratively pull out inferences from God's word as drawing water from a well. God's word itself "draws" or illustrates salvation in multiple, picturesque stories. A day can figuratively "draw" closer in that there is less and less time until a destined event will occur. People, too, can "draw" near to one another (spatially or spiritually), which I will to return in a moment. The point here is just that we can say more with fewer words: the disciples were drawn to Jesus. Do I mean that they were attracted to Him, that they got nearer to Him in a spatial sense, or that someone or something pulled them toward Jesus? My statement isn't an either/or, it's all of the above: The Father drew (pulled) the disciples to Jesus by making them drawn (attracted) to Jesus, and therefore they were drawn (spatially) to Jesus.

That is what struck me about the passage in Hebrews: the Day is not just a time, He is a person. More than any other New Testament book, it is the concern of the author to argue it is possible and important for his readers to draw near to God (4:16, 7:19, 25, 10:1, 22, 11:6). When 10:25 uses the same language, then, we should see "the Day" not only (or even principally) as a reference to when an event will come but also who is coming. Christ is the Day. Our persons ought to draw near to Him, not draw back from Him, for His person is inevitably drawing nearer to us, whether that be to fearful judgment or blessing. Ready or not, here He comes.

When Christ spoke to Nicodemus at night (John 3:2), it had not dawned on Him that he was witnessing the Day drawing near for the first time. We often think of daybreak as when we can begin to see one another face to face. We forget that Light can be blinding (cf. Acts 9, cf. John 12:40). Daybreak was in the presence of Nicodemus, yet he was so used to the shadowy darkness of the old covenant that the Light actually blinded him from seeing the kingdom of God (John 3:3). 

How much more should we who have been born of God hold fast, not shrinking back or seeking to hide ourselves from the [second] coming of the Day-light, as if darkness can allow us to perpetually keep evil works secret (John 3:19-21). The Light came into the world once before (John 1). Once more will He return, and then there will no longer be any cover of night (Revelation 21). Christians ought not to draw back, as the author of Hebrews said was the way of those who, to their own destruction, wished to remain under the terms of the old covenant. 

Because our hope and faith in Christ’s return unites us to Him, we are enabled to enter the same holy places He entered (Hebrews 10:19). Our objective grounds for confidence gives us subjective reason for full assurance (10:22). All that remains for us to do is consider how to love and do good works for one another (10:24), knowing that all works will be brought to the light of Day (10:25). Joshua may not given the people rest, but God has "spoken of another Day later on" (Hebrews 4:8) in whom we who have believed enter rest: His Son, the radiance of His glory (Hebrews 1:2-3, 4:3).

Heads and Bodies

I have questioned Christians who would want to cut themselves off from fellowship with other believers (link). But what are some of the sources of sleepiness? What, for example, has induced the seeming coma in which American Christianity finds itself? I keep going back to the problem that our culture is dictating our worship rather than vice versa. Before I speak to this, I recently came across the following and think it sets an historical context:

Europe's leading existential thinkers "Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, and Albert Camus" all felt that Americans were too self-confident and shallow to accept their philosophy of responsibility, choice, and the absurd. "There is no pessimism in America regarding human nature and social organization," Sartre remarked in 1950, while Beauvoir wrote that Americans had no "feeling for sin and for remorse" and Camus derided American materialism and optimism. Existentialism, however, enjoyed rapid, widespread, and enduring popularity among Americans. (link)

In many respects, these philosophers were right. Existential philosophy fits the individualism of America. Whether or not it was true, at the time they wrote, that American pride was incompatible with their philosophy of self, it is now clear Americans know a bit better that original sin is a reality... despite persisting, empty protestations to the contrary (link). One can't be individualistic for too long before suspecting sinful authorities, and doubt regarding authority as such soon follows.

Enter modern American pessimism. No one besides the solitary individual is trustworthy: government, "organized" religion, parents, husbands... this is the result of an "I know [myself] best!" mentality [It just occurred to me that it was around the time I started reading Kierkegaard, the "father" of Existentialism, that I stopped going to church for many years.] Recognition that we deceive ourselves much better than any of these authorities ever could - or the point that some authorities might even manipulate us by playing into our self-deceit and self-conceit - is lost on us. Why? Because one charge against America by the above philosophers that still rings true is that we are still, by and large, "self-confident and shallow." We need external direction and sustenance from infancy, whether physical or spiritual, yet few among us are humble enough to think of ourselves as in spiritual infancy. [I know that is why I originally stopped going to church.]

Christians (and a "Christian nation") ought to know better.

Now, let's talk about sinful authorities who don't discipline or firmly stand on truth - i.e. that don't love those over whom they have been given authority. Empty political promisers, come-as-you-are churches that do not ask for or expect transformation, hands-off parenting, uncaring husbands... is it a wonder the subjects in the domains of these authorities disrespect them? 

No, but it is wrong and sad that those people have thrown out the baby with the bathwater in two respects: 1) the divinely appointed hierarchical design isn't at fault but rather those individual authorities who are failing to properly execute their office and/or those subjects who are failing to properly defer to their authorities; 2) those authorities who are properly executing their office are lumped in with those who are not, breeding widespread disdain of authority structures. 

Authorities are to heads as subjects are to bodies. The duality in responsibilities between heads and bodies is seen in Ephesians 5. The church is to subject itself to Christ as body to head. Wives are likewise to subject themselves to their husbands. We might as well say that citizens ought to subject themselves to governing authorities (Romans 13), children are to subject themselves to parents (Ephesians 6), flocks to elder-shepherds (1 Peter 5), servants to masters (1 Peter 2), etc. These are matters of obedience and respect to the extent God has given each subordinate head authority over each body.

The responsibility of the head is one of love. Christ loved the church, dying for her. Husbands, governing authorities, parents, and elders: love likewise. That doesn't often require us to die - except to sin. For a bodiless head is no better than a headless body. One directs the other, but each [should] work in coordination in their sphere of influence.

While all of that is ideal, what human authority is perfect? None. That's why Christ stands at and as the Head of all of these authorities (Colossians 2:10), setting limits upon each. But no human subject is perfect either, and sinful persons being individual rules unto themselves is certainly not better than striving towards a reality in which persons being conformed to Christ's image are put in positions of authority. That should be the goal. How do we get there?

America is failing to learn the lesson that if things are to ever change in our divorce-ridden society (national, racial, sexual, marital, economic, spiritual), the expectation and design of God is that we will have to gain wisdom to become better authorities. Bodies gain wisdom in appropriately obeying and subjecting themselves to their authorities. That's how they are able to become wise heads who can gain further wisdom in lovingly instructing and disciplining their own bodies. This is no less true physiologically than in the analogous, Scriptural head-body parallels, a point I will return to below. 

In other words, how is wisdom generally to be gained? In the application of God's word-Word in our lives, whether as heads or bodies. Where is God's word-Word principally received? In the worship of the church: word and sacrament, prayer and confession, singing and discipline. In this worship, we Christians, the true words of God (Revelation 19:7), are fed by the word-Word. From this worship, like Christ's miraculous breaking of the bread (Matthew 15:36) and of His own body on the cross, we are broken as a body and commissioned to feed the world with the word-Word of the gospel. In this way, the various other earthly heads (worldly powers, husbands, parents, masters, etc.) will be able to apply divine wisdom to earthly matters within their divinely appointed jurisdiction. 

This explain why judgment begins with the household of God (1 Peter 4:17). When the worship of a society is in disarray, its culture will be in disarray. Thus, how ecclesiastical authorities love (or not) their flocks will be mirrored in how the various other earthly heads love (or not) their subjects. In turn, that will impact who is likely to become an ecclesiastical authority (1 Timothy 3) in time: will it be one who learned from his elders how to apply wisdom to be a good husband and father - and as such is qualified to become an elder - or not? 

I was listening to a recent commentary on Exodus in which the point was made that Moses first acquired ecclesiastical wisdom in dealing with his Hebrew brothers before he engaged worldly powers like Pharaoh or the Amalekites. This is a pattern we see repeat. Christ grew in wisdom in dealing with the various Jewish scribes of His day before engaging with worldly powers like Pilate and Herod. Paul confounded the Jews before engaging with worldly powers like Felix, Festus, and Agrippa. If this is a pattern, what can we infer from it? 

We can't expect culture to change without a change in worship. We can't expect a change in worship without proper direction from ecclesiastical authorities in how we ought to worship. We can't expect general respect for ecclesiastical authorities without their being willing to discipline their flocks. We can't expect ecclesiastical authorities to be willing to discipline their flocks without their understanding that Christ is the head to whose word they must subject themselves and obey.

Let's examine one link in this chain: ecclesiastical discipline in American Christianity has virtually disappeared. If we eat without disciplining our bodies through exercise, we naturally become fat and lazy (unsurprisingly, an American stereotype). This returns us to the question of how Christians become sleepy. Forget running with endurance for a moment (Hebrews 12), it looks like American Christianity needs to begin with some light stretching. Our legs are stiff and asleep. Our members of Christ's body need to be awakened before they can even think about running.

Do parents expect their child to obey if they don't discipline him when he is disobedient? Does a magistrate expect a criminal to repent if they don't punish him? Elders, can you expect your members to walk in the light if you don't know their names, let alone keep them accountable? When a head become more concerned with the appetites of the body than the heavenly wisdom that come from the Arch-Head, we know and lament the physical ramifications. If we can barely control our own bodies, how much less (yet worse) surprising is it when we see parallel head-body disfunctions: a parent who seeks to spoil a tamper-tantruming child, a power-driven magistrate concerned more with his constituents (or citizens he wishes joined his constituency) than the law, or elders who would compromise on the word of truth to appease their congregations (or flocks they wished joined the congregation)? Which of these is most likely to be the cause of the others?

I would argue that it's the last case, and if and only if we start to see top-down ecclesiastical reform can we expect cultural reform. There is no voting shortcut, political grassroots shortcut, economic shortcut, etc. Worship is key, and worship is organized by elders. These elders were to have gained wisdom while they were members of churches, gained further wisdom from becoming husbands and fathers, and apply those learning experiences to gain further wisdom from governing over Christ's body. Then they will have sufficient wisdom to engage worldly powers and change culture. 

The Lord will take care of judging other heads if they do not heed the faithful church (Pharaohs), just as He takes care of judging disobedient members of ecclesiastical bodies (e.g. Achan, Ananias, and Sapphira). Our cultural bondage is always deserved (cf. Joshua 24:14), but should faithful ecclesiastical leaders arise (even ones who, like Moses was, are somewhat apprehensive; Exodus 3-4), our gracious God will grant exodus to the bodies of these heads.

I've taken a recent interest the divinely designed coordination of soteriology, eschatology, cosmology, Christology, anthropology, etc (e.g. cities and conception). The head-body distinction would be another example of the how each of these facets of reality mirror and shed light on one another, as I've tried to touch on above. 

To apply this metaphor more explicitly, we can view the head-body distinction through the cosmological prism, for example: our earthly heads are compared to heavenly bodies (Genesis 1:16-18, 37:12, Matthew 24:29, 1 Corinthians 15:40-41). Cosmologically, the glory of these physical heavenly bodies will pass away, as the glory of God will enlighten all (2 Peter 3:12, Revelation 21:23). There isn't anything bad about heavenly bodies, for God created all things good. Nevertheless, creation is brought from one degree of glory to another, as all new creations are (2 Corinthians 3:18). 

Is it shocking, then, when Jesus says marriage will pass away (Luke 20:35)? It shouldn't be, because the true Husband, Christ, will have been united with His true bride, the church (Revelation 21:2). Each will be glorious, and so we can see that the present, divinely appointed heads and bodies are each glorious to the extent that they image this eschatological relationship. Similarly, the true King-Father-Elder will have returned, so there will be no more need of political, parental, or ecclesiastical imitations, present hierarchical firmament lights such as ourselves whose roles as heads will be set aside for the greater glory of being joined as members of the body of our true Head. 1 Corinthians 15:28 points to a time when all earthly headships will pass to Him as all will be subjected to Him, He in turn to His Father-Head. 

Awaken From Sleep

Speaking on Romans 13:11-14 yesterday, my pastor used the following illustration (link): just as we "awaken from sleep" or drowsiness by showering and dressing for work, so too, by the word’s washing and the Spirit’s equipping, do we ready ourselves for kingdom work.

Being asleep to the things of God is not just a metaphor for unbelievers who foolishly put off readying themselves for Christ's return until it is too late (Matthew 25:1-13). Believers can also fall asleep in their sanctification (think of Mark 14:32-42 for a more literal example). If unbelievers have to be roused from their sleep by the witness of God's word by God's people, how do we Christians become roused from our sleep?

Along the lines of my pastor's illustration, think of how your leg can “fall asleep” from inactivity. How is this member of the body awakened? The rest of the body moves to wake it up! Christian, are you not a member of the body of Christ? If you are stiff-legged (or stiff-necked!), how can you expect to be roused from your sleep if you have amputated yourself from Christ's body?

 
Church is a blessing for which we should be thankful. Pray for your church and love your church (and go to church!), that you to may be found as armored in light.

A New Master, A New Father

The new life in which we can walk (Romans 6:4) as new creatures, slaves to God and righteousness, in turn presupposes being set free from slavery to sin (6:18). Thanks be to God for that (6:17), because it is He, not we, who made such both possible and actual through the work of His Son. How have we been set free from sin? We have been crucified with Christ and raised with Him (6:5). His death and resurrection have defeated sin (6:9-11), and only by being united with the righteous Messiah by grace, through faith, and in His Spirit, are we now able to obey and do good works as slaves to a new and infinitely better Master. In short, our justification precedes our sanctification, and as we are united to the Son who is Lord over all facets of our salvation, we will experience all facets. As facets of our salvation, sanctification and eternal life are fruits of a life of slavery to God, of obedience and good works. Thus, the latter necessarily follow the former, although they do not function as the meritorious ground for such ends.

So being under grace rather than law does not mean we should live lawlessly (6:15). We should present our members or persons as slaves to righteousness – which implies obedience (6:16) to some standard or law – and if we do not, we are living a life which has not been set free from sin, a lawless life which ironically keeps us under “the law” and its demand for sinless perfection. Just as union with Christ pervades the life of believers, union with sin pervades the life of unbelievers. Practicing sin evidences a life which has not been freed from sin (John 8:34). A life of practiced love for the greatest and second greatest commandments is a life that fulfills the law (Romans 13:8-10) and can do so precisely because it is not attempting to be justified by it – to live under it.

Now, while Paul speaks in “human terms” (6:19) when he talks about our slavery, it is also clear that he also considers us free. To be a slave to one master is to be free from another. When we are slaves to sin, we are free from righteousness (Romans 6:20). Is that the sort of freedom we want? Paul speaks of our slavery as either to sin, leading to death, or to God, leading to eternal life (6:16). To which of these ends does pretending to be our own, “free” masters lead?

We should then endeavor to be free from sin just as we were free from righteousness, for this freedom is deeper. Elsewhere, both Paul and Jesus contrast slavery to sin with freedom in sonship:

John 8:34-36 Jesus answered them, Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

Galatians 4:21-26 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

So in Romans 6, slavery to God and righteousness corresponds to sonship. As slaves to God, we are sons of God, and our sonship gives us an inheritance (Galatians 4:30) that slavery to sin and sonship to the devil (John 8:44) cannot. Our new life of “slavery” is not only freedom from sin but also the freedom of a gifted promise (Romans 6:23), because our new Master is really a new Father. Or, in divine rather than human terms:

Galatians 4:7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

Prayer, Evangelism, and Determinism

I was reading a recent thread in which Calvinists and non-Calvinists were accusing each other of holding to positions which logically precluded the meaningfulness of prayers that God should effect certain events which pertain to the wills of men. The arguments, in brief, were these: the non-Calvinists asserted that since the Calvinist believes all things are already determined, his prayer for God to affect men's wills could not have any bearing on what God has determined and, therefore, is nonsensical; the Calvinists asserted that since the non-Calvinist believes men's wills are free, his prayer for God to affect men's wills could not be accomplished because men's wills would then be determined.

I cannot defend a prayers of this sort made by one who believes in free will. However, if God determines all things - and He does - may it not be the case that His determination of a prayer on behalf of an unbeliever (or anyone, for that matter) is teleologically related to His likewise determined movement to do that for which the believer asks? For instance:

Exodus 32:9 “I have seen these people,” the LORD said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people.

10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”

11 But Moses sought the favor of the LORD his God. “LORD,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand?

12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people.

13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’”

14 Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

Here Moses intercedes on behalf of Israel. Did Moses do this of His own, allegedly free will, or was his intercession determined? Calvinists believe it was determined. Was God's relent from His threat spontaneous or determined? Calvinists believe it was determined. God eternally decreed that both these things should happen. Why, then, can't the Calvinist suggest that God was determined to relent from His threat by means of His determination of Moses' intercession?

The prayer argument made by the non-Calvinists is really little different from evangelism; if only by God's determination can one be saved, as Calvinists believe, why evangelize? The answer is obvious: man is God's appointed means for the salvation of unbelievers (Romans 10). His determination of one's evangelistic appeals to Scripture is the means by which God purposed to effect regeneration in His elect, and this too is determined. Here we see a teleological correlation between God's determinations or decrees.

So when Calvinists pray that God would affect an individual's will, the prayer is not irrelevant. Perhaps it is the case that God will be moved by the prayer - not spontaneously, but having determined the very prayer. Or perhaps God will not be moved, and so He has determined that the prayer will be answered in the negative. No one knows the extent of God's eternal decree[s]. But whichever the case may be, it is true that foremost in one's thoughts should be recollection that God's sovereign will cannot be thwarted or resisted (Isaiah 14, Romans 9). Hence, accompanied with an entreaty for, say, the salvation of an unbeliever should be the ready acceptance of whichever way events unfold, as they do so according to God's sovereign will, and, more specifically, for the good of those called according to His purpose.

Commentary on the NT Use of the OT, Carson

I recently purchased “Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” by Beale, Carson, et. al. After reading Carson’s contribution to the “catholic epistles,” I decided to reproduce here one interesting observation from one verse in each chapter. I will probably do something similar for the other authors and chapters, although there is no way I could even begin to include all the information each packs into his notes on one verse, let alone the whole chapter.

James 2:23, NT Context: The Nature of Abraham’s Faith

“…The verb rendered by the NIV as “was made complete” (eteleiothe [from teleioo]) does not mean (despite Calvin’s support) that the actions revealed Abraham’s faith to be perfect (tetioo never has that sense); nor does it mean that works were somehow tacked onto a faith that otherwise would have been incomplete, for James’s point is that such faith does not really count at all, it is simply useless. Rather, to follow James’s argument we must recognize that although the expression teleioo linked with ek (i.e., Abraham’s faith “was made complete… [lit.] out of” works) is found nowhere else in the NT, parallels found elsewhere are illuminating. Philo tells us that Jacob “was made perfect as the result of [ek] discipline” (Agriculture 42); alternatively, he “was made perfect through [ek] practice” (Confusion 181). In other words, he grew in maturity as a result of the stresses laid on him. In Philo, however, the maturation take place in a human being. Jacob; here in James this “maturation” takes place in an inanimate object, faith. This prompts Moo (2000: 137) to suggest that the closest conceptual parallel is 1 John 4:12: “if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete [teteleiomene estin] in us.” Transparently, God’s love is not somehow lacking something, intrinsically deficient, until we love one another; rather, “God’s love comes to expression, reaches its intended goal, when we respond to his grace with love toward others. So also, Abraham’s faith, James suggests, reaches its intended goal when the patriarch did what God was asking him to do” (Moo 2000: 137)…”

1 Peter 2:6, Theological Use

“We too readily overlook how fundamentally divisive Jesus Christ is, even though that point is repeatedly made not only in the NT but also in OT prophecies concerning him. Peter here (in 2:4-12) insists that everyone is affected by the coming of Christ, positively or negatively, depending on whether they too are “living stones” or, alternatively, simply reject him or stumble over him. They will find that he crushes them. That point is not quite made by this quotation from Isa. 28:16, but the links with the other “stone” quotations in the ensuing verses make the conclusion inescapable.
Yet Peter’s first readers might find this peculiarity encouraging. For those who may have suffered major physical dislocation, and who certainly have suffered social rejection, Peter’s quotation, in its context, would reassure them that their painful situation did not reflect the displeasure of God. Far from it: God’s plan includes a division of people around his Son, this cornerstone rejected by so many, and the most important thing, both for this life and for the life to come, is to be living stones along with him in the temple of which he is the cornerstone.
Perhaps it should also be mentioned that Peter leaves no hint that he saw himself as in some way a special or foundational stone in the church, despite the name that Jesus himself had given him (see Matt. 16:17-18).”

2 Peter 2:22, Peter’s Use of the OT in 2:22

“Peter does not have in view people who have been enthusiastic false teachers from the beginning of their professional lives, nor is he thinking of genuine Christians who, sadly, have lipped into some sort of temporary backsliding. The context shows (esp. 2:20-22) that these people once lived sinful and debauched lives but then for a time “escaped the corruptions of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2:20), but now they are again entangled in the world and all its corruptions. This is so serious a retrogression that Peter can declare, “It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them” (2:21 TNIV). And so the two proverbs prove true (2:22), which means that the true nature of these people never changed. A dog may leave its vomit for a while but will return to it; a sow might well be spruced up and look clean but will still find a mud pit enticing.”

1 John 2:27, John’s Use of the OT in 2:27

“Assuming (rightly with, e.g., Brown 1982: 341-348) that the “anointing” is “an anointing with the Holy Spirit, the gift from Christ which constituted one a Christian” (Brown 1982: 248), then the fourfold structure that we saw in the Jeremiah oracle (see letter B. above) is nicely paralleled here in 1 John. This anointing, (1) whereby one becomes a Christian, is bound up with the forgiveness of sins (1:8-2:2), such that Christians do come to know the truth (2:20-21), (2) establishing an abiding new-covenant relationship in which we remain in Christ (2:24), (3) and in which all who enjoy this relationship genuinely know God (2:23-3:1) (4) with knowledge independent of what must be passed on by mediating teachers. In other words, for John’s readers to rely on these (false) teachers is to admit that their own knowledge of God is somehow faulty or inadequate, which is to undercut all the power and reality of the new covenant. John is not denying the proper place of teachers; rather, he is denying the place of mediating teachers under some tribal-representative structure of covenant, for under the new covenant, in direct fulfillment of the promise articulated by Jeremiah, the place of mediating teachers is forever passed.”

Jude 8, NT Context: The False Teachers’ Lust for Authority Not Rightly Theirs

“According to Jude 8, not only do these teachers “pollute their on bodies” but also “reject authority” and “slander celestial beings.” There is good reason to think that the “authority” they rejected was that of Christ or of God (see Bauckham 1988: 56-57). But what does it mean to say that they slandered the doxas (NSRV: “glorious ones”)? In the MT the Hebrew equivalent can on occasion refer to famous people (e.g., Ps. 149:8; Isa. 3:5; 23:8; Nah. 3:10; similarly IQM XIV, 11; 4Q169 3-4 II, 9; 3-4 III, 9), but the LXX never uses doxas (“glorious ones”) to refer to famous people. If these “glorious ones” are angels (cf. the usage in Exod 15:11 LXX), they are unlikely to be evil angels (only good angels are in view when the expression crops up in passages such as 1QH XVIII, 8; 11Q5 XXII, 13; 2 En. 22:7, 10). The verb for “slander” (blasphemeo) has to do with dishonoring or shaming someone, speaking insultingly about someone, or the like. Angels sometimes are seen as the guardians of God’s established order and thus his authority, or the ones who have mediated God’s revelation to us (e.g., Acts 7:38, 53; 1 Cor. 11:10; Heb. 2:2). To “slander” them, then, looks like rebellion against God’s authority, which not only admirably fits the context but also is in line with the rebellious tendencies of the false teachers. So Jude goes on in our verse (v. 9) to give an example of a dispute in which even the archangel Michael is careful not to outstrip his authority.”

The Right Question

As I was thinking about my most recent post on supralapsarianism, I was struck by the idea that it is too often the case that Christians respond to the constant barrage of “why” questions relating to God’s purpose in determining any event by presupposing the legitimacy of the question. I catch myself sometimes asking these questions – why this difficulty? why now? – and proceeding to speculate as to various reasons God would decree such. There is, in truth, only one reason anything happens, one reason for God’s decrees: to the furtherance of the manifestation of His glory.

Although I am certainly not an authority on pastoral theology, I can imagine that many pastors fail to address the semantic error inherent in these questions they so often face. I say they “fail” because it really is a failure when an opportunity is missed to change the whole framework from which questions spring. If someone would only tell a person struggling with answers pertaining to meaning in life that he is asking the wrong questions – if it is only kept in mind that God’s ultimate purpose in all things is the manifestation of His glory – his attention can properly shift to the right questions asked with a proper mindset: a mindset of understanding rather than interrogation, one which asks, not “why,” but “how” a given thing can function as a proximate means unto this ultimate purpose. Any “why” question relating to God’s proximate purpose(s) can actually be resolved into “how” questions relating to God’s ultimate purpose, and reflection upon this point will prove that it is not inconsiderable.