Mark Driscoll apparently made a comment once something to the effect of it being ridiculous that people could sprinkle babies with a few drops of water and call it baptism. Let me make clear, though, that I can't verify he actually said that, and so by no means claim that he did—indeed, it would surprise me; I understand that the Acts 29 Network includes both paedo- and credo-baptist churches—but I know these sentiments exist (if you'd like to read something delightfully inflammatory, read this from Spurgeon on the "abomination" of infant baptism).

I grew up in paedo-baptist churches, and have long held to the conviction that infants should be baptized, although there was a period when I wrestled quite extensively with the question of who are to be the subjects of baptism. In the last few years, however, I have found my conviction that the infants of believers must be baptized strengthened, especially in light of the covenant. In volume four of his Reformed Dogmatics (yes, this will be an oft-quoted text on this blog), Herman Bavinck makes a number of arguments in favour of the baptism of children. I find his discussion of the relationship between baptism and the covenant particularly important:

The covenant of grace established with Israel, though it changed in dispensation, remained the same in essence. The church (ἐκκλησία, ekklēsia) has replaced the Israel of the Old Testament. It is now the people of God, and God is its God and Father (Matt. 1:21; Luke 1:17; Acts 3:25; Rom. 9:25-26; 11:16-21; 2 Cor. 6:16-18; Gal. 3:14-29; Eph. 2:12-13; Titus 2:14; Heb. 8:8-10; 1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 21:3). As was the case in the Old Testament, so now too the children of believers are included among the people of God. The church of the New Testament, after all, is not a collection of individuals, but an organism, a body, a temple, and as such, as a people, it took the place of Israel. As wild olive shoots—since some of the branches of the old olive tree have been broken off—they have been grafted onto the trunk of the same olive tree and so share in the nourishing sap from its root (Rom. 11:16-17). Hence at times entire households converted to Christianity. The household itself is an institution of God, an organic whole, which shares in a common blessing or a common curse...[Peter] says that the promise of the old covenant that God would be the God of believers and their children passed into the dispensation of the New Testament (Acts 2:39) [528-529].

Bavinck goes on to note that children are sanctified by virtue of their parents, citing Paul's discussion of believing and unbelieving spouses in 1 Corinthians 7:14ff. He observes that when Paul speaks about the holiness children receive from a believing parent it is not a subjective and internal holiness, but a "theocratic kind of holiness." As such,

it teaches that the whole family is regarded in light of the confession of the believing spouse. The believer has the calling to serve the Lord not only for oneself but with all that belongs to oneself and with one's entire family. For that reason the children of believers are admonished by the apostles as Christian children in the Lord (Acts 26:22; Eph. 6:1; Col. 3:20; 2 Tim. 3:15; 1 John 2:13)...Scripture knows nothing of a neutral upbringing that seeks to have the children make a completely free and independent choice at a more advanced age. The children of believers are...children of the covenant and are holy, not by nature (Job 14:4; Ps. 51:5; John 3:6; Eph. 2:3) but by virtue of the covenant...The basis for baptism is not the assumption that someone is regenerate, nor even that [there is] regeneration itself, but only the covenant of God (529-531).

It is a significant point, I think, that in the New Testament we always see a heightening in the fulfillment of something from the Old Testament. That is the case with typology, for instance, and so it is the case with the covenant. The promises of the covenant are fulfilled in a much greater way in the New Testament. To restrict the promises of the covenant, then, to those who are able to make a verbal profession of faith, seems to be a regression and not a heightened fulfillment. In the Old Testament, if the promises of the covenant were to "you and your seed," how much more should they be in the New Testament and subsequent ages! Additionally, one's incorporation into the covenant is never an autonomous act, but always and only an act of God bringing that person into the covenant family.

Of course, this by no means exhausts the case for infant baptism, but for me it is the most powerful argument in favour of it. Thoughts?

Loading mentions Retweet

Cornelius Van Til argued that Reformed theology demanded a Reformed apologetic, one based on its doctrine of God and doctrines of grace. John Muether, in his excellent biography of Van Til, quotes him at length on this issue:

A generally evangelical apologetic to a large extent defeats its own purposes. True enough much good may be accomplished, both by an Arminian theology and by a generally evangelical method of apologetic. In this fact all who love the Lord will rejoice. But how much more good may be accomplished by the grace of God through a more consistently Biblical theology and a more consistenly Biblical apologetic. A generally evangelical apologetic does not drive the natural man down into a corner with no hope of escape. It does not track him down till he is at bay. It does not destroy his last shelter. His fire is not altogether extinguished...A plea for a vigorous apologetic ought therefore to be a plea for a genuinely Reformed apologetic. We may not be clear, indeed as to the full implications of a truly Reformed apologetic. But this fact does not justify us in refusing to point out those who, with us, love the Christian faith that a generally evanglical apologetic...is inadequate for any time and especially inadequate for our time.

Van Til's presuppositionalism reflected his debt to the theology of Herman Bavinck, who had written in the first volume of his Reformed Dogmatics years earlier:

Apologetics cannot precede faith and does not attempt a priori to argue the truth of revelation. It assumes the truth and belief in the truth. It does not, as the introductory part or as the foundational science, precede theology and dogmatics. It is itself a theological science through and through, which presupposes the faith and dogmatics and now maintains and defends the dogma against the opposition to which it is exposed.

...If Christian revelation, which presupposes the darkness and error of unspiritual humanity, submitted in advance to the judgments of reason, it would by that token contradict itself. It would thereby place itself before a tribunal whose jurisdiction it had first denied. And having once recognized the authority of reason on the level of first principles, it could no longer oppose that authority in the articles of faith.

Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Van Til knows that the first thing he would do when entering a classroom is to draw the diagram you see at the left on the chalkboard. The two circle diagram was representative of the Creator-creature distinction, one which Van Til unapologetically (no pun intended) maintained was absolutely crucial to Christian thought. The two lines connecting the circles represented the covenantal relationship between God and man. Man, the creature, was always dependent on God, the Creator, and His revelation. The one circle on the left represented non-Christian thought, where any idea of "God" was rooted in the creature.

It was for this reason that apologetics could never have its foundation in any thought that rejected the Creator-creature distinction. No vague notions of reason would suffice, neither would the idea that Christians and non-Christians could find some sort of neutral ground from which to engage in apologetics. And so he devoted himself to working out an apologetic that honoured the relationship between God and man and rooted itself fully in the revelation of God. For Van Til, there simply was no other way.

Loading mentions Retweet

Among the most significant things that distinguish Christianity from the other religions of the world is that we have hope. This is not an anxious hope that constantly has us questioning if we have done enough to satisfy God's demands, but a secure hope that rests on the knowledge that God in Christ has redeemed us and called us to be His people. It is a hope that eagerly anticipates the establishment of God's kingdom in fullness. Willem VanGemeren, in The Progress of Redemption, says it like this:

The goal of God's kingdom is the establishment of God's absolute sovereignty over heaven and earth. From the expulsion from the garden till the glorious coming of the Messiah, God prepares a people to himself. This people desires to do his will on earth and awaits with hope the transformation of this world. The present world is scarred by the effects of sin and judgment, but the restoration of the world inaugurates the consummation of God's purposes...

Hope is a most vital element in the kingdom. It calls the subjects of the kingdom to theocentric living and keeps the present enjoyment of the kingdom of God and the future unfolding of its glory in dynamic tension. The children of the kingdom enjoy a foretaste of the future, but their lives are still in the shadow of the eschaton. Jesus has inaugurated the final stage in the history of redemption. Moreover, newness of life, sealed by the Spirit of God, is a token of the future restoration. The Spirit works in individuals and corporately in the church. The church is the messianic assembly instituted by Jesus Christ for the purpose of calling others to faith in himself and for adorning its members with the hope of his glorious coming...

Hope in the kingdom lies at the center of Christ's teaching, ministry, and kingdom (Matt. 6:10; 25:1-13). The proclamation of the Good News—that the kingdom is here in the Christ who gave himself a ransom—is incomplete unless it has the corollary preaching of the glorious coming of the Messiah...Peter admonishes the churches to wait and to encourage one another with the hope of the inheritance prepared for the saints at Jesus' coming (1 Peter 1:3-4, 8). The elements of that hope include the glorious appearing of our Lord, the resurrection of the body, the glorification of the people of God, the vengeance on the enemies of God's Messiah, the fullness of Jews and Gentiles in the church of Christ in accordance with God's promises and purpose in Christ, the presence of the triune God, and the renewal of heaven and earth (470-471).

That is hope. That is the hope that we as Christians live with, and can rejoice in. To be sure, this hope creates a tension right now—the kingdom has already come, but it is not yet fully established—and we live in this tension each day as we seek to make known the sovereign reign of God over all of creation, all the while struggling against the kingdom of the world as Satan attempts to subvert the rule of God. But our hope is rooted in the knowledge that this tension will be overcome with the return of Christ. And so we pray, "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!" (Rev. 22:20).

Loading mentions Retweet

R. Scott Clark, a professor at Westminster Seminary in California, wrote a book recently called Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice. The premise of the book is that the Reformed community is losing or has lost its sense of identity, and that it needs to recover it. Clark writes, "Much of what passes as Reformed among our churches is not. Its sources, spirit, and methods are alien to Reformed theology, piety, and practice. There are significant segments within the Reformed communion that define 'Reformed' in ways that our forefathers would not understand" (4).

Earlier today, John Frame posted a review of the book on his website. Someone apparently told Frame that the book should instead be called, Why John Frame is Wrong About Absolutely Everything. While that is humorous, it recognizes that there is a tension between Clark's and Frame's ideas of being Reformed, and that Clark is, in part, taking Frame to task in the book. If you're going to read the review, be sure to sit back in a comfortable chair—it is very long.

I haven't read Clark's book, and I won't if his writing in the book is anything like his blog (which I've had to stop reading because I have to keep my blood pressure under control). The problem with guys like Clark is that while they sometimes raise good questions—and I think the points in his book are largely worth discussing—they do it without humility and grace. Frame has taken to calling contentious voices like this the "Reformed Controversialists," and for good reason. More time seems to be spent on tearing others down than on constructively working through the issues at hand. It is unfortunate, because they could bring a lot of good questions to the table, and their voices could contribute a lot more to the building up of the Church.

In Ephesians 4, Paul talks about the need to speak the truth in love to preserve the unity of the body of Christ. As I've mentioned before, there is a reason that they honoured Frame by titling his festschrift with those words. All of us who have been privileged and blessed to study under him will tell you that there are few men who are willing to interact with those they disagree with as lovingly and graciously as Frame does. He has been a wonderful role model for us and for the Church. Jude 3 says that we must "contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints," something Frame devotes himself to. And he does it recognizing that, like Paul in 1 Corinthians 13, if he has not love, he has nothing.

I'll be the first to admit that our traditions are important, and that we cannot live in a historical vacuum, ignorant of where we came from and who we are. These are good things to talk about, and I think Clark is right to raise questions about our Reformed identity. But resorting to a sort of hostile polemic to argue a case and misrepresenting those who hold views you don't agree with is not helpful; indeed, it's harmful and destructive to the Church (again I must acknowledged that I haven't read the book, but have spent quite a lot of time reading Clark's blog). Maybe this is the reason large segments of the Reformed community don't want to be identified with that small (albeit disproportinately vocal) segment of the Reformed community.

Read Frame's review if you want his take on the nuances of Clark's argument. All I want to emphasize is that when we interact with others who don't share our perspectives, we must do it with love and charity. We do so because of our love for God, because of our love for our neighbour, and because of our love for the Church. Granted, this is a lot harder than just lobbing grenades at your opponents. But it is required of us, and doesn't leave a trail of destruction in our wake; instead, it leaves a Church that is strengthened, edified, and brought closer to the unity Christ calls us to.

By all means, raise questions, provoke thought, discuss issues. But do so in love.

Loading mentions Retweet

There is a reason that the festschrift recently published in honour of John Frame is titled Speaking the Truth in Love—it is because there are few who deal with the thought of others in such a gracious and humble manner, even when they fundamentally disagree. The reference comes from Ephesians 4:15, where Paul is encouraging the Christians in Ephesus to seek the unity of the Church. It has been an incredible blessing to be able to study under Dr. Frame in my time here at Reformed Theological Seminary and to follow him for these last few years as he works tirelessly to bring that unity to fruition, especially through his writings. Without a doubt his thinking constitutes one of the most formative influences in my own thought.

I have been taking the course on Pastoral and Social Ethics that Frame teaches over the past few months, and I finished working through the lectures this afternoon. Toward the very end of his lecture on the ninth commandment of the Decalogue, Frame had a few things to say about how we interact with the thought of others, especially in the internet age. The ability of anyone to publish anything online these days with little to no accountability makes it easy for people to slander and malign others, and to misrepresent and distort their thought so as to make them appear heretical. Frame has frequently been the victim of this sort of thing and he makes a plea to those who have blogs to interact with others in love and seek to build each other up. Here is a short clip from the lecture:

I thought it was amusing that Frame used the label "Reformed Controversialists." He's referring to that disproportionately vocal and hyper-critical group of Reformed bloggers who do nothing but tear down those they disagree with. You would know right away when you've landed on one of their sites and for the sake of your health, it's best just to hit the back button.

Our responsibility as Christians is to build each other up and seek unity. If our interaction lacks either of these characteristics, then we need to step back and examine ourselves. For without these, we do great harm to the body of Christ.

Loading mentions Retweet

While I was working yesterday a tweet popped up from Adrian Warnock saying that he was starting a live chat session on his blog about his new book, Raised With Christ: How the Resurrection Changes Everything. I tuned in for a little while (though I was limited to text interaction since I had neither webcam or microphone with me), and enjoyed the discussion there. I was quite intrigued when I first heard about the book a short while ago. Here is Amazon's product description:

What impact should Jesus' resurrection have on individuals and churches? Popular Christian blogger and teacher Adrian Warnock urges Christians not to neglect the implications of the resurrection.

Jesus truly is alive today. But compared to his atoning death, Jesus' resurrection sparks relatively little discussion in the church. Inadvertently,we can become so focused on the good news that Christ died for our sins, that we almost forget he was "raised for our justification" (Romans 4:25).

In Raised with Christ, author Adrian Warnock exhorts Christians not to neglect the resurrection in their teaching and experience. Warnock takes his cue from Acts, where every recorded sermon focuses on Jesus' resurrection. He stresses that Christians who faithfully proclaim both the death and the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and live out the implications of that message in vibrant, grace-filled churches, will be enabled to reach a world that lives in death's dark shadow.

The power of the risen Christ is active in every true Christian, transforming our lives. Raised with Christ will help you discover afresh the massive implications of the empty tomb. Jesus' resurrection really has changed everything.

When I was in college, one of my professors, Jim Payton, was always very intentional about stressing the resurrection for similar reasons. Part of his interest in Eastern Orthodoxy (about which he has written a great introductory book) was owing to the fact that they place far more stress on the resurrection than Protestants do.

I think Warnock's concern is a legitimate one, and I'm looking forward to getting a copy of the book. There are a myriad of theological implications in the resurrection, and it is good to recognize that the work of Christ, and the gospel itself, is incomplete without it. Find out more about the book by visiting raisedwithchrist.net.

Loading mentions Retweet

I am in the middle of writing a paper on the relationship of the church and salvation, and it includes this, from John Calvin's seminal work, the Institutes of the Christian Religion:

Let us even learn from the simple title ‘mother’ how useful, indeed how necessary, it is that we should know her. For there is no other way to enter into life unless this mother conceive us in her womb, give us birth, nourish us at her breast, and lastly, unless she keep us under her care and guidance until, putting off mortal flesh, we become like the angels (Matt. 22:30). Our weakness does not allow us to be dismissed from her school until have been pupils all our lives. Furthermore, away from her bosom one cannot hope for any forgiveness of sins or any salvation, as Isaiah (Isa. 37:32) and Joel (Joel 2:32) testify. Ezekiel agrees with them when he declares that those whom God rejects from heavenly life will not be enrolled among God's people (Ezek. 13:9). On the other hand, those who turn to the cultivation of true godliness are said to inscribe their names among the citizens of Jerusalem (cf. Isa. 56:5; Ps. 87:6). For this reason, it is said in another Psalm: "Remember me, O Jehovah, with favor toward thy people; visit me with salvation: that I may see the well-doing of thy chosen ones, that I may rejoice in the joy of thy nation, that I may be glad with thine inheritance" (Ps. 106:4-5; cf. Ps. 105:4). By these words God’s fatherly favor and especial witness of spiritual life are limited to his flock, so that it is always disastrous to leave the church (IV.1.iv).

Cyprian said it best: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus—Outside of the church there is no salvation.

Loading mentions Retweet

The attitude that the physical or material is somehow "bad" or "evil" and will eventually be destroyed is a common one, even among Christians, as I've been discussing here recently. Perceptions like this lead to the belief that the creation will one day be destroyed altogether in favour of something spiritual and otherworldly.

Because our bodies are physical, this also leads to what is essentially a glorying in death. To be sure, we mourn the loss of our loved ones, but we celebrate the fact that they have passed through this earth and reached their destination. They have reached their goal. Certainly, there are benefits that the believer receives in death, but this is not the end of the story. I will leave it to John Murray, again from the final chapter of his book, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, to offer the critique and biblical corrective to this error. An extended quote, once more:

Glorification does not refer to the blessedness upon which the spirits of believers enter at death. It is true that then the saints, as respects their disembodied spirits, are made perfect in holiness and pass immediately into the presence of Christ...Yet, however glorious is the transformation of the people of God at death and however much they may be disposed to say with the apostle that to depart and to be with Christ is far better (cf. Phil. 1:23), this is not their glorification. It is not the goal of the believer's hope and expectation. The redemption which Christ has secured for his people is redemption not only from sin but also from all its consequences. Death is the wages of sin and the death of believers does not deliver them from death. The last enemy, death, has not yet been destroyed; it has not yet been swallowed up in victory. Hence glorification has in view the destruction of death itself. It is to dishonour Christ and to undermine the nature of the Christian hope to substitute the blessedness upon which believers enter at death for the glory that is to be revealed when "this corruptible will put on incorruption and this mortal will put on immortality" (1 Cor. 15:54). Preoccupation with the event of death indicates a deflection of faith, of love, and of hope. We who have the firstfruits of the Spirit 'groan within ourselves,' the apostle reminds us, 'waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body' (Rom. 8:23). That is the glorification. It is the complete and final redemption of the whole person when in the integrity of body and spirit the people of God will be conformed to the image of the risen, exalted, and glorified Redeemer, when the very body of their humiliation will be conformed to the body of Christ's glory (cf. Phil. 3:21). God is not the God of the dead but of the living and therefore nothing short of resurrection to the full enjoyment of God can constitute the glory to which the living God will lead his redeemed.

Now that is hope!

Loading mentions Retweet

While the whole of John Murray's little book, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, could be considered a gold mine (I heard today that one of our professors, Steve Childers, calls it a "little stick of dynamite"), his final seven-page chapter on glorification is on its own worth the price of the book. There are two things from this chapter I want to discuss, which I will do in the reverse order of Murray's discussion, partly because some of my more recent posts (see here and here) have carried a theme that he addresses as well.

The first, then, is the problem of not acknowledging the goodness and value of creation. Murray pulls no punches when he calls this a heresy. An extended quotation:

One of the heresies which has afflicted the Christian church and has been successful in polluting the stream of Christian thought from the first century to our era to the present is the heresy of regarding matter, that is, material substance, as the source of evil. It has appeared in numerous forms. The apostles had to combat it in their day and the evidence of this appears quite plainly in the New Testament, especially in the epistles. John, for example, had to combat it in the peculiarly aggravated form of denying the reality of Christ's body as one of flesh...

Another form in which this heresy appeared is to regard salvation as consisting of the emancipation of the soul or spirit of man from the impediments and entanglements of association with the body. Salvation and sanctification progress to the extent to which the immaterial soul overcomes the degrading influences emanating from the material and fleshly. This conception can be made to appear very beautiful and 'spiritual,' but it is just 'beautiful paganism.' It is a straight thrust at the biblical doctrine that God created man with body and soul and that he was very good. It is also aimed at the biblical doctrine of sin which teaches that sin has its origin and seat in the spirit of man, not in the material and fleshly.

This heresy has appeared in a very subtle form in connection with the subject of glorification. The direction it has taken in this case is to play on the chord of the immortality of the soul. This seems a very innocent and proper emphasis and, of course, there is some truth in the contention that the soul is immortal. But whenever the focus of interest and emphasis becomes the immortality of the soul, then there is a grave deflection from the biblical doctrine of immortal life and bliss. The biblical doctrine of 'immortality,' if we may use that term, is the doctrine of glorification. And glorification is resurrection. Without resurrection of the body from the grave and the restoration of human nature to its completeness after the pattern of Christ's resurrection on the third day and according to the likeness of the glorified human nature in which he will appear on the clouds of heaven with great power and glory there is no glorification. It is not the vague sentimentality and idealism so characteristic of those whose interest is merely the immortality of the soul. Here we have the concreteness and realism of the Christian hope epitomized in the resurrection to life everlasting...

In like manner the Christian's hope is not indifferent to the material universe around us, the cosmos of God's creation. It was subjected to vanity not willingly; it was cursed for man's sin; it was marred by human apostasy. But it is going to be delivered from the bondage to corruption, and its deliverance will be coincident with the consummation of God's people's redemption. The two are not only coincident as events but they are correlative in hope. Glorification has cosmic purposes...(2 Pet. 3:13; 1 Cor. 15:24, 28).

Forceful as it may sound, that Murray calls this heresy is not an embellishment or exaggeration. He is calling it as it is. When a belief causes you to implicitly deny some of the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, it needs to be eradicated.

Look for part two tomorrow.

Loading mentions Retweet

Regeneration, for Herman Bavinck, is not a matter of something entirely new being created within us, but instead is a re-formation of human nature to what it was originally intended to be. There is no new substance added to what is already there, he writes in the first chapter of volume four of his Reformed Dogmatics. He then extends the discussion to creation, and makes this profoundly important point:

Finally also the re-creation that will take place in the renewal of heaven and earth (Matt. 19:28) is not the destruction of this world and the subsequent creation out of nothing of another world but the liberation of the creature that is now subject to futility. Nor can it be otherwise, for God's honor as Savior hinges precisely on his reconquest from the power of Satan of this human race and this world. Christ, accordingly, is not a second Creator, but the Redeemer and Savior of this fallen creation, the Reformer of all things that have been ruined and corrupted by sin. Neither, for that matter, is sin a substance, but consists in lawlessness (άνομια); it is an actualized privation (privatio actuosa) that has indeed violated the form (forma) of the entire created world but did not and could not destroy its substance or essence. Hence, when the re-creation removes sin from creation, it does not deprive it of anything essential, nothing that was essentially and originally characteristic of it (though it was "by nature") and belonged to its essence. For sin is not part of the essence of creation; it pushed its way in later, as something unnatural and contrary to nature. Sin is deformity. When re-creation removes sin, it does not violate and suppress nature, but restores it.

This point cannot be made strongly enough, especially in evangelical circles where creation is often not of great concern. But the fact is, as Bavinck so clearly states, that if creation is not restored, sin gains victory and the Lordship of Christ is rendered null and void.

Loading mentions Retweet