The Sacraments
Sacraments are signs and seals. As signs, they function like road markers that point to a city. "Minneapolis this way," a sign might say. The sign is connected to the city, assuming that no one has tampered with the sign. It points in the right direction. Baptism says "salvation is in Christ; go this way, and repent and believe." That function is slightly different, depending on whether the sign is administered before faith (in the case of infants) or after faith (presumed faith, in the case of adults). As seals, they function as God's statement "This person is engaged to me" (in the case of baptism), or "This person is in fellowship with me" (in the case of communion). With regard to baptism, we can give a further analogy: baptism functions like an engagement ring. The person is spoken for. But engagements can be broken. Baptism is not the wedding ring: that is faith. But it is like an engagement ring. 27.2 of the WCF is absolutely essential to understand, when surrounded by the debates in the PCA and elsewhere: "there is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other." This means that sometimes the Bible uses the term "baptism" when it means to talk about the thing that baptism signifies. Romans 6 and Galatians 3 are good examples of this, as has been argued in a previous post and comments. The WCF is just as careful to avoid the "empty sign" theology of Zwingli, as it is to avoid baptismal regeneration. Since no one really disputes the former, I will focus on the latter. Indications that baptism does not automatically confer union with Christ: 27:3 "The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them...the word of instituation, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers." Emphasis mine. More on this in the next WCF post on baptism. Someone will probably immediately quote 28.6 to me, which says this (usually truncated by FV advocates): "Yet notwithstanding, by the right use of the ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred, by the Holy Ghost." What is missing, of course, is the very next essential qualifying statement: "to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time." I have highlighted the importance of these two phrases: this grace does not belong unto those of the non-elect. And, the grace of baptism is conferred in God's own time (it is not limited to the time when baptism is administered).
posted by Mr. Baggins @ 9/24/2006 02:45:00 PM
links to this post
20 Comments:
"Yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time."
So, you believe that, in the case of the eternally elect, grace is really conferred by the right use of baptism? That baptism confers grace to the elect?
And check out those proof texts for this section of the confession!
I have two points.
1. I dispute the "empty sign" theory of Zwingli. I believe the early writings of Zwingli lean this way, but later, mature Zwingli is different. Notice his protege Henrich Bullinger does not hold an 'empty sign' theory.
2. Do you think the WCF teaching on the sacraments agrees with Heidelberg Q.65 "The Holy Ghost works faith in our hearts by the preaching of the Holy Gospel, and confirms it by the use of the holy sacraments? Thus giving the sacrametns a 'confirming role'.
Baptism is a means of grace, but must *never* *ever* be divorced from faith as the grace that comes. By grace here I mean saving grace. Saving grace *never* comes without faith. I think Lee's point here is well taken. Baptism's grace is more a confirmatory grace than a converting grace. That is what the language of sign and seal is getting at, I trust. In response to Lee on this question, I can affirm the Heidelberg there, although I would want to stress that the sacraments are means of grace. I think that conversion comes always through the Word, not through the Sacrament.
Lee, I would be very interested if you could direct me to passages (or even if you could post them somewhere) which show the change in Zwingli's views. I guess I was primarily referring to the popular view of Zwingli, which, as you indicated, may not be indicative of his later views.
Lane, do you believe that, in the case of the eternally elect, grace is really conferred by the right use of baptism? That baptism confers grace to the elect?
Sure, I believe that. But that is because faith is not divorced from the sacrament, since, as you have described them, they are eternally elect. But as Lee says, what grace is conferred? Saving grace is not bestowed by baptism. It is a signing and sealing grace that is bestowed when linked to faith. That doesn't mean that baptism is condemnation in the (hypothetical) period between an infant's baptism and his coming to faith. There are such instances, I hope you would agree, where the infant does not believe right away at his baptism. I believe that he can have faith at the time point of baptism. But it happens differently for many people. And I would not want to put the Holy Spirit in a box and say that the grace that He brings has to come at a certain time.
"But as Lee says, what grace is conferred? Saving grace is not bestowed by baptism."
But what about the proof texts here, Lane? Galatians 3:27! The grace conferred through the right use of baptism is whatever Galatians 3:27 is talking about, right? Union with Christ, in some sense, according to the Westminster divines, is part of the grace conferred through the right use of baptism. Right?
Lane: "This grace does not belong unto those of the non-elect."
Lusk: "Note that Scripture's warnings against apostasy (almost) never call into question whether or not grace was actually received by those who are the subject of the warnings (e.g., Mt. 13:22, 18:32; Jn. 15:1ff; Rom. 11:17ff; 1 Cor. 10:1ff; 2 Cor. 6:1; Gal. 5:4; Col. 1:21-23; 1 Tim. 1:19-20; Hebrews 2-4, 6:4-8, 10:26ff, 12:25ff; 2 Pt. 2:1; Jude 5; Rev. 2-3, 22:19). Rather, the warnings call into question whether or not the readers will continue in that grace by persevering faith. Those who do fall away are not portrayed as having never possessed any blessings at all, but as having spurned and forsaken those blessings (cf. Mt. 21:43)."
Todd, you are misinterpreting the language of the confession here. The structure of the sentence forbids any other understanding than that baptism is a *sign* and *seal* of ingrafting into Christ. It is not that ingrafting itself, as can be seen very clearly from the language of 26.1, which says that saints are united to Christ by the Holy Spirit and by *faith*. As a sign and seal is the proof-text given for Galatians 3:27, which, as I have argued before, and you have not contradicted my interpretation, indicates that baptism always needs to be connected with faith.
Yes, well, Lusk isn't exactly my favorite theologian, as you've probably gathered already. 1 John 2:19 indicates the real nature of things, talking about false teachers, but I think the truth can be extended to any non-elect member of the church who eventually apostatizes: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us." If anyone leaves, then it is proof positive that they were never of us in the first place. In other words, the traditional understanding of election holds here. I deny utterly that membership in the visible community of believers communicates the ordo salutis benefits of election and all the rest. For Lusk to be right, he would have to erase the distinction between the visible church and the decretal view of election. He has completely missed the point of the apostasy warnings in Scripture. The apostasy warnings in Scripture are real warnings (contrary to what the FV usually says that its critics are claiming). But the FV fails to realize that they constitute a null set. "All trespassers will be prosecuted" is a sign set up precisely so that there will be no trespassers. In the same way, the apostasy warnings are given to the elect precisely so that they will not fall away. That is what is known as a null set. A category of people in which there are no people. The category of "elect but fallen from election" is set up precisely so that there will not (nor can there) be any members of that set. The warnings in Scripture are just one more way in which God keeps HIs elect, so that of all those given into the hand of Jesus, *none* will be lost. With regard to those who do apostatize, they had the benefits of covenant, but not ***any*** ordo salutis benefits.
No branches are actually cut from the vine of John 15:6? John 15 is a null set passage?
"The structure of the sentence forbids any other understanding than that baptism is a *sign* and *seal* of ingrafting into Christ."
The sentence we're talking about, I believe, is this: "Yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time."
No sign and seal language here, or in the proof texts. I affirm the sign and seal language enthusiastically; it's biblical, of course. But it's only one of the ways the confession talks about baptism. But you are using this language in a way that robs the other ways the confession talks about baptism of all theirforce. You are setting different phrases and descriptions over against one another, both in the confession and in the Bible.
For example:
"It is not that ingrafting itself, as can be seen very clearly from the language of 26.1, which says that saints are united to Christ by the Holy Spirit and by *faith*."
Union with Christ is connected with the Spirit and with faith in 26.1. But it's connected with baptism in other places.
"As a sign and seal is the proof-text given for Galatians 3:27, which,"
No way. If the divines wanted to bring sign/seal language into the picture here, the answer to the question about what grace is conferred, they would have used different proof texts. But they used Gal. 3:27, a union with Christ text. Union with Christ, in some sense, is the grace conferred through the right use of baptism. This may embarrass you about our confession, but honesty is more important.
"indicates that baptism always needs to be connected with faith."
No one disagrees with this, Lane. That's what the sections on faith in Wilkins' paper and Lusk's paper in FV make clear. There are real differences, cf course, in the "theology of baptism that is not accompanied by faith," but the FVers are ceretainly more at home with the parts of the confession that we're debating here.
Baptism confers grace. What kind of grace? The grace of Galatians 3:27. And Ephesians 5:25-26. And Acts 2:38, 41.
You really just showed your confusion here. The statement under discussion is NOT what you said it was, but RATHER 28.1, which most certainly DOES use the sign and seal language, using Galatians 3:27 as a proof-text. Galatians 3:27 is listed as a proof-text of 28.1, which is what I was talking about. See my recent post about baptism for the interpretation of this whole chapter.
You are arguing for a much more dialectical version of the Confession than I am. I am simply using one part of the Confession to interpret another. You are using one part of the Confession to practically nullify another part of the Confession. Far from setting one over against the other, I am using one part of Scripture to interpret another, and using one part of the Confession to interpret another. I deny utterly your accusation.
Todd, John 15 is not in the same category of null set passages as Hebrews 6, for instance. I will deal with John 15 in a separate post, since FV guys (mis)use it to trump all other considerations.
"You really just showed your confusion here. The statement under discussion is NOT what you said it was, but RATHER 28.1, which most certainly DOES use the sign and seal language, using Galatians 3:27 as a proof-text."
You're the one confused, man. Look at my original response to your post here. We've been talking about the "conferring" paragraph, not the signs/seals.
"You are using one part of the Confession to practically nullify another part of the Confession."
This, of course, is what I have accused you of. I'm very happy to let our readers judge between the two of us on this one.
No, you are the confused one, since I was referring to 28.1 wherein the sign and seal language applies also to the ingrafting into Christ, with Gal 3:27 as a proof-text. The grammar of the section forbids any other understanding than that "sign and seal" applies not just to "of the covenant of grace," but also to "of his ingrafting into Christ, etc." It is a sign and seal of all of those thing. Since when are signs and seals then confused for the things that they sign and seal? Give me one single instance when a sign is equal to the thing signified, or that the seal is the thing that it seals.
Galatians 3:27 is used in the baptism section in 28.1 to confirm the phrase "sign and seal of ingrafting into Christ" and in 28.6, to confirm the phrase "in His appointed time." We surely are not talking about the latter phrase, but rather the former.
If I say "this is a sign of weakness, of frailty, and of wishy-washiness," the word "sign" applies to *all* the members in that series. That is *precisely* what we have in 28.1. We have the language "sign and seal of...of...of...of...and of..." Therefore the language "sign and seal" is not left behind when we come to the phrase "ingrafting into Christ," but rather the language of sign and seal modifies that member of the series, as it modifies *all* the members of that series. You need to relearn grammar, Todd. For someone who is headmaster of a Classical Christian School, I find this intensely ironic.
Lane, anyone can look at my the comments thread here and see the passage from the confession that I've been asking about:
-------------------
Todd said...
"Yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time."
So, you believe that, in the case of the eternally elect, grace is really conferred by the right use of baptism? That baptism confers grace to the elect?
9/18/2006 04:23:38 PM
Todd said...
And check out those proof texts for this section of the confession!
9/18/2006 04:26:37 PM
------------------------------
I started the comment thread by asking about 28.6, as anyone can see. You changed the subject half-way down, man.
Galatians 3:27 is a proof text for both 28.1 and 28.6. For 28.6, it's the first one listed.
I don't disagree with anything you've written about the syntax of 28.1. Sign and seal of his ingrafting into Christ. Absolutely. A glorious truth.
My question remains: What about Gal. 3:27 as a proof text for 28.6?
"Yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time."
The grace conferred through the right use of baptism is whatever Galatians 3:27 is talking about, right? Union with Christ, in some sense, according to the Westminster divines, is part of the grace conferred through the right use of baptism. Right?
You'll have to convince me that the prooftexts for 28.6 are only for the "appointed time" phrase, rather than for the "exhibited and conferred" part as well.
The Heidelberg Catechism uses "sign and seal" interchangable with 'pledge and token' (Q.73), which I think is better language. It fits nicely with the role of sacraments being 'confirming' and 'assuring'. This debate is almost impossible to have using the Heidelberg because it is clearer.
Baptism is not the wedding ring: that is faith. But it is like an engagement ring.
No, it's like a wedding ring. Marriages can be broken as well - it's called divorce. And the analogy is a good one, for both baptism and wedding rings are signs and seals that mark entrance into the covenant.
To John, the reason I shy away from marriage language is that it suggests that union with Christ happens at baptism. I suggest that it happens at the time-point of faith. My view-point in the analogy didn't really have divorce in mind: I was considering marriage as an indissoluble union. Therefore the analogy breaks down t some point.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home