Sacramental Efficacy

The Sacraments are one of the contentious issues of the current controversies. Do the Federal Vision men believe sacramentalism, and if so is it outside of the Reformed Norm? I would argue yes to both points. Baptism is a good place to start. The Federal Vision men always raise their voices in protest when they are accused of believing in Baptismal Regeneration or that “baptismal efficacy is affirmed...of every recipient of the sacrament" (lines 42-44 FV section of the MVP report). They always deny it. And here is an example of how they do it. Joel Garver says:

If the report means to say that I believe that all the baptized truly receive Christ and all his benefits as those are offered in the sacrament of baptism, then this is most certainly not the case. I do not believe that every baptized person receives Christ and all his benefits as those are offered by the sacrament of baptism. Receiving the sacrament, for instance, in hypocrisy and unbelief will not benefit the recipient unless he later comes to faith.

If the report, however, means to say that I believe that what is signified and sealed by the sacrament of baptism is truly offered to all in its administration, then I do, in fact, believe that. But, as far as I can see, this is simply classical Reformed doctrine, consistent with the Westminster Standards.

Auburn Ave Church makes this statement:

By baptism one is joined to Christ's body, united to Him covenantally, and given all the blessings and benefits of His work (Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:1ff; WSC #94). This does not, however, grant to the baptised final salvation.

Again Garver gives clarification of AAPC statement:

The AAPC Statement, however, is perfectly consistent with final salvation being "offered" or "given" but not being "received" in such way that would grant final salvation. Otherwise, the statement would be flatly contradictory since "all blessings and benefits" would have to include "final salvation" since surely that is the chief blessing and benefit of Christ's work.

Regarding Saul the AAPC Statement says, "he did not receive the gift of perseverance." But the language here is that of "receiving," not being "given" or "offered."

Thus we see a lot of word parsing being done by the Federal Vision men that is not picked up on in the MVP report or many of the discussions about the subject.

On the contrary the Classical Reformed Position is stated in the Heidelberg Catechism.

Q. 61 Why do you say that you are righteous by faith only?
A. Not that I am acceptable to God on account of the worthiness of my faith, but because only the satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ is my righteousness before God; and I can receive the same in no other way than by faith only.
Q. 72 Is then the outward washing with water itself the washing away of sins?
A. No, for only the blood of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit cleanse us from all sin.

Here it is extremely important to note the discussion of how we are righteous immediately proceeds the discussion on sacraments in the Heidelberg. We are righteous by faith, and then the sacraments ‘confirm’ it to us, as the catechism plainly teaches.

Allow me to summarize. The Classic Reformed or Old Reformed Position is that those who receive the sacraments by faith receive the benefits signified by them. Thus our faith is confirmed by the sacraments and salvation and righteousness come only by faith. Without faith the sacraments are of no hope or use to you. The Federal Vision position appears to be those who receive the sacraments receive the benefits of them unless they frustrate the grace by unbelief. Another way to say it is they receive the benefits of the sacrament as they receive it in continuing faith. These two positions are not the same. The Old Reformed position has faith as the instrument and the Federal Vision position has the sacrament as the instrument and faith is just a manner of receiving. The sacrament itself contains grace and offers it to all, and unless it is prevented by unbelief, then it is conveyed or received. The Old Reformed Position states faith is the only way to gain benefit, and constantly reminds us that the sacraments are signs and tokens. They do nothing in and of themselves.

However, it must be admitted that the MVP report is wrong in saying that they believe all who receive baptism are saved because the Federal Vision makes allowances that people can frustrate grace through unbelief, and thus fall out of the covenant with God to which they were joined. The baptized have true union with Christ, but can then later frustrate that union and lose it, through unbelief or a lack of continued faithfulness. This is why I wish the MVP report had taken the time to be detailed. The Federal Vision men rightly have a complaint about the report, but their teaching is still contrary to the Reformed Faith. A clearer report might have helped close the loopholes that the Federal Vision position slips through.

Terri Schiavo

One of the absolute crimes of the Terri Schiavo case is the state’s view of marriage. Don’t get me wrong there are hundreds of things wrong with the Schiavo situation, but the others are getting a lot of attention. The view of marriage propounded by the state of Florida astounds me. The ruling is that Michael Schiavo is Terri’s husband and thus has custody and care. Yet, Michael, for many years now, has lived with another woman and even has a child with another woman. He took vows before God and the State that he would care for her in sickness and in health. Yet, the first major sickness comes along and he is in bed with another woman, playing husband to her. Can the state really not see that Michael Schiavo has abandoned his position as husband, and that perhaps guardianship should be awarded to someone else? At least it should make us question his word. Then add on top of that, the fact that he promised to use the malpractice money to care for her, which probably made the settlement larger than if he had told the jury he wanted to starve her quickly, no one should be taking this man at his word. We all should be questioning exactly how he is acting as her husband when he has already started a family of his own without her, while still married to her. Yet, none of this seems to bother Florida judges. We have a long way to go in this country if we really want to protect marriage. It will take more than simply keeping it defined as between one man and one woman. We are going to need to teach the morality behind marriage as well.

The Coming Meetings

It is that time again. Time when churches begin to go to Classis and Presbytery, and in a few months we will see Synods and General Assemblies. This is the time of year then when the most trouble is stirred up, and debates get hot. This year appears to be no exception. A new round of critiques of the Mississippi Valley Presbytery’s Report has begun. Apparently the report has been made a communication to the PCA General Assembly, so that is sure to cause a little trouble. It appears that many are upset because the report, in a round about way, declares many ministers outside the realm of orthodoxy. This is because they published the report without notes, and people wanted the proof for such claims, so they published notes, and now people are mad that names were given. It is a no win situation when a Presbytery gives a report of this nature. I do agree that if the Presbytery does not file charges in the appropriate courts then they have done people wrong. You can’t make claims about one’s orthodoxy being faulty and then not follow through with anything.
It will be interesting to see what the PCA and the OPC do. It hardly seems likely that the situation will go away without any sort of action. Soon, action will be necessary. Yet, this will be an interesting test to see if people can nail down the beliefs of those in the Federal Vision and if they can nail down their own set of beliefs. Then, if they can do that, will they be able to line the two systems up side by side a see where they conflict. Then the task will be to decide which system is more biblical. I have to admit that I am skeptical that such a procedure will occur. Need I remind everyone of the Rev. John Wood case a few years ago in the PCA. If memory serves me correct, John Wood allowed a woman to preach in the pulpit for a Sunday service or two, and was acquitted for it because they could not really nail down a definition of preaching. Rev. Wood claimed she did not preach because preaching requires authority, which the woman did not have since she was a woman. Thus, he got off of the charges. Maybe my memory is faulty, or maybe I am overly pessimistic. No matter what, I hope an interesting discussion comes around from these meetings where we can honestly line up the doctrine of each group and see where we disagree.
Lord willing we can give this a try here on this page.

Family Voting

One of the traditions that still goes on in many RCUS churches is that of Head of Household voting. This is where the men of a certain age vote in the church and the women do not. This is done because the man is the biblical head of the household, and thus when the family votes it should be done by the head. Now, it should be stated up front that this is not an official RCUS position. Some churches allow all confirmed members to vote, others allow men of a certain age and also allow widows to vote. So this is not a uniform practice at all, but in order to have some fun and promote discussion I thought we would examine this practice.

The church I currently serve follows the Head of Household Voting practice. All the men over the age of 20 are allowed to vote in the congregational meetings. This means that women do not cast any votes in the church, nor do those young men who may have been confirmed, but are still under their parents headship. The age of 20 has been picked by our church as an age where a young man may sign the church constitution to signify the creation of his family allowing him to vote. I believe this to be a good and biblical practice.

1. The Bible seems to tell us that the base unit is a family rather than individuals. For example, it was not good that Adam was alone, but it was very good after there was a family. Notice that when Israel is broken down it goes from tribes to clans to families, but usually not down to individuals. Punishments were usually dished out to families. It just seems voting in families appears to place appropriate emphasis on the biblical unit of families.
2. If women are to submit to their husbands, why would their ever be a reason that husbands and wives vote against one another. And if their vote is always the same, then why not just make them vote as a unit, which is what voting in families does.
3. I believe that this practice promotes family interaction and responsibility. Husbands and wives should discuss votes prior to their coming to the meeting. Sons should discuss and look after their widowed mothers as they vote in church matters. The duty of each family member to one another is encouraged by this practice.

I thought I would just send this discussion out there and see what comes back.

Forgotten Reformers

I have been recently getting lost in reading the primary sources of the Reformation. No, not Calvin, or Luther, or even Knox, but those other guys, the ones that are usually just footnotes in some seminary class. One often gets the impression that Luther, Calvin and Knox pulled off the Reformation single handed, or at least through their great influence. Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to run down Calvin and the lot, but there are a lot of other leaders out there that don’t get much attention. These men too helped shape the world.
Over the last month I have gotten my first book by Peter Martyr Vermigli, which is Predestination and Justification. A fantastic book. Vermigli doesn’t pull any punches, and answers objections that one can still find lingering today. I also just received The Decades of Henry Bullinger. These were 50 sermons, designed for publication, published in groups of 10. I have not had the chance to read very much in this yet, so I should withhold judgment. One thing struck me as I have pursued this book and the Vermigli book. It is how much these men quote from the early church fathers. Glancing back at Calvin’s Institutes, he takes great care to do the same. These men who led the Reformation were not trying to take the church to a new phase of development or invent some new church, they were trying to bring it back to the early years. They take great pains to show that the history of the church lies not with the Romanists, no matter what they claim, it lies with the Reformed.
I guess the last point I want to make is that today we need to reclaim the spirit of the Reformation. That is not done by looking for great men like Calvin and Luther to come lead us. Instead, scholarly pastors preaching the word of God all over do it. Sure great men can be found among them, but the Reformation was not limited to them. There are those who did much, but now receive little fame, or are even forgotten by history completely. The spirit of the Reformation is more than just the legacy of a few, it is the legacy of the church. When the church preaches the truth boldly about her savior, then the world will change, the heathen will repent, and the gates of hell cannot stand before her. May everyone have a blessed Lord’s Day.

Infant Communion

There is a resurgence of those advocating infant communion. This is not confined to Federal Vision advocates. It really seems to be a teaching that is catching on. A book is in the works with a collection of essays by various authors discussing Paedocommunion. It includes James Jordan, Tim Gallant, Jeff Meyers (all Federal Vision men), and R.C. Sproul Jr.

Tim Gallant has an article about how one can hold to the Three Forms of Unity and believe in Paedocommunion. His argument is that the Heidelberg Catechism does not address the issue of infants at all. He claims that question 81 is who “ought” to come to the Supper, not who “may” come. Thus, infants may come, but are not required. They are also not specifically forbidden to come in the following question, thus, children are allowed. Or at least one can claim to hold the Heidelberg Catechism without exceptions and still in good conscious hold to the practice of giving infants communion. He also uses his explanation of I Corinthians 11 to rid himself of the self-examination clauses in the Belgic and Heidelberg.

Not addressing any of his Biblical exegesis, the whole essay seems to me a search for loopholes in the Three Forms of Unity. “How can one sneak kids into this?” appears to be the question that drives the essay. I know that Gallant is sincere in what he is doing and saying, but he really seems to be changing the meaning of the Heidelberg to mean what we want it to say rather than what it says, or what the author meant it to say. The only quote I need to give you all is one from the author of the catechism, Ursinus. It can be found in his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, pg. 434. Here he is speaking of the differences between baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

They differ as it respects the persons to whom they should be administered. Baptism is administered to all who are to be regarded as members to all who are to be regarded members of the church, whether they be adults or infants; the Lord’s Supper is to be given to none except those who are able to understand and celebrate the benefits of Christ, and to examine themselves.

It seems clear that Ursinus, who wrote the catechism, felt children were to be excluded from the Supper in his catechism. Wouldn’t it be more honest just simply to say, “I take exception to question 81”?

To 'Filioque' or not to 'Filioque'

‘Filioque’ is a Latin phrase meaning “and the Son”. It was added to the Creed of Nicaea by Charlemagne so that the creed now states that the Spirit proceeds “from the Father and the Son.” This is how Protestant churches, and the Roman Catholic Church both confess the relationship within the Trinity. The Eastern Orthodox Church is the only one that refuses to claim the Jesus Christ can send the Spirit as well. Thus, for the Eastern Orthodox the Spirit proceeds only from the Father.

Sadly, one does not have to look very far in the Reformed world to see those who would desire to return to the Eastern view of the Trinity. It is an idea held forth by many within the Federal Vision movement, although I would stop short of saying that it is a characteristic of that movement. Andrew Sandlin holds forth this idea of revoking the Filioque clause.

If the Eastern form of Trinitarian dogma (which is where orthodox Trinitarianism developed) cannot be improved on within the Reformed tradition (and we don’t believe it can!), we have no problem championing the Eastern view; in other words, we do not feel it necessary to create a “Reformed version” of every doctrine (which may easily lead to heresy).

It have seen it on several other blogs telling us that this idea has taken root. The removal of the Spirit proceeding from Christ is not a minor thing. It opens the door again to Arianism, which is why the clause was first adopted in Spain, and then inserted by Charlemagne. The Arians claimed the if the Spirit only proceeded from the Father, then Christ was lesser than the Father. But more importantly, the Bible teaches us pretty clearly that the Son sends the Spirit too. John 15:26 Christ says, “I will send” the Spirit. John 20:22 states, “And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” This fairly clearly shows that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well. The Bible seems to say the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Why the sudden interest in rejecting this? I confess, I don’t know. It seems that there is a great need to undo things agreed upon, or go to the least common denominator in all arguments, but the motive is still unclear. However, one thing is clear, the church appears on the verge of having to re-fight a great many battles that we should have already settled.