This is SO important

I just have to quote a long section from Joseph Minich's excellent, excellent paper, Within The Bounds of Orthodoxy?. I've pointed to the same facts quoted below regarding Wright's doctrine of final judgment/justification, though much less eloquently. I've asked others more knowledgable than myself if my understanding is correct, which they have affirmed. If these things are so plain to someone like me, a rank amateur theology wonkette, then why is it so hard for six very well-educated, intelligent, professional theologians? And how many men are going to go to GA this summer and simply accede to the OPC FV/NPP Report based upon their credentials? It's sad. I'm sorry to sound so frustrated. I mean no disrespect for the committee members, but I'm utterly incredulous at their unwillingness to permit Wright to be read on his own terms rather than through the strictures of the WCF. Any discerning reader, and I'm an excellent case in point, can find benefit in Wright without abandoning the Westminster Standards.

Paul’s conversion on the Damascus road was his realization that in the person of the Jewish Messiah (who was Christ) the exile of God’s people had ended. Christ had borne the curse of the law on behalf of His people (and by implication on behalf of the entire world), thus dealing with the problem of sin, and reconstituting the people of God in new creation. Here is where Paul, according to Wright, stands in both continuity and discontinuity with his Jewish contemporaries. Because of foreign occupation, Israel was very concerned with questions of identity. How were God’s people to be identified in a time of occupation by pagan nations? For Jewish persons, argues Wright, they were identified by “works of the law.” Paul’s conversion, however, led him to believe that God’s new people were not to be identified by the Jewish law, but now by faith in Christ. Faith, for Paul, is the recognition that Jesus has come as the Savior and Lord of the world, and has brought to a climax the history of Israel in his life, death, and resurrection. The triumph of Israel’s God has resulted in new creation and a new people. (i.e. The reverse of the curse) Paul’s critique of Judaism then, is not a criticism of their attempts to gain favor with God by their good works. Rather, his criticism is eschatological. They identify God’s people as those who do Jewish works rather than those who have faith in Israel’s Messiah. That is, they have made idolatry of their law rather than submitting to the incarnate Lord of the world to whom their law pointed. (Rom. 9:26-10:4) Faith, then, is not a “means” of getting in the new people of God for Paul. Rather, coterminous with Israel’s emphasis on identity, it is that which identifies God’s people in distinction from all other people. “The badge of membership, the thing because of which one can tell in the present who is within the eschatological covenant people, was…faith, the confession that Jesus is Lord and the belief that God raised Him from the dead (Romans 10:9). ‘Faith,’ for Paul, is therefore not a substitute ‘work’ in a moralistic sense. It is not something one does in order to gain admittance into the covenant people. It is the badge that proclaims that one is already a member.” For Paul, justification is God’s declaration that one is in the “family of Abraham” and therefore, has their sins forgiven. Justification is not about getting in the covenant, (Or even about staying in the covenant) but about who is in the covenant, and therefore forgiven in the sight of God.
Wright’s narrative is far more complex and nuanced, but this provides some basic frameworks from which we can hear the objections to his theology, and (in reply) see how his theological categories relate to our own cherished doctrines. It is objected, first, that Wright believes justification to be a doctrine “touching ecclesiology and not soteriology.” This is based upon Wright’s now infamous quip that justification wasn’t “so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church.” This is a large misunderstanding, and it is based upon a single statement from Wright speaking at his worst. Even in the quotation itself, one can see that Wright says that justification is not “so much” about salvation as about the church. The qualifier should key one in to his nuance. Furthermore, Wright is here speaking of “salvation” as it is typically conceived by evangelicals, not as Paul employs the theme. For Wright, as he said during a question and answer session at the 2005 Auburn Avenue Pastor’s conference, part of his intension in writing theology has been to combat the false antithesis that is often put between the church and salvation. As confirmed in his recent book on Paul, to speak of “justification or the church” is to speak of a “false either/or.” Rather, since the church is the newly constituted people of God through the work of Christ, it fulfills the promises to Abraham, which promised to deal with the problem of sin in a people. That is, “The present declaration (justification) constitutes all believers as the single people, the one family, promised to Abraham…the people whose sins have been dealt with as part of the fulfilled promise of covenant renewal…Membership in this family cannot be played off against forgiveness of sins; the two belong together.” One can see the importance, for Wright, of framing Paul’s doctrine of justification precisely in the narrative framework and consequent questions of his Jewish contemporaries. The new family of Abraham is the locus of forgiveness and new creation/ “being in the right” with God, precisely because Christ has fulfilled the covenant and brought it to its climax.

It is further objected that for Wright, “present justification is declared on the basis of future justification, which shall be grounded upon the believer’s faithful obedience to the covenant.” With all due respect, this is bordering on slander towards a brother in Christ. This statement is also based upon a famous quip of Wright, “justification, at the last, will be on the basis of performance, not possession.” Another oft-quoted Wright clip is, “Present justification declares, on the basis of faith, what future justification will affirm publicly on the basis of the entire life.” But even surface exegesis of these two statements shows the above claim to be completely without basis. First, it is very misleading to speak of Wright “grounding” future justification in faithfulness, since the notion of “grounds” plays a very specific function in Reformed theology, completely absent from Wright’s agenda. (Notice he uses the word basis) Furthermore, the “possession” of which Wright speaks is Jewish possession of the law, and the “performance” contrasted with it is not an amalgamation of good deeds towards the law, but faith in Christ! (See below) As for the latter quotation, it is bewildering that anyone could say that for Wright, present justification is grounded in future justification. He says almost the exact opposite. Contrary to the Jewish expectation of vindication at the last day, Paul teaches that all who have faith receive the final verdict now, by faith alone! The future declaration, (notice the language) will “affirm publicly” what has already been declared! Furthermore, there is tremendous scholarly hypocrisy to complain that Wright wrongly defines justification, (the first objection) and then charge him with heresy when he speaks this way as though he defined justification that way we do! (the present objection) If, for Wright, justification is about “who is in the covenant,” not “how one gets in the covenant,” then future justification according to works is not a merit-based entrance into heaven, but the identification of who God’s saved people are by the fruit in their lives. That is, they function as evidence of who belong to God, not merits to gain favor with God. As Wright said in 2003 at his Rutherford house lecture, these works “are the things which show…that one is in Christ...

...neither faith nor good works ever serve as the ground of either dimension of justification.” (Joseph Minich, Within the Bounds of Orthodoxy pp. 39-42)[emphasis added BH]

Posted by barb at 3:59 pm

- Re4med | 04.29.06 | 9:43 pm

"answer session at the 2005 Auburn Avenue Pastor’s conference, part of his intension in..."

Small type there :)

- mikey | 04.30.06 | 11:13 am

Just one comment from someone who finds many plusses in Wright. In Wright's "Paul in Fresh Perspective" Wright reiterates and expands on his meaning that final justification will be based on works, and it is an unusual position that I would disagree with. He finds our final vindication will be through the works we do "in Christ".

In this it may be distinguished from "works of law" in Wright's mind; but it's nevertheless from works which we do in union with Christ.

I don't think it's well-argued, and I do think it's wrong. Oddly I've found other Reformed scholars who hold to this view of final judgement by works (I believe I still have Phillips' email about it carefully preserved). So I don't think it's a hangin' offense.

It's also true that other "outside" theologies far, far afield of Reformed thought also hold this view. Dillow's book "Return of the Servant Kings" seems to've stormed through some churches as well. It holds largely the same view.

- Barb | 04.30.06 | 2:54 pm

Mikey, keep in mind that when Wright says "based on works," he means works evidentially... He doen't mean the "ground" of justification is works.

- Barb | 04.30.06 | 3:32 pm

"And that is why, in particular, the Spirit is the path by which Paul traces the route from justification by faith in the present to justification by the complete life lived, in the future. You cannot understand justification by faith in Romans 3 and 4 unless you see it flanked by the long statement of judgment according to works in Romans 2.1-16 and the spectacular scene in Romans 8 which explains why there is indeed "no condemnation for those who are in the Messiah, Jesus." This is the point at which the redefinition of justification which I offered in the previous chapter makes its presence fully felt: because if by 'justification' you suppose that Paul means 'the event by which you become a Christian', this is always going to sound contested, as though (to quote one of my critics) one were smuggling in a semi-Pelagianism by the back door, insisting, in the teeth of Galatians 3, that having begun with faith one must end with works after all. It simply isn't like that, and Galatians 3, being about circumcision makes the point, because Paul did not see circumcision at all as a 'good work' which one might do as part of a self-help moralism, but always as an ethnic badge. Rather, the point about faith is that it is the first-fruit of the work of the Spirit, operating in the human heart through the preaching of the gospel. No one can say, 'Jesus is Lord', except by the Spirit; 'by grace you are saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is God's gift'. The point then, laid out in Romans 8.1-11, is this: the verdict already issued over Christian faith in Romans 3 does indeed genuinely anticipate the verdict to be issued over the entirety of the life led, because the Spirit now at work within you, the Spirit because of whose presence you are beginning to walk according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh, is the Spirit of the God who raised Jesus from the dead, and hence the Spirit through whom God will raise all those who belong to the Messiah. This is why, when Paul looks ahead to the future and asks, as well one might, what God will say on the last day, he holds up as his joy and crown, not the merits and death of Jesus, but the churches he has planted who remain faithful to the gospel. The path from initial faith to final resurrection (and resurrection, we must remind ourselves, constitutes rescue, that is salvation, from death itself) lies through holy and faithful Spirit-led service, including suffering."
--N.T. Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective, page 148.

- pduggie | 04.30.06 | 4:09 pm

Interesting. We tend to distinguishe faith and its fruit, and speak of 'fruits of the spirit' as 'fruits of faith' evidences of the instrumental faith that saves.

For wright, less strong on the instrumentality of faith, faith and works BOTH are evidences of the Spirit. The text does say "fruit of the spirit", not 'fruit of faith" so it seems like a prima fascie point.

FWIW: Josh S has also remarked on this:

http://metalutheran.blogspot.com/2006/04/not-criticism-of-wright-you-wanted.html

- Question | 05.01.06 | 11:52 am

Barb,
Would you or someone like to clarify what he means when he says that Wright doesn't confuse faith and faithfulness. I am sure the paper is clear, but I am having a hard time understanding what is in the paper on that issue. The way it is written still leads me to see them as the same thing. What am I missing? Thanks.

- Barb | 05.01.06 | 2:27 pm

Could you quote the section to which you refer? That might help me understand your question.

- Questioner | 05.01.06 | 2:54 pm

Thanks Barb,
"Faith, as Paul explains later (10:9), consists in confessing Jesus as Lord (thereby renouncing other lords) and in believing that God raised Jesus from the dead (thereby abandoning other worldviews in which such things did or could not happen…) This faith is actually the human faithfulness that answers to God’s faithfulness.”[299] Could it be any more obvious, especially in light of his denial that faith is “good works” that Wright is not defining faith as faithfulness, but exactly the opposite, faithfulness as faith alone! " My question: Is this not just another way of saying that faith is faithfulness? If so, does it matter if faith is faithfulness or do they have to be distinct? I just don't see how his qualification between the two is a real distinction. Is faith faithfulness? This needs to fleshing out for dense minds like mine!! Thanks.

- Joseph Minich | 05.01.06 | 3:17 pm

Hello Questioner,

Forgive my lack of clarity here. I probably should have added a sentence or so to explain exactly what I was pointing out there. Let me see if I can do that here. When people say that "faith is faithfulness," they are concerned that we not proclaim justification by faith alone...all while we define faith as inclusive of good works. That is, we don't want to assert justification by faith alone, while slipping works in the back door of our definition of faith, and therefore undermining the purpose of the "alone." To define faith as "faithfulness" (i.e. obedience) would be to undermine (at least if strictly interpreted) our purpose in speaking of justification by faith alone.
However, in my judgment, Wright is doing exactly the opposite. He is interpreting faithfulness NOT as an amalgamation of good deeds, but as "faith alone." That is, rather than being declared faithful to God because of "works of the law" or anything we do in ourselves, we are considered to be "faithful" by God only by faith. That is, faith is a sufficient condition (within the new covenant) for being considered "faithful" before God.
In other words, instead of defining faith as a faithfulness (i.e. obedience), he is re-defining what obedience marks out the people of God at the present time. And it is not obedience ot the works of the law...it is not an amalgamation of good deeds...it is faith alone...the confession that Jesus Christ is Lord. This simple confession and NOTHING else constitutes faithfulness to God in the gospel. Of course, good deeds will flow out of this faith and be performed from it...but the faith itself is the SINGLE "badge of membership" (As Wright is fond of saying) by which we are considered "faithful" to God.
Does that make sense? Please let me know if I can clarify this further. God bless!

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph

- Questioner | 05.01.06 | 3:30 pm

Thanks Joseph. However, my question then is, is there a distinction between the two words. I get that "faith alone" is inclusive of the works. But is there a distinction between the two words? I was assuming they were the same thing so... What do you mean that FV are not confusing the word faith with faithfulness. If they mean the same thing why say the FV is not confusing the words? I think I am missing something...

- Joseph Minich | 05.01.06 | 3:49 pm

Hello again.

I can see why that is confusing to you. But I think you have answered your own question. There IS a distinction between how ONE group is using the word, and what another group means by that word.
N.T. Wright does not mean "loads of good deeds" when he speaks of "faithfulness." He means "faith alone." (At least in the quotations given above)
However, N.T. Wright and the FV are two different things. As for the FV, the definition depends on who you are speaking to and when. In a certain portion of the paper, I did say that the F.V. does make a distinction between faith and faithfulness. Norman Shepherd, Douglas Wilson, Rich Lusk, et al...have all made distinctions wherein they state that faith alone justifies, and NOT because of the good works by which faith breathes. Only faith unites to Christ...only faith receives justification. The obedience by which faith shows itself to be living is neither the instrument of union with Christ, nor the basis upon which God declares sinners just.
Part of the confusion here is that N.T. Wright and FV authors think of "faith" a little differently...at least as it applies to justification. N.T. Wright reduces faith to a "badge of membership" in God's people. It identifies who God's people are...it is not so much the instrument which brings them into His people.
Though subtle...there is some difference. FV authors are more comfortable speaking about faith as the "instrument" of union with Christ and as the thing which receives justification in union with Christ. Consequently...they will speak a little differently. For them, there are two things to keep in mind.
First, with respect to it being an instrument in justification by union with Christ, faith and faithfulness are distinct. The fruit of faith does not initiate or preserve union with Christ.
Second, saving faith IS faithful. That is...it manifests its reality by breathing. Again...it does not save because of its faithfulness...God does not accept us as just because of its faith's fruit...but the kind of faith that is created by the Spirit of Christ as the instrument of receiving Him is the kind of faith which lives and moves. Gerstner said it well.
"When we acknowledge Christ by faith, we must also acknowledge that, to be a living faith, it must have in it the full prupose of obedence. We must insist that obedience is not and cannot be the ground of our acceptance with God in righteousness, but obedience is the unfailing fruit and an inseparable accompaiment of that faith through which we obtain acceptance. Faith which comes to Christ for forgiveness and does not come, at the same time, with the sincere purpose of wanting to be obedient, and coveting that grace which will make obedience possible, is not the faith which obtains justification. Faith- a living, dynamic faith - is the only faith by which we are justified, and is the only faith by which we are sanctified." (Early Writings, Vol. 1, 169-70)
I hope that helps. Please let me know if I can clarify this. God bless!

Your brother in Christ, Joseph

- Questioner | 05.01.06 | 4:30 pm

Good. Clear, I think...for now at least. Now, another question in light of "faith". I know that baptism gives Christ in order to be received by faith. However, why is faith the boundary marker and not baptism? Speaking of "objective" markers... why doesn't Paul in Galatians, etc. just say the new boundary marker is baptism not "works of the law"? Doesn't faith carry the "subjective" too strongly in light of the FV/NPP emphasis on baptism as the objective marker? What is meant by "faith" being a boundary? How is that quantified, measured, etc?

- pduggie | 05.01.06 | 4:34 pm

Joseph, in your estimation, is Wright "instrument-free" in his views of how salvation is applied?

Does the union of Christ and his people, for Wright, take place by any other component than the presence of the Spirit within them?

Does wright line out by what mechanism the Call is brought to pass?

- Joseph Minich | 05.01.06 | 4:40 pm

Hey again Questioner...

Great question. I'll give the quick answer. The FV/NPP does not distinguish "faith" and "baptism" in the way that we often do. I was just reading Herman Ridderbos on this subject this afternoon. His discussion in his work on Paul (Pgs. 410-412 or so) is just excellent.
Baptism is the objective moment of entrance into the people of God. Faith is the subjective reception of the objective entrance into the people of God. Whew...what a mouth-full! But actually, this is relatively standard Reformed doctrine. For the Reformed tradition, baptism is the instrument of our receiving redemptive benefits, whereas faith is the instrument on our side. Faith is the SOLE instrument of justification for HUMANS. But, in the Reformed tradition, baptism is NOT a human act, but something GOD does. Baptism is an instrument that God (usually!) uses to give us the blessings of redemption.
To make it a ditty...baptism is the instrument of justification on God's side, while faith is the instrument of justification on the human side. Of course, in the NPP and FV, faith is seen as "invisible" and so baptism is treated as the objective moment of "faith..." even if the subject of baptism does not have faith internally. Much like we treat two persons getting married as "meaning" to get married...and much as we hold them to their vows (whether they meant them or not!), so the Reformed view baptism.
Interestingly, for Wright, (at least in my limited reading of him) the dimension of "confession" is important. For him, faith is the confession that Jesus is Lord and that God has risen Him from the dead. The word of "confession" in Rom. 10:9-10 was often used of legal confessions in the first century....like confessing before a court. The conotation of this word seems to imply some sort of public legal confession before a gathered people. For Wright...if I am understanding him...this is baptism. In this sense...baptism and faith are not separate. Rather, baptism is the very form that faith takes! It is a liturgical confession...the public proclamation that one considers Christ Lord...etc. It is "faith alone," but the "receptive" quality of faith takes the form of public identification in baptism. Does that help?

your brother in Christ,
Joseph

- Joseph Minich | 05.01.06 | 4:44 pm

pduggie...

I tend to read Wright that way. I think he IS "instrument free," at least in the way we commonly speak about those things. However, I would qualify that he is "instrument free" with respect to salvation (broadly conceived) He does speak about justification BY faith...and justification as God's declaration OVER gospel faith. However...justification for Him is not what it is to most Reformed. So, he might still be willing to speak of faith alone as an instrument of justification, but he only means by that that it is an instrument "by which we can tell that someone is in the people of God," not an instrument "of getting in the people of God."
This makes Wright a bit complicated. As for the issue of the "call," I tend to think he is delightfully Calvinistic on this issue. The call, for Wright, seems to be the mysterious work of God in the lives and hearts of His people. He seems traditionally Reformed here. God bless!

Your brother in Christ, Joseph

- Barb | 05.01.06 | 4:46 pm

Thank you Joseph! I have a busy day today, so I really appreciate your replies. Besides, you're doing a better job than I would have.

- Joseph Minich | 05.01.06 | 4:48 pm

Your welcome Barb. As for doing a better job, I doubt it. I'd nominate you for Reformed lady of the year. (If there were such a contest)

- Questioner | 05.01.06 | 4:53 pm

Yes. I understand that they are not separate humanside/ godside of the issue. However, I do find it interesting that things like "works of the law"-- very external things marking boundaries are drawn in contrast to "faith". It would seem that Paul could have mentioned baptism more in Galatians than he did...or then again, maybe that is inclusive in his understanding of "faith". It is hard not to read Paul through "gnostic eyes" on this issue... at least for me. He should have matched external to external.... "works of law to baptism....just thinking out loud...thoughts?

- Joseph Minich | 05.01.06 | 5:16 pm

Hey again Questioner...

I am sympathetic to where your questions come from. I do think that baptism is probably inclusive of what Paul thinks when he says "faith." I think the legal element to the notion of "confession" supports this a bit. Mainly, I find it interesting that scripture seems to speak almost interchangably about faith and baptism. (Ridderbos points this out) As for baptism is Galatians, Chapter 3 verse 29 does seem to be farely strong on the "baptism" side of things.
As for matching "external to external," I think that is the significance of the use of the word "confession" in Romans 10:9. The word seems (at least as I understand it) to connote some objective quality to faith. This seems to go along with the fact that Paul treats all "professors" as Chrsitians. Faith has an objective quality for the apostle. (Even though we know it has internal dimensions as well) So, for instance, Paul speaks of entire churches as believers...objectively speaking...because entire churches have publically "confessed" their faith. IN the early Christian centuries, I believe it was a common practice, for instance, to recite the apostles creed at one's baptism, and this constituted what we call "faith." They said "I believe," and that was their belief unto eternal life. (John 3:16) It was objective...and sealed in their baptism.
Make sense? God bless!

Joseph

- Questioner | 05.01.06 | 6:03 pm

That sounds fine. However, in light of Rich Lusk's in Paedofaith, he mentioned the narrow understanding of the definition of faith (knowledge, assent, trust) being a problem when it is limited to that and what is needed is a more biblical understanding of faith including infants and he makes an argument for it. I would say, if the FV/NPP understanding of faith/baptism is correct, it needs to me more fully explained/defined to include now Faith=knowledge, assent, trust, infant faith, liturgical incorporation-confession, and baptism and this needs to be understood as a presupposition to help understanding. Thanks for the interaction. Maybe you could write a book entitled, 'What is Faith?'and build on Machen. Peace.

Questioner

- Jason1646 | 05.02.06 | 12:06 pm

Questioner,

One way in which I have been thinking about the formulation of faith in terms of knowledge, assent, and trust, is to comprehend the trust component as defining the essence or substance of faith with knowledge and assent forming the particular shape or structure of that faith. Hence, in the case of infants, they are capable of genuine faith (trust) even if it does not yet have much of a concrete shape to it. This unshaped faith will take on a particular form or structure over time according to the way the child is nurtured and according to the nature and disposition of the person under the sovereign direction of God. In this way, there is nothing fundamentally different with adult faith and infant faith. The difference lies in the fact that with adults, faith takes on a more concrete shape from its inception due to greater understanding. Of course, this can be a good or bad thing, so I would not necessarilly correlate greater knowledge with greater faith.

My $.02,

~Jason

- Questioner | 05.02.06 | 12:30 pm

Jason,
Thanks for your comments. However, I don't think that is the best formulation only because faith isn't a substance so formulating any "part" of "faith" in that way could eventually be unhelpful. Nevertheless, I do see your point. But that does bring me to another question... Why is it a problem for the FV guys to talk about baptism eliciting faith from the child in baptism? Why does faith have to be present already? In other words, what is the MEANS by which that faith is given as a gift to the person if not baptism in some cases (I know preaching to be one means!). The faith comes from somewhere--I know its from God but by what means. What is wrong with Christ present at baptism being the One eliciting the faith? I am familiar with Lusk seeing the Psalms and children in covenant,etc. But there are some cases that faith needs to be given--children outside covenant, etc. Why can't baptism be that means when they get faith?

- pduggie | 05.02.06 | 12:36 pm

becasue the FV guys are TRYING to be confessional, and in WCF speak, faith comes as a gift through secret work of the Spirit, and to say that baptism creates faith sounds way too Lutheran.

They might be ok with saying baptism itself can be a source for faith taking on more and more shape, as baptism is a form of the word.

- Jason1646 | 05.02.06 | 12:40 pm

Thanks for your response, Questioner. I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to with the FV folks and baptism as an instrumental means for imparting faith - I would think there would be flexibility and diversity on that issue. My guess is that someone like Lusk would not want to see baptism as the normal occassion for imparting faith because he would see it as the ordinary possession of the child from conception.

- Questioner | 05.02.06 | 1:10 pm

pduggie,
I know they say it doesn't "create" faith b/c faith isn't a substance to be created. Their distinction from Lutheranism on that point I understand. That is why I used the word--elicited. I guess my question is, can and does baptism elicit faith? Even if not the normal operation as Jason has pointed out. Can and does the object--Jesus, present by the HS w/ the water--elicit faith through the means of baptism?

- Barb | 05.02.06 | 1:13 pm

I think the best answer would be that, normally, the faith already present is strengthened & confirmed.

- Questioner | 05.02.06 | 1:20 pm

Thanks Barb,
However, I have a problem with that. Faith is still a gift--from somewhere. Let's stay with infants on this. Child born outside of the covenant and now receives Baptism. Why is the Christ present in the waters, not capable or powerful enough to elicit faith from the child and turn the heart of stone to faith? This puts the FV guys in a position of needing the child to eventually have a "conversion" of some sort apart from baptism. Let me reword my question, What is wrong with saying that baptism elicits faith from the child?

- Barb | 05.02.06 | 1:25 pm

Questioner, in Reformed doctrine, a child born outside the covenant isn't eligible for baptism. That child must profess faith and then be baptized into Christ.

Children born of believers are born within the covenant and so are baptized as a ratification & seal of that fact.

More later... gotta run. Sorry.

- Questioner | 05.02.06 | 1:35 pm

Thanks Barb,
I understand that. Although hypotheticals are endless, lets use an ordinary one-- Family comes to Christ by faith and they have children. All the the family is baptized. They are now all in covenant through baptism--none were born in covenant. All entered covenant through baptism. What is wrong with saying that Baptism was the means of not only engrafting the children into the covenant but also the means by which faith was given and elicted from the children and therefore are considered "regenerate"? Why--because they were given faith in and through baptism. What is wrong with this?

- Joseph Minich | 05.02.06 | 1:57 pm

Hey again questioner...

I suspect that many would have no problem saying that faith is "elicited" by baptism. This particular question seems to be another intra-Reformed debate. There is a great article on this debate in the Dutch Reformed church at Spindleworks...by Shouls...on the "Covenant of Grace." He talks about how much the Dutch church has ALWAYS struggled with this issue.
All that to say, I don't think this is a distinctively FV issue. Lusk quotes many Reformers speaking of the "seed" of faith in infants. Some see baptism as the particular locus of redemptive benefits, even though (as they often argue) its benefits can be applied after it is administered.
As such, I don't think any FV person would have a problem speaking about a "conversion experience" in the life of a child much later in life. They would say that the child was already in the covenant objectively, but they would also admit that the blessings of covenant membership cannot be eternally enjoyed without the reception of baptismal benefits by faith. One may call the "coming to personal faith" a receiving of what one already possesses in the covenant. But, this does not mean that they didn't have it objectively (by right) before. Once again, I think Bannerman's right of possession/right of property distinction helps here.
Your question is a good one though. I wonder if it might help if we take baptism outside of time. The benefits of the cross were bestowed upon the Old Testament saints before Christ died on Calvary in time. Might we also say that baptism "elicits" faith even if its benefits are mediated before an infant comes to it? Say...if an infant dies in the womb? Could we speak of baptismal grace being given without baptismal administration? (Like the thief on the cross maybe?)
Just some thoughts. Not very nuanced. God bless!

Joseph

- pduggie | 05.02.06 | 2:47 pm

Faith is a response to meeting christ in baptism or in the word. It is a response To Christ.

Is standard_reformedmodel preaching, the word goes out there, and people hear it, and the Spirit enables them to respond to the word. The word ('properly'?) doesn't enable them to reposnd to the word.

If it did, then all would be saved, no?

- Joseph Minich | 05.02.06 | 3:09 pm

Certainly...

We would all have to confess (I would think) that God works mysteriously and sovereignly throught the word and sacraments. He often creates faith through these means. However, I think we would also say that God can work mysteriously in infants to respond to His "communication" in some way unknown to us. (John the baptist etc...responded to THE Word) Perhaps this response is a response to baptism.
But we would also say, I think, that the "response" of faith is really reflective of something else...faith itself. We would not say that someone who knew something of the glory of Christ, for instance....but then died in a car accident on the way to get baptized is unredeemed. Hence, in infants...it is probably proper to say that they can have the "principle" of faith in them...the natural "acceptance of His promises," and that this flowers into cognitive faith. Am I wrong here? I thought this was the position of Berkhof.

God bless!

Joseph

- Barb | 05.02.06 | 3:14 pm

Questioner, do you mind if I call you Q (not to identify you with that mythical gospel... just as a nick name)?

Sure, I'd say that baptism elicits faith, and not just from the hypothetical kid in your scenario, but from all whom God calls.

Your scenario posits a kid who was born outside of covenant and separated from any right to the promises of Christ. By virtue of his parent's new belief & baptism, the child is now an heir thus having a right to the promises and so is baptized.

But it seems like you are asking a bit more (correct me if I'm wrong). You want to know if baptism can be said to create faith, right? Does baptism bestow faith?

I think most Presbyterians would say no, because that would make baptism a converting ordinance. They want to uphold that conversion (hearing with faith) comes by the preaching of the Word. Fine. I don't disagree, as long as conversion is considered a life-long event. But as Jason noted above, I don't think faith should be so tightly defined as to require notitia & assensus before it can be considered faith. (That may get me slapped around as unconfessional in certain cirlces, but saying such isn't without precedent.) Saving faith certainly requires all three elements ordinarily. But seed faith is simply immature. As soon as it has some knowledge of Christ, it responds, and continues to respond if it is God's will. Besides, who's to say that an infant isn't responding in faith to the presence of Christ and the indwelling of the the Holy Spirit? Can anyone say that Christ's indwelling is known only propositionally?

At risk of drawing Presbyterian fire: since Christ is truly offered and conferred in baptism, and since Christ is the locus of regeneration, and since faith is the first fruit of regeneration, then baptism is a means of conferring faith. It's not the only means, and normally it's function is to confirm faith which is already present, whether it be infant or adult.

- Questioner | 05.02.06 | 3:58 pm

Barb,
You write: I think most Presbyterians would say no, because that would make baptism a converting ordinance. They want to uphold that conversion (hearing with faith) comes by preaching the Word. Fine. I don't disagree, as long as conversion is considered a life-long event.

Most, as in current or historical? "hearing"--isn't baptism the gospel in aqueous form with words spoken? So, therefore baptism is a "converting" ordinance. Why the hesistancy of this statement? I know that we are only dealing with a seed faith. I just don't see why it is such a problem saying baptism gives faith to the child and the child must mature that seed form through proper means when they are not born into the covenant as in the example above. What am I missing? Are the Presbys just trying to remain confessional or is there really something wrong with what I am saying?

- Barb | 05.02.06 | 5:09 pm

Q, historically & currently. The WCF ignores the fact of infant faith so far as I can tell, and defines saving faith as that which believes the preaching of the Word, and acts thereon. That's true, I just don't think it's the whole enchilada. So, the WCF describes sacraments as strengthening ordinances whereas saving faith is wrought (created?) by the preaching of the Word.

An adult has already believed when he is baptized. Baptism strengthens, and increases the tender new shoot of faith. Personally, I believe that, normally, babies predestined to eternal life are indwelt by the Holy Spirit from the womb, and therefore have faith from the womb which must be nurtured and matured. But who knows? Who can know when regeneration actually happens?

Baptism is a rite of promise and ratification, an ordination to priesthood. Even if I don't understand the precise mechanics of it, I can say it's the initiation into a new relationtionship with God & his people. It's the rite that formally ushers us into the new creation, the regeneration. It's the rite that gives us a place at God's table.

- Questioner | 05.02.06 | 5:58 pm

Thanks Barb.

- garver | 05.02.06 | 6:24 pm

I've not been following this whole thread, but I think I'd want to say that in situations in which a child is born into a believing family, the Spirit works the beginnings of faith in and through that environment of belief -- the communion of saints united to Christ by his Spirit. Christ, therefore, is present to that child in and through his or her believing parents, siblings, pastors, the wider fellowship of believers, through their prayers, care, authority, love, concern, provision, and so on, which all means the Spirit takes up in his sovereign work of grace.

And the child is responding to all of that even before baptism as a person who, in virtue of his or her believing parents, is already in that respect within the covenant. Therein lies the beginnings of faith which are strenthened, increased, and confirmed by the Spirit in baptism and which are brought, later and further, to a maturing, conscious faith through the preaching and teaching of the word.

If we recognize that baptism is a solemn admission into the church visible, as the gathered Body of Christ in which his Spirit is present, then baptism is one means by which the child is further enfolded into that already present enviroment of belief, in a public and official way.

In the scenario you mention, Questioner, where the child is brought to baptism together with his or her newly believing parents, then that perhaps is the way in which the child most clearly is initially enfolded into that environment of belief, the Spirit "eliciting" thereby the beginnings of faith. Officially and publicly, in terms of the tangible marks of the church, that would certainly seem to be the case.

- Barb | 05.02.06 | 7:05 pm

Joel to the rescue! =D

- pduggie | 05.03.06 | 5:03 pm

But... but... that's treating nature like its transformed by grace, rather than having grace superimposed on it! Or something.

I wonder if we could say that in the environment of unbelief, we have Adam present to that child in and through his or her unbelieving parents, siblings, the wider fellowship of unbelievers, through their sins, authority, indifference, concern, provision, and so on, which all are all means for the transmission of the sin nature.

Christ as covenant head is mediated through his body, and adam as covenant head is likewise mediated through his ongoing 'body'.

- Mark | 05.04.06 | 9:49 pm

Barb, at least you still hold to the doctrine of regeneration. I see JJ hasn't fully persuaded you then!