You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Word/Sacrament' category.
In my sermon this past week I argued that John’s leaping in the womb (Luke 1) is a sure sign that God does not need a certain IQ before He can grant faith. He works even in the unborn (brethos). This also proves that God recognizes those in utero as persons. So yes, baptized infants do have faith; a faith given from above. Leithart observes in his book Baptized Body that infants learn to respond to their mother’s voice even before birth. They are able to quickly distinguish between strangers and members of the family. Leithart asks: “If infants trust and distrust human persons, why can’t they trust in God?” Behind certain assumptions about infant faith is the idea that infants must express their faith through certain theological truths, implying that only those of a certain age of maturity can do this, but the Scriptures never require that all faith is expressed in the same manner. The faith of a down syndrome child is differently expressed than the faith of a healthy adult. Leithart also adds that another assumption is that God is less available to an infant than to other humans. But God’s work of grace is not dependent on intellect or certain verbal abilities. Covenant infants mature in their faith just as new adult converts mature in their new faith.
Some in the Reformed world insist in divorcing religion from society. This view of the world minimizes the importance of baptism in the life of the Church. Baptism not only marks entrance into the Body, but it is also a political declaration. It says that the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our God. Accepting membership in the Church means accepting God’s claims for the world and how we are called to live in the world. As Leithart observes: “Christians who baptize babies implictly confess that religion and society are inseparable.”
Baptism gives us a new identity. Leithart observes that “a non-priest becomes a priest through the rite of ordination, a single man becomes a husband through the wedding ceremony, a public citizen gains public authority by inauguration,” so too the rite of baptism makes an individual a new person. Having received a new name and a new identity, he is called to a new future.
The point, as Leithart observes, is not that there is no distinction between “inner and outer.” The idea is that there is no “impermeable membrane between my inner life and outer life.” What happens within us come to outer expression and what happens on the outside “affects my inner man.” Leithart concludes: “These are two dimensions of one united human life.”
Leithart is one of those who dares reconsider in light of Scriptures the traditional Westminsterian understanding of baptism and its efficacy. For Leithart, there is much work to be done, especially when it comes to the questions we ask concerning baptism. He writes that ”before we can progress in providing answers to our questions on baptism, we have to repent of our questions.”
Where do these bad questions come from? Leithart concludes that it is “largely a product of modern individualism.”
Toby Sumpter writes:
“The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is justified by her children.” (Mt. 11:19)
We have said before that in one sense Advent occurs every Lord’s Day. Every Lord’s Day the Lord comes to His people in worship. One of the ways that God reminds us of this fact is through this meal. Jesus came the first time eating and drinking and fellowshipping with outcasts, and every week Jesus still comes through the power of the Spirit, eating and drinking and fellowshipping with sinners. This is how God came into the world in Jesus, and through the Spirit this is how Jesus continues His Advent among us. Our collective list of sins is very long and embarrassing. We are not respectable society.
And perhaps this gathering looks a little dangerous. A bunch of sinners and tax collectors eating and drinking together: like that’s a good idea. Or maybe it just looks really silly, a bunch of sinners gathered around drinking wine from thimbles and sharing little bits of bread. How is that potent or powerful? But wisdom is justified by her children.
Here is the feast of Wisdom, and as we eat in faith and joy, and as we live this Eucharistic thankfulness in our lives, God promises to justify this wisdom through us. We are the children of Wisdom, as we feast on Jesus, as we cling to Jesus, as He is our strength, our security, our identity, our everything. Then as the children of Jesus, the Wisdom of God is justified to the watching world. This silly feast is for us the glory of God because here we enact the justice and the mercy and the peace of God for the world. And God promises to use this little feast to draw us and all of history up to great and final Feast. So come in faith and with rejoicing.
In light of current debates of Leithart’s Baptismal theology, here’s his latest work free on-line.
What does baptism do to the baptized? Nothing? Something? In this study, Peter Leithart examines this single question of baptismal efficacy. He challenges several common but false assumptions about God, man, the church, salvation, and more that confuse discussions about baptism. He aims to offer a careful and simple discussion of all the central biblical texts that speak to us about baptism, the nature of signs and rites, the character of the church as the body of Christ, and the possibility of apostasy. In the end, the author urges us to face up to the wonderful conclusion that Scripture attributes an astonishing power to the initiation rite of baptism.
Some qualifications need to be made. Perhaps I have come across as someone who detests the entire project of the Westminster West gang. Most days that’s how I wanna come across; but then on those 65 degree-days in Florida when the sun is shining brighter than usual and the breeze is more gentle than usual–in those days– I feel rather loving. 2KT (Two-Kingdom-Theology) gets a lot of the spiritual stuff right. Unlike the Southern Presby’s, the Lutheranos actually do talk about bread and wine, and baptism is not as scary to them.
In fact, I heard a sermon by a 2KT pastor, who began by stating that Protestants have an “unduly negative view of baptism.” In other words, we are always trying to qualify what baptism is. Protestants spend most of their time debating the mode and who should be baptized, but they spend little time talking about what baptism accomplishes. Now that’s the way to begin a sermon on baptism! This pastor said that most pastors are so afraid that our view on baptism will sound like Rome that they simply avoid passages like “baptism now saves you” or “be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.” Amen and Amen.
Now they are speaking my language! They are stressing what I think needs to be stressed more and more, world without end. But then…
they go right back to their formulations. “But of course,” they say, “baptism is not regeneration.” The sign and seal are so deeply connected that for Peter it appears to be one and the same, but it is not. Oh, logic, where art thou? We do not want to sound like Rome; check. We do not want to sound biblical; check. But why can’t we just use biblical language and let the nachos fall where they may? Let the Southern Presbys live in their inconsistency. They’re used to it! Why do you all have to be so careful in not affirming what should be affirmed? How about trying this sometime: Baptism regenerates, but not all those regenerated truly live the baptized life. Some fall away and apostatize. They abandon the faith. These are brought into the historical, visible covenant, but they are ultimately not part of the eternal, eschatological covenant. Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?
I have been watching through LOST from the very beginning. Currently I am on Season II. There was an interesting scene this evening in an episode entitled Water and Fire. Without delving into great detail, Charlie is having visions of water, baby, doves and angels. Because Charlie has a history of heroin addiction, the others in the island do not believe him. They believe–including the baby’s mother, Claire–that Charlie’s addiction is leading him to put little Aaron (the baby) in danger. Charlie’s explanation is quite different. He believes the baby is in danger and the way to protect the baby from danger is to baptize him. Water, doves and angels: all baptismal and gospel signs. Charlie’s theology is quite accurate, though his methods somewhat out of sorts. Baptism is indeed 
the beginning of a new life under the protection of Messiah, and united to Him we–baptized in the Triune Name–are protected by our shield and defender.
People of God, we are members one of another; we are all partakers of Christ. We share a common family and a common heritage. Calvin writes that this supper is “to exhort us to all holiness and innocence, inasmuch as we are members of Jesus Christ; and specially to exhort us to union and brotherly charity…” The word of God does that and this New Covenant meal does that as well. In bread, we see the body of Christ broken and put together by God himself, so He may be exalted above the heavens. In wine, we see the blood of Christ given for our transgressions. In wine, God remembers His promise to fill the nations with gladness.
But this agreement of mine to the principles involved should reveal to us a hidden assumption that is helping to drive this debate. This is the assumption that when very young children are taught to respond this way, we are simply training them, as you would a puppy, and not really educating them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. The plastic nature of a child’s soul is thought to be such that you could tell them anything, and since they don’t know any better, this responsiveness of theirs cannot be known to be true faith. And since we cannot “know” it to be true faith, then we need to wait until their profession of faith is mature enough to cross-examine. We are bringing the logic of courtroom verification into the rearing of children. Nothing against courtroom verification in its place, but that’s not what we should be doing here. Christian nurture is more like breastfeeding than it is like grilling a hostile witness. (Wilson answering Lane Keister on Paedocommunion)
Doug Wilson says:
Every Saturday night I ask my grandkids certain Sunday worship prep questions. Do you love God? Yes, they all yell. Are you baptized? Yes. Is Jesus in your heart? Yes. Will you take the Lord’s Supper tomorrow? Yes. Now no Reformed folk can really object to these sorts of personal questions without also objecting to the Heidelberg. “What is your only comfort in life and in death?” “That I . . .”
The reason for this controversy is that the following morning we act like we believed their answers. We do that by giving them the bread and wine. Now if you make them say these things, but then you refuse to believe the answers through the sacrament, then how can you expect them to believe the answers? You are just doing a catechism drill. You are insisting that they speak high and lofty words indeed. But at the end of the day, as we all know, “I’m just saying these things.” Nobody acts like they are true. “Why should I?”
Simply, the Credo position is left with uncertainty and pure subjectivism on the matter. When you say some will be 6 years old, but others who grow up in covenant homes may be 12 (not to speak of some who wait until they are 18) before they get to such and such a point of reason and maturity to take the Lord’s Supper, then you have begun to do what Paul opposed in I Corinthians: to make classes of Christians; to categorize the body; to dis-unify the oneness of the Unbroken body of our Lord. So, this becomes very problematic indeed.
In following Lane Keister’s arguments against Paedocommunion, I continue to ask these sorts of questions:
Why does a simple, credible profession of faith have to be spoken in words? Why not with actions, signs or symbols? Why not with a gesture? Why learn the catechisms of the Reformed faith? Why not the Apostle’s Creed? Why not the Nicene Creed? How to define the gospel? Narrowly: Christ is Lord? Comprehensively: Lord, Messiah, Death, Burial, Resurrection, Ascension, Second Coming, etc.? What does being “ready” to partake of bread and wine mean? A,B,C or A,B,C & D?
For those of us who are committed to the practice of paedocommunion, Doug Wilson writes that we should explain the Supper to our children:
Young children should have the Supper explained to them by their parents in each observance of the Supper, and they should be able to attend to what is said. Please note that we are not requiring that little children be able to explain the Supper before they may partake. They are recipients; they have the Supper explained to them. We feed them the bread and wine in much the same way we begin speaking English to our children when they first arrive in our homes — not because they understand it, but rather so that they might come to understand it. It is similar here. We are not asking for anything to arise in the child or manifest itself before he is qualified to receive. He is receiving and learning, not giving and teaching.
Jim Jordan pointed out long ago that the Bible does not explicitly state that we are to sing the Psalms in worship (though the Psalms ought to permeate our liturgy for various reasons). The Bible does not even say that there ought to be preaching in every worship service (though without preaching man cannot understand the word from God). However, the Bible does say explicitly that we ought to eat bread and drink wine (I Cor. 11). One would think that every Lord’s Day the Supper would be the climactic moment of our liturgy. The opposite is true in most of evangelicalism. Preaching takes preeminence and the Lord’s Supper (and certainly the Psalter) are put aside for rare occasions. Something is wrong with this picture.
When I was in the PCA (the Christian Reformed Church also does something similar), the BCO instructed Teaching Elders to alert the congregation that the sacraments would be administered the following week. With this formality, how can the Reformed Church ever overcome her unbiblical ways? How can the church claim the apostolic witness of continually breaking bread (Acts 2:42)? The proper sacramental preparation occurs every week as God’s people confess their sins before God and prepare to be nourished in word and sacrament.
My three-month old daughter will be baptized this Sunday. This will be a significant day for us. Before coming to the Reformed Faith, I cared little about the sacraments. They were insignificant and tedious practices. In the tradition I partook of, the Lord’s Supper was administered once a month, and in case we had guest speakers it would be postponed another month. On the other hand, baptism was treated in a little more serious tone. Adults came to the baptismal pool and confessed their faith before the congregation and were immersed. This was my experience both in the Baptist and Brethren traditions. These baptisms took on a more public nature. It was celebrated. I never had any dispute concerning the legitimacy of those adult baptisms, except that for some, it had been the second or third time they were being baptized. Since a profession of faith was expected, most of them who had made early professions of faith and were consequently baptized in their youth, felt that their early baptisms were the result of an unclear and false faith. Naturally, many of my friends–myself included–went through the waters twice.
Coming to the Reformed faith meant accepting what Paul says in Ephesians that there is only one baptism, as there is one Lord and one faith. It is accepting that water poured/sprinkled on an infant actually confers the benefits of the covenant. As Peter Leithart observes:
When an infant is baptized, the baptism itself is a gift from God’s unmerited favor. Baptism itself gives the child membership in the church, an identity as a member of the people of God and as a Christian, a family of brothers and sisters whose Father is in heaven and whose Brother is on a heavenly throne, the gift of public identification with Christ, a place in the temple of the Holy Spirit, a commission to serve Christ, a deputation (to use Thomas’s language) to a place in the worship of God, and much more. These are not, I submit, merely offered or promised to the child, but actually delivered. And they are his, whether he believes and trusts or not.
Covenant children are baptized because they need a heavenly mother and heavenly Father. Baptism actually does what it says it will do: it saves (I Peter 3:21). It will bring my little daughter to the arms of her Lord just as He called the little children to Himself (Matthew 19:14), she will be united to He Savior in baptism (Romans 6) and she will partake of all the benefits of the covenant just as the children of the saints in the Old. As Abigail grows in her faith, believes in Her faithful Lord, she will be adorned and cleansed daily by the Spirit of God. When she disobeys she will look to the waters of life and be reminded of the graciousness of Her Lord. And when she repents in humble submission to her Messiah, she will know that God has been faithful to His promises.
The August edition of the Ordinary Means Podcast discussed the four papers delivered at the General Assembly this year. They analyzed the contribution of each particular speaker on the topic of sacramental efficacy. However, their pre-disposition to oppose anything associated with the Federal Vision clouds their assessment of Jeff Meyers’ excellent paper entitled: “Efficacy and Ritual Performance: How the Administration of the Sacraments Affects What They Actually Accomplish,” which should cause many PCA ministers to re-consider their practice of the Lord’s Supper.
One of the criticisms they offered of Meyers’ presentation is that he is overly interested in performing the rite of holy communion properly so that God would bless His people. In their perception, the idea of doing something right in the liturgy of the Lord’s Supper is to revert to the Old Covenant idea of “do this and live.” Of course, their WTSCAL training has taught them that the Deuteronomic mandate of “do this and live” is no longer relevant because Christ has done it all on our behalf. The reality, however, is that this is simplistic. No one denies the full and satisfactory work of Christ on behalf of His covenant people. Christ is the end of the law, and as such, the law never has and never will convert a dead man. That Christ has fulfilled the law does not mean that He has abolished the ethical implications thereof for His people (this is the old theonomic debate all over again). In this case, Meyers’ warning that the Lord’s Supper be done correctly, so that God would bless us richly, is simply an echo of Jesus’ own words: “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Paul himself speaks of the orderliness and decency of Church life. So what hinders that principle from being applied to what is at the heart of the liturgical experience: the Supper of the Lord? If God demands that His word be preached faithfully and correctly, does He not demand that the rite of the Holy Communion He initiated with His own disciples be performed correctly?
Another critique offered is that Meyers contradicts himself by affirming that the Lord’s Supper is to be celebratory, then saying that it needs to be done rightly. One of the guests of the Ordinary Means podcast cannot understand how order and celebration can be reconciled. He argues that if we are to be concerned with the details of the supper, then that will distract us from celebrating Christ’s work for us. But creation is a perfect example of this beautiful harmony. God spoke creation into existence in an orderly manner and God calls us to rejoice over His own creation, the fruit of the vine as a means to this enjoyment.
Overall, the discussion and analysis of the other speakers were helpful and informative.
Thus, to remove wine from the Supper is to emasculate it, to rob the needy – yes, to rob those who struggle with alcohol addictions – of the gift of healing life which Christ gives. –Tim Gallant
Contemporary services are filled with a delight for the somber. In particular, many come to the Lord’s Table without any expectation to be renewed by God’s grace. The table, to many, serve only as a post-liturgical stick note, rather than the Eucharistic means to receive the grace of God via bread and wine. Indeed it is impossible to come to the table with any joy if the table does not impart grace to the broken sinner. But if we restore the early church and reformational attitude towards the Eucharist, we will begin to see the Lord’s Supper as an essential, without which the liturgical service is incomplete. To begin we are to treat the Eucharist as what the Eucharist means: give thanks. We give thanks to the Lord for renewing us and we give thanks to our Lord for making resurrection life possible even now.
Infant baptism is a God-ordained means of ecclesiastical unity. When children are brought into the covenant of grace through baptism, the washing with water prepares him to live with others who are washed in the fellowship of the Spirit. Little ones–infants–serve as a perpetual reminder that God continues to bind together His church and the church’s households.
Our catholic communion on the Lord’s Day is the effectual means God uses to wash His bride, but what takes place in the home–the domestic church–is the continual preparation for unity. In the home, covenant children are to be reminded that their baptisms calls them to daily renewal through repentance and confession. In order for children to understand the catholic church, they are to learn to live in the domestic church first. Hence, the parental call to train in righteousness is even higher. The disunity of the church at large may stem from the disunity of the domestic church. The baptism of the church is a baptism unto life. Hence, baptism calls infants to live in a home that is washed and cleansed from the stain of outsiders, so that they may pursue unity in the entire church.
A young ministerial candidate was asked whether his sacramental views comported with those of the Westminster Standards. This line of questioning was a novelty to him, and so he asked for a copy. One was quickly produced, but when it became apparent that he was not going to swear on it, but on the contrary, intended to open and read it, the moderator rebuked him sternly. “We have asked if your views are consistent with the Standards, young man, and did not ask you to intrude yourself upon them by considering what they may appear to say.” Abashed by his error, the young man apologized and was quickly forgiven. –Effectual Means of Salvation by Doug Wilson
Editor’s note: I have updated this post to add a few more thoughts on the debate (11-10-07).
I have just heard the debate between Baptist author/apologist James White vs. Presbyterian minister and author Rev. Gregg Strawbridge. Throughout my theological life, I have been influenced in many ways by both men. Gregg’s passionate exposition of the Scriptures has been a source of theological maturity for me. On the other hand, Dr. White has also played a role in my thinking, though in the last few years I have distanced myself in many ways from his theology. Nevertheless, White’s commitment to offer a Biblical apologetic against Islam, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormons have been a helpful resource in my apologetic library.
Their debate a few nights ago demonstrates what the Van Tillian tradition of apologetics has so long proved: ideas have consequences. Presuppositions and notions about hermeneutics affect the beginning statement and closing statements of a debate. Interestingly, the debate ended just as it began: the nature of the covenant. White argued persistently that the New Covenant provided only blessings–since it was only for the elect; while Strawbridge’s commitment to covenantal thinking and continuation led him to conclude that the New Covenant is not different from the Old with regards to recipients and structure, but only in regards to efficacy and eschatological intervention through Christ.
Though presuppositions determine all things, I would like to affirm that Strawbridge’s presuppositions is more consistent and faithful to the Biblical text. I do not make that statement simply because of my predisposition towards paedobaptism. I should note that when Sproul debated John McArthur many years ago, he (Sproul) suffered greatly to present a coherent covenantal model, and thus failing to persuade us why Credo-Baptism is erroneous. Nevertheless, however one may think of these types of ideas/exchanges, my conclusion is that White failed to give credence to a fundamental Biblical component of hermeneutics–that is, Biblical typology. In Biblical typology, the author connects ideas which at first seem invisible. Indeed, this is the duty of the exegete: to bring together God’s revelation into one coherent message.
James White’s main point of contention in every discussion on baptism is that his Presbyterian brothers just did not separate themselves enough from Catholicism in the 16th century, and if Calvin would just have seen a little more light we would all be Credo-Baptists today. White threw out the “T” word to let everyone know that “Tradition” is the worst of all evils and he (White) has no heritage, no tradition influencing his interpretive scheme. White, however, appears unaware of just how much his tradition affects him. For instance, Strawbridge argues rightly that Hebrews establishes that the New Covenant includes believers and unbelievers. As an excellent reference he quotes Hebrews 10:29-30 which reads: How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” According to verse 29, “one” and “he” are two different people. Here is where White’s tradition enters the game. White argues, following John Owen (a historical figure; a respected man in White’s tradition) that the “he” in verse 29 refers to Christ and not to an individual. Grammatically however, notice that in verse 30 it is God’s people that is in mind in verse 29, not Christ. The text says that the Lord will judge “his” people. White never mentioned verse 30, which in my estimation confirms Strawbridge’s assertion about verse 29. If White would only abandon his tradition, he would see the simplicity of the text. In the end, the New Covenant maintains the structure of the Old Covenant, that is, a covenant made with believers and unbelievers. The radical change that White argues is non-existent. Once again, let us place the “radical” where radical belongs: in the person of Christ; that is what is radical about the New Covenant.
Strawbridge’s greatest strength is his ability to tie together New Covenantal language with its intended Old Covenant background. Reformed exegetes understand that New Testament writers did not write unaware of their Jewish context. They were not robots, rather their personalities and backgrounds played a deep role in writing what would become our New Testament canon. Their knowledge of Old Covenant language was always influencing their writing. This is the conspicuous reason there are so many Old Testament quotations in the New; there was an unspoken reliance on the Old Covenant canon because the Old Covenant was part of their identity as New Covenant writers.
White, on the other hand, unaware– or better yet,– unwilling to ever engage in this form of argumentation, lost sight of Gregg’s main point: the Children of Christian parents belong to the Lord because this was God’s purpose from the beginning. Of such is the kingdom of heaven; to such belong the kingdom. This is Biblical pattern–not merely a temporary pattern,– but one that would continue to all generations before and after Messiah would come.
Many in the Southern Presbyterian[1] tradition deny that infants born in covenant homes are to be welcomed in the full life of the church.[2] In fact, some even assume that they are not to receive any covenant privileges until they have reached an age where articulation of one’s faith is possible. This position seems to be a prevalent reaction to the high sacramental theology of various traditions. Unfortunately, this has led to the denial of the God-granted role for covenant children in the church. Infants are heirs of the promise simply because God in His free grace displays His holy affections to the family. As Bullinger writes:
…we consider children of parents to be children and indeed heirs even though they, in their early years, do not know that they are either children or heirs of their parents.
Baptized infants are the proper recipients of grace and are commanded to live in light of his/her covenantal commitment. To live in light of his baptism entails a sacred commitment to piety and holy living. If one is enlightened (baptized) and deny the work of grace, he is then in the same condemnatory status as Judas. Bullinger captures this idea:
They are, however, disowned if, after they have reached the age of reason, they neglect the commands of their parents.
So then, it is not a trust in the sacrament, but a life lived in light of the sacrament that grants assurance. The Jews thought they were secure because of their birth into the covenant family, but they did not live in light of that status, and thus, suffered the curses. The covenant Lord has entered into covenant with all baptized children, and infants are to grow in that covenant; repenting and believing that God’s grace is sufficient.
[1] For an excellent analysis of Southern and Northern Presbyterianism and how they understood sacramental efficacy, see Lewis Schenck: The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant.
[2] In the case of Baptist ecclesiology, infants are not even worth y recipients of the covenantal sign of baptism. Hence, there is a legitimate distinction between Southern Presbyterians and Baptists. Though both affirm that children do not receive any saving grace until they make a profession, Paedobaptists apply the sign of the covenant in faith that God will keep His promise.
Hooper makes an important point about Cyprian’s dictum: “nulla salvus extra ecclesiam” — outside the church there is no salvation. Hooper notes that, “The Fourth Lateran Council (ca. 1215) allowed that Cyprian could be wrong and that salvation could exist outside the church, but not outside Christ.” However, “The Fifth Lateran Council (ca. 1512-1517), though, reaffirmed Cyprian’s dictum “nulla salvus extra ecclesiam” –outside the church there is no salvation, excluding the Greek Christians.”1 Cyprian, of course, referred to the Roman Church as the source of salvation. Notice that the Fifth Lateran Council occurred during the birth of the Reformation. Cyprian’s dictum is also found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, though, the WCF did not limit the church to the Roman Church. The Genevan reformer John Calvin, writing his Institutes of the Christian Religion at the very time of the Reformation, wrote therein “beyond the pale of the Church no forgiveness of sins, no salvation, can be hoped for.” Hence, the Reformation brought with its dogma a strong view of the salvific nature of the church, though not as exclusive as Rome.2
Cyprian’s dictum, however, can be used in a conciliatory fashion, though his intention was one of exclusivity. Though there are clear sacramental and ecclesial distinctions among the Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox tradition, all share a Trinitarian Baptism. This baptism, brings infants and adults to enjoy the benefits of the true church, no matter how wrong it may be in certain areas.
Footnotes
- These quotes are from a series of e-mails from a theology group of which I participate. [↩ back]
- Of course, the Confession certainly had anti-catholic sentiments and I am certain that they would have considered Rome an apostate church; the anti-christ–gladly that was changed in the Revision. [↩ back]
God’s affirmation of the material world is seen in the fact that He uses physical water to introduce people into His kingdom, and by the fact that we eat Christ’s flesh and drink His blood in the Lord’s Supper. Many Christians, however, cannot embrace such physical ideas. Water baptism, is thus reduced to a mere symbol instead of a powerful communication from God, and so are the bread and wine of the Supper. Such a reduction was not the view of the Protestant Reformers, who sought to correct the magical views of the Papal Church, without denying that God really acts through such material means.
Jordan, James. Creation in Six Days, pg. 73.
Recent Comments