Baptism as an Effectual Means of Salvation

I know those words will create a visceral reaction in some. I'm sorry (not really).

Those words aren't my own...and I'm not pulling them from a Catholic Catechism. In fact, they show up in a Baptist Catechism (from 1677)!

Q. 98. How do Baptism and the Lord’s Supper become effectual means of salvation?
A. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them.

This question/answer is pretty much the same as Q.91 in the Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647) and Q.161 of the Larger Catechism:
Q. 91. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them.

Let me expand on these statements and offer some explanation. I sincerely believe that   baptism   is an effectual means of salvation in the the elect because God uses it to beckon faith in the baptized person.

Let me try a thought experiment - replace the underlined word in the above sentence with   the preaching of the gospel  .  Does that work better for you?  Of course, we'd want to emphasize that hearing the preaching of the gospel doesn't save someone by itself. The person hearing must respond in faith to the message they have heard. So preaching of the gospel doesn't work in a mechanical ex opere operato kind of way. But, the preaching of the gospel is a means of salvation in that God uses it to elicit faith in his elect (Romans 10:14-15). 

All that I said above applies, I believe, to baptism as well. Baptism is a visible gospel sermon. It is an instrument in the hands of God to beckon faith in the baptized person.  It isn't that the water saves or the rite of baptism saves, but that God uses it just as he uses preaching to call forth faith in the elect.

For a parent who baptizes their infant, their prayer is that God will use the child's baptism as a reminder of the great promises that are theirs if they believe. They bear the visible mark of the covenant in which God promises salvation to those who have faith.

But even in those who confess faith in Christ first and are then baptized, baptism is an effectual means of salvation because God continues to use it to beckon faith. We aren't required to believe and trust in Christ just once - way back when we said a prayer and 'came to faith'.  We are called to live by faith, to persevere in faith - without this no one will be saved. And God uses our baptism, again, to remind us of this - to remind us of the covenant and to seal all of God's promises to those who believe.

Baptism has no saving effect in the non-elect; in fact, it has a condemning effect in that they have been baptized into the covenant and covenant community wherein faith is a requirement. Since they don't have faith, they are subject to the cures of the covenant, which are severe indeed.

I'm harping on baptism a lot recently.  Why? I'm not entirely sure. Is it because I like being controversial? Maybe.  I know in part it's because it's been a front burner issue in two classes I taught this past month - union with Christ and eternal security. But, it's more than that - I have sensed in the evangelical church (broadly speaking) a minimization of the importance of baptism. Its as if we don't consider it very important - and many don't. It's an add on, and optional at that. God doesn't 'do anything' in baptism, we do - we profess, give testimony, etc.  This is a tragic trend and I pray it's one that gets reversed in the coming generations of believers.

Infant Baptism

I promised a post defending infant baptism, so here it is (notice I say defending it; not trying to push it upon anyone else who doesn't hold the same convictions I do). Interestingly, though I embrace infant baptism fully, none of my children were baptized as infants. There's several reasons for that, chief among them being that I was still in transition (ten years ago I was a Calvinist, but not really "Reformed" and had only the begun to explore 'covenant theology'). The other big reason is that I was on staff at a Baptist church when my first two children were born, and they just don't do that.


To begin, let me say that I believe an adult convert who has never been baptized should be. There is a misconception that those who advocating infant baptism wouldn't baptize adult converts. I would. I have. I will. Though, if they had been baptized as an infant I would discourage it.

The first reason that I've come to embrace infant baptism is really a hermeneutical one. I see the continuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament much more profoundly now than I used to. I used to see the discontinuity more prominently. Both continuity and discontinuity are there, it's a matter of priority. As I've studied the development of the covenants, I have come to appreciate the continuity between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, without discounting the discontinuity. Both the Old Covenant (Mosaic Covenant) and the New Covenant are administrations (or arrangements or dispensations) of the Covenant of Grace, a covenant the has been in operation since Adam's sin and Abraham's call.

Second, seeing the continuity between the Old Covenant and the New, I appreciate now the continuity between the Old Testament practice of circumcision and the New Testament practice of baptism (and the continuity between the Passover and the Lord's Supper). These sacraments were/are signs of the covenant that exists between God and his people. Colossians 2:11-12 make the connection between circumcision and baptism explicit. R. Scott Clark summarizes the connection, "For Paul, in the New covenant, our union with Christ is our circumcision. In baptism, we are identified with Christ's baptism/circumcision, as it were, on the cross. Neither baptism nor circumcision effects this union (ex opere operato), rather God the Spirit unites us to Christ, makes us alive and gives us faith. The point not to be missed is that, in Paul's mind, baptism and circumcision are both signs and seals of Christ's baptism/circumcision on the cross for us."

Beyond this, I believe it is likely that infants were among those 'households' that were baptized by the apostles (cf. Acts 16, Acts 18, 1 Cor 1:16). Moreover, Peter preaches that "the promise is for you and for your children" (Acts 2:39). In addition, because I believe the stress should be on the continuity between the Old and New Covenants, we should expect that the signs of the covenant would continue to be offered to children. It was offered to them in the Old as a sign of inclusion in the covenant community, it should be in the New also. If not, we would expect clear instruction to the contrary.

Let me clarify something here - being a part of the covenant community doesn't necessarily imply that the member will experience God's salvation. Many circumcised Jews did not. Many baptized Christians will not (even the faith of those baptized as adults may prove spurious). If it doesn't prove salvific, why do it? Again, it is a sign of their inclusion to the blessing of the covenant community. I believe, as a visible sermon, it is yet another tool in the hand of God that he uses to elicit faith. In the act of baptism God says, "You are mine." The child will one day need to respond, "Lord I am yours. I offer myself to you in faith and obedience."

Lastly, the testimony from church history is that the church practiced infant baptism at a very early stage in it's history. Origin was certainly baptized, according to the historical accounts, as an infant in 180AD, only 80 years after the last apostle had died. Was it controversial? There is no indication that infant baptism was controversial, appearing instead to have been the common, accepted practice in the church. As Schaeffer points out, "Those who would teach that the practice of the early Church was not infant baptism should be able to show in Church History when it started. There is no such break recorded." The assumption in some circles that infant baptism began in the Roman Catholic Church is clearly incorrect.

Those are some of the arguments that pushed me over the line. I understand the baptism debate can be divisive and love the position of ECC, leaving it to the conscience of the parents whether they will baptize or dedicate their children.

Here's a few of good links:
- ThirdMill Ministries Q&A about infant baptism.
- A Contemporary Reformed Defense of Infant Baptism, R. Scott Clark
- Why Does the OPC Baptize Infants, Larry Wilson
- Baptism, by Francis Schaeffer

Baptism as Initiatory Rite into the New Covenant

So, what is baptism? Most evangelicals would say that it's a testimony to our faith or something along those lines. And it is that. But it's more.

John Calvin taught that baptism "is the initiatory sign by which we are admitted to the fellowship of the church, that being ingrafted into Christ we may be accounted children of God"

Before we can appreciate baptism as the initiatory rite into the church we need to understand that the church is more than a voluntary association like the Kiwanis Club. It is the community of the new covenant. To the church he gave the Supper, a new covenant meal (1 Cor 11:25). To the church the apostles as "minister of a new covenant" (2 Cor 3:6). The covenant comes with exceedingly great promises to the faithful and exceedingly stern punishment for the unfaithful (more on the double-sidedness of the new covenant in a later post).

But how does one become a member of this covenant community, of the church? Baptism (1 Cor 12:13). The new covenant is concrete and objective, not just internal and invisible. It has a people - the church, organization and leaders, ceremonies, meals, etc. And one is admitted into this concrete covenant and the covenant community through the rite of baptism, just as, in the old covenant, one was admitted to the covenant community through the rite of circumcision (Col 2:11).

Westminster Confession of Faith, 28.1: Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.

Heidelberg Catechsim Question 74: Are infants also to be baptized? Answer: Yes: for since they, as well as the adult, are included in the covenant and church of God; and since redemption from sin by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult; they must therefore by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, be also admitted into the Christian church; and be distinguished from the children of unbelievers as was done in the old covenant or testament by circumcision, instead of which baptism is instituted in the new covenant.

Belgic Confession:  Having abolished circumcision, which was done with blood, Christ established in its place the sacrament of baptism. By it we are received into God’s church and set apart from all other people and alien religions, that we may wholly belong to him whose mark and sign we bear. Baptism also witnesses to us that God, being our gracious Father, will be our God forever.

Ok, so next post will be on infant baptism. But the same truth holds for adult converts - its is baptism that marks them visibly as Christians. 

John Frame: "It is baptism that gives us the right to be recognized as Christians, unless or until we are excommunicated. Thus, it gives us the right to be part of the great work God is doing through his church" 

Edmond Clowney: "Baptism is recognized as the mark of membership in Christ's church by those outside it...in baptism we are numbered amongst the children of God, receiving the name of our Father, written, as it were, on our foreheads. To be sure, the washing of God's regenerating grace is accomplished by the water of the Spirit, no that of the font, but the outward sign  functions  precisely because it is outward; it is the Lord's visible seal of his invisible grace."

Coming soon, two posts - one defending infant baptism, another defending the claim that "baptism is an effectual means of salvation in the elect because God uses it to elicit faith in the baptized person."

Not all Christians will be Saved

The past few weeks I have had the privilege of being a part of some very good discussions in the Perspectives ACG on the topic of Eternal Security, Apostasy, etc. We've looked at several different ways the passages related to security (i.e. John 6:38-40; John 10:28-29; Romans 8:30; Philippians 1:6) and those which issue warnings against falling away (i.e.Romans 11:20-22; Hebrews 6:4-6; Hebrews 10:26-29; 2 Peter 2:18-22) have been resolved. Oh, and don't forget all the conditional statements either (i.e. Revelation 2:11; Revelation 3:5; John 8:51; 1 Corinthians 15:1-2).

Two weeks ago I began outlining my understanding which is a covenantal/reformed understanding (as opposed to a simplistic, flat Calvinistic approach). Here are a few of the key points that I'll be blogging on this week. Other posts may be needed that connect this discussion to the importance of the visible church ('The visible Church…consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation'), infant baptism, and more.  But this is a start.

1. Baptism is the initiatory rite into the New Covenant and the visible church.
2. Those baptized, whether as adults or infants, are new covenant members and, therefore, Christians.
3. "Christian" is not necessarily coterminous with "elect"; therefore, while it is true that all the elect will be saved, it is not true that all Christians will be saved
4. To be in the covenant as a member means one is subject to the terms of the covenant, including blessings and rewards. In the new covenant, the blessings are great, if we will believe. However, in the new covenant the curses for unbelief are severe.
5. A baptized person who is not living a life of faith and obedience is still a covenant member, but an unfaithful one, and should be admonished as one being unfaithful to their covenant vows.
6. Apostasy is real. Christians (members of the new covenant) turn their back on their birthright all the time. Hence, warnings should be taught as real, genuine warnings to be heeded, not hypotheticals.
7. Eternal security is based in the eternal (and unknowable) decrees of God. 'Saved' and 'unsaved' are categories we aren't privy too. (When those words, actually that word – only 'saved' shows up in the Bible – it's a verb, not a noun). The categories we are given are 'righteous' and 'wicked', or 'faithful' and 'unfaithful'. 

Baptism: Water or Spirit

This past week I had a great discussion (yeah, we'll call it a discussion) about baptism in two separate ACGs (one on Union with Christ and one on Eternal Security).  I stated that baptism is the initiatory rite of the New Covenant. Those who are baptized into Christ are members of the New Covenant people of God, the church, and are Christians. That doesn't mean that they're necessarily the elect, that they'll come to faith or that they'll be saved in the end; instead, it means that they have [been] identified with the people of the new covenant, the church, associate themselves with the name of Christ, and bear the external mark of a Christian.

A fair bit of discussion revolved around the meaning of baptism in the NT - is it baptism in water or baptism in the Spirit that is referred to. So...here's the list of passages referring to baptism or baptize or baptized (though not washed or cleansed).  I've sorted them as best I could in the time I had. On the 'hinge' texts, I've included comments from scholars - both those I agree with and those I don't (basically, any I had access to in my office).  I've commented here or there, but I'll not that in red type.  Have fun!

	John the Baptist baptized in water
	Matthew 3:6-7; 3:13-16, 21:25 Mark 1:4-5, 9; 11:30 Luke 3:3, 7, 12, 21; 7:29 John 1:31, 10:40 Acts 1:22; 10:37; 13:24; 18:25;
	Both water and spirit baptism mentioned
	Matthew 3:11 Mark 1:8 Luke 3:16 John 1:33 Acts 1:5; Acts 11:16;
	Water baptism clearly, unavoidably indicated
	Matthew 28:19 John 3:22-23; 4:1-2 Acts 2:38, 41; 8:12-16, 36-38; 9:18; 10:47-48; 16:15, 33; 18:18, 19:3-5; 22:16 1 Corinthians 1:13-17 1 Peter 3:21 1 Corinthians 15:29;
	Water baptism indicated, but could be debated
	Mark 16:16: since this is a part of the 'maybe it's original/maybe it's not' longer ending of Mark, I'll skip comment
	Baptism in the Spirit:
	1 Corinthians 12:13;
	Other
	Baptized into Moses (still water): 1 Corinthians 10:2 Into Christ's suffering (must be supplied, not explicit): Mark 10:38-39
	Hinge texts
	Romans 6:3-4 Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:5 Colossians 2:12;
	Romans 6:3-4
	On this passage, Stott says, "baptism means water baptism unless in the context it is stated to the contrary. Some commentators have suggested that Paul here is referring to baptism with the Spirit as uniting us with Christ, and have quoted 1 Corinthians 12:13 as a parallel. But it is safe to say that whenever the terms 'baptism' and 'being baptized' occur, without mention of the element in which the baptism takes place, the reference is to water baptism." Doug Moo, "Paul's reference is to the Roman Christians water baptism as their outward initiation in to Christian existence. To be sure, a few scholars have denied any reference to water baptism here, arguing that 'baptize' means 'immerse' in a metaphorical sense, or that Paul refers to 'baptism in the Spirit', or that he uses 'baptize' as a metaphor for incorporation into the body of Christ. But, without discounting the possibility of allusions to one or more of these ideas, a reference to water baptism is primary. By the date of Romans, 'baptize' had become almost a technical expression for the rite of Christian initiation by water, and this is surely the meaning the Roman Christians would have given the word." FF Bruce takes it to be water baptism also, writing, "He took it for granted that the Roman Christians, who were not his converts, had been as certainly baptized as his own converts were...In apostolic times baptism appears to have followed immediately on confession of faith in Christ." He doesn't, at least here, speak to infant baptism as that is a different issue, but of convert baptism. Everret Harris (Expositors Bible Commentary) goes in a slightly different direction, "It [Death to sin] was accomplished by being "baptized into Christ Jesus." What is being described is a spiritual reality of the deepest import—not a ceremony, not even a sacrament." As someone who interprets this passage to mean water baptism, I agree with Harris - it isn't simply the washing in the water (so 1 Peter 3:21). The rite of baptism unites us to the covenant, but not all the blessings of the covenant automatically. Faith is required, and when exercised, faith receives the blessings which the sacrament points to - namely union with Christ in his death and resurrection.
	Galatians 3:27
	Stott contends this does mean water baptism but argues, "Our baptism sets forth visibly this union with Christ. This cannot possibly mean that the act of baptism itself unites a person to Christ, that the mere administration of water makes him a child of God. We must give Paul credit for a consistent theology...Faith secures the union; baptism signifies it outwardly and visibly. Thus in Christ, by faith inwardly and baptism outwardly, we are all sons of God" Ridderbos agrees that this refers to water baptism, "This close relationship which baptism establishes between Christ and the believers is also designated by the expression 'baptized into Christ'. The expression is not to be construed as mystical so much as corporative or federal. The baptized person is added to Christ as His own, is reckoned to His account, share in His benefits...We are not to take this in a magical or automatic sense...What happens at baptism is a confirmation and sealing, a visible manifestation of what is given to the church by faith. So much is true, however, that Paul wants to indicate by his objective-sacramental mode of expression, and by appealing especially to baptism for establishing sonship of the believers, that the reality of becoming one with Christ is nowhere so clearly revealed or so firmly founded in the Christian consciousness of faith, as precisely in this baptism." Fung, "Baptism is here regarded as the rite of initiation into Christ, that is, into union with Christ, or what amounts to the same thing, of incorporation into Christ as the Head of the new humanity...The baptism in view in Gal 3:27 is almost certainly water baptism...raising the question of the relationship between the two [faith and baptism]...the logical relationship between faith and baptism is represented by the statement that 'St. Paul saw in baptism the normal but not necessary, the helpful but not indispensable sign and seal put upon the act of faith appropriating the gift of God in Christ'...Probably Paul mentions baptism here because he is about to emphasize the oneness of those who are in Christ: the visible sign of this oneness is not faith but baptism; the oneness with Christ that is symbolized in baptism is the basis for the oneness in Christ. There is an appeal in the presence of those who were in danger of forgetting spiritual facts, to the external sign which no one could forget." Philip Ryken writes, "Here Paul is referring to the inward reality of spiritual cleansing by faith, and not simply to the outward sign of water baptism." On the surface this might seem to be a dissenting voice from the opinion I articulated on Sunday, and it may be, but not by much. He doesn't say "it's not water baptism." Instead, it's not 'simply' water baptism. In other words, it's not just water baptism that unites us vitally to Christ, but the inward reality to which water baptism points that must be received by faith. My gloss: It's not merely the outward sign of water baptism, but the internal reality that is summoned by it. James Montgomery Boice, "This is not water baptism...Baptism signifies this transforming identification with Christ. So Paul refers to it here. Paul is not now contradicting all he has previously taught about the means of salvation, as if he were suggesting that baptism will now replace circumcision as a saving sacrament or ordinance. No one is saved by baptism. Indeed, Paul mentions baptism only once in the paragraph, but faith five times. Rather baptism is an outward sign of the union that already exists through faith. To be "clothed with Christ" means to become like Christ."
	Ephesians 4:5
	A. Skevington Wood comments (Expositors Bible Commentary), "'One baptism' is the external seal of incorporation into the body of Christ. Falling as it does in the second triad (related to Christ) and not in the first (related to the Spirit), it appears to indicate water baptism and not primarily the baptism with the Spirit of which water baptism is the sign. Baptism is regarded as the sacrament of unity. In the Christian church baptisms are not multiplied as with the Jews (Heb 6:2). There are not even two baptisms—one of John and one of Jesus. There is "one baptism" symbolizing identification with Christ in his death and resurrection, sealing with the Spirit, and incorporation into the body of Christ, so that all Christians become one person in Christ Jesus (Eph 1:13; 2:5, 6; 3:15). Baptism is one because it makes one. It provides the evidence that all Christians, without discrimination as to color, race, sex, age, or class, share the grace of Christ. If we ask why Paul does not at this point mention the other dominical sacrament, that of the Lord's Supper (cf. "one bread" in 1 Cor 10:17), the answer may be that he regards the Eucharist not as a prerequisite of unity but an expression of it." Peter O'Brien, "there is only one baptism because there is one Lord Jesus Christ in whom believers are united, one body into which all Christians are incorporated...the apostle is not making distinctions as to whether it is water baptism or baptism in the Spirit that is in view. The one without the other was an anomaly." Simpson, "Christ occupies the central place, and with Him are linked the inward and outward signs that bind His people to the Savior. Faith may signify the instrument of justification or carry the more objective sense of Christian doctrine. The initiatory rite of baptism seems selected to represent all external ordinances of worship, such as prayer, praise, preaching, the Lord's Supper and His Day, in the practice of which, broadly speaking, all branches of the church, despite its fissures, may be said to coincide." Chapell, "by our baptism [water] we testify that we are cleansed of sin and united to him by his grace alone" Foulkes, "The outward sign of this faith and the 'visible word' expressing the work of Christ was baptism. Instituted by the Lord himself, it was an experience that every Christian shared. All had passed through the same initiation. All had been 'baptized into Christ' not into a variety of leaders such as Paul, Peter or Apollos, nor into a plurality of churches...The sacrament is therefore a sacrament of unity."
	Colossians 2:12
	Curtis Vaughan, "Here Paul gives a further explanation of the spiritual circumcision he affirmed in the preceding verse. The context suggests that Christian baptism is the outward counterpart to that experience and as such is the means by which it is openly declared. The emphasis of the verse, however, is not on the analogy between circumcision and baptism but that of baptism as symbolizing the believer's participation in the burial and resurrection of Christ (cf. Rom 6:3ff.). Being "buried" and "raised" with Christ conveys the thought not simply of burying an old way of life and rising to a new kind of life but of sharing in the experience of Christ's own death and resurrection. That Paul did not think of baptism as actually effecting participation in that experience is made clear when he adds that the Colossians were raised through their "faith in the power of God." Baptism, then, is not a magic rite, but an act of obedience in which we confess our faith and symbolize the essence of our spiritual experience. Faith is the instrumental cause of that experience and, apart from real faith, baptism is an empty, meaningless ceremony." NT Wright, "In becoming a Christian, he [Paul] transferred to the church the idea that the people of God was indeed a people - not now drawn from one race only, but made up from every family under heaven. This people [the people of God] is not merely an invisible family known to God alone, but is an actual company of people in space and time, the church in which Christ is confessed as Lord: outward and visible entry into this outward and visible family is accomplished through the rite of baptism. This explains Paul's frequent appeal that the church should become in fact what it is in theory, should put into detailed operation the life to which it has been committed in baptism. 1 Corinthians 10 shows that it is possible, in Paul's mind, for people to be baptized and yet to be in danger of losing all. This does not make baptism a mere empty ritual. The candidate, being placed into the family where Christ is loved and served, is in the best possible position to grow into mature Christian faith and life. If we find Paul's definite statements about the effects of baptism hard to understand, it is probably because we have lost his vision of the church as the loving and welcoming family of God, the people who, by support, example and teaching, enable one another to accept the gospel down to the depths of their being, and so to make real for themselves the rich statements of Col 2:12" Eade, "the reference is plainly to the ordinance of baptism and to its spiritual meaning."

Page . Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:07 PM February 10, 2015.

Book Review: 'Reformed' is not Enough, by Doug Wilson

Wilson's Reformed Is Not Enough: Recovering the Objectivity of the Covenant is a book I really want to recommend, but a book that is hard to recommend for a couple of reasons.

I picked this book up recently because I've been teaching two Sunday classes, one on Union with Christ and the other on the Doctrine of Eternal Security.  The controversial subset of Reformed theology referred to as Federal Vision came up in the readings I was doing to prepare, so I decided I needed to know more and went to one of the sources - Doug Wilson.

Because this book is written to defend the proponents of Federal Vision theology against charges that they're teaching is out of step with the standards of the Presbyterian church, Wilson spends a good deal of time working through sections of the Westminster Confession of Faith, showing how his teaching is in keeping with this standard (and often where his opponents are out of line with it).  This is fine and good...for a Presbyterian, but it's one of the reasons I'm reluctant to recommend it to many of my church friends. It is, in many ways, an intramural affair. That's one of the weaknesses in my opinion, but, given the intent of the book, it was necessary (basically, I just wish he'd written a different book). So if you aren't completely turned off by the Westminster Confession (I really hope you're not), or by eavesdropping on a denominational squabble, or you can ignore it and get to the meat; then this book is worth the read.

Wilson begins the book with a bang, contending the "Judas was a Christian." Doug's point, which forms the central thesis of the book, is that the new covenant is an objective covenant, just like the old covenant. Those who are baptized are covenant members just as those who received the mark of circumcision were members of the old covenant. And, in that sense, they are Christians - they have come to be identified with the covenant people of God and the name of Christ, bear the mark of the covenant, and are to be regarded as members of the covenant community.

That does not mean that all covenant members are born of the Spirit, are justified, or will ultimately be saved.  Some, though in the covenant, will play the role of unfaithful covenant members and will reap wrath rather than reward. Both blessing and curse are aspects of the [old and new] covenant, as the book of Hebrews plays out.

In articulating this truth, that the covenant is a visible, objective 'thing', Wilson is helpful. Also helpful are the discussions on the visible/invisible church (hint: he doesn't care for that distinction), sacredotalism, baptism, the Supper and the church.

I found the second to last section on apostasy and assurance less helpful. I think Wilson is correct - apostasy is real and Christians can commit it by rejecting what their baptism signifies and spurning the grace given to them in the covenant (to their destruction).  It certainly makes Hebrews easier to handle. I wasn't as thrilled with the chapter on assurance. It left me wanting more, though I'm not sure more of what.

The final section makes good points, but is a little rambling. In fact, that may be a critique of the whole book. Sometime I read a paragraph and wondered how it connected to the preceding paragraph at all. Paragraph one makes point A, paragraph two makes point F.

Many will walk away thinking this a call to return to Catholicism. It isn't, but we're so far from the Reformers and the theology they endorsed that even those early Protestants sound Catholic. A move in that direction may not (no, let me be stronger - IS NOT) a bad thing!

Baptism and Mother Kirk

I've written four posts now on the church, making the case that the visible church is far more important to the Christian's life, even their salvation, than most evangelicals assume. But who is in the visible church? Those who go through a membership class? Those who attend on Sunday? What serves to connect someone to the visible church?

Baptism.

I believe it is baptism that inducts us into membership in the church visible and thereby connects us to the visible body of Christ.

I'll make a case for this over the next few posts, but let me start here quoting several important confessions of faith on baptism, union with Christ, and membership in the church.

Scottish Confession of Faith: We assuredly believe that by baptism we are engrafted in Christ Jesus, to be made partakers of his justice, by the which our sins are covered and remitted; and also, that in the supper, rightly used, Christ Jesus is so joined with us, that he becomes the very nourishment and food of our souls

Westminster Confession of Faith, 28.1: Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.

39 Articles, Article XXVII: Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

Heidelberg Catechsim Question 74: Are infants also to be baptized? Answer: Yes: for since they, as well as the adult, are included in the covenant and church of God; and since redemption from sin by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult; they must therefore by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, be also admitted into the christian church; and be distinguished from the children of unbelievers as was done in the old covenant or testament by circumcision, instead of which baptism is instituted in the new covenant.

And from a couple theologians I appreciate:
Edmond Clowney: "Baptism is recognized as the mark of membership in Christ's church by those outside it...in baptism we are numbered amongst the children of God, receiving the name of our Father, written, as it were, on our foreheads. To be sure, the washing of God's regenerating grace is accomplished by the water of the Spirit, no that of the font, but the outward sign functions precisely because it is outward; it is the Lord's visible seal of his invisible grace."

John Frame: "It is baptism that gives us the right to be recognized as Christians, unless or until we are excommunicated. Thus, it gives us the right to be part of the great work God is doing through his church"

More soon.

Mother Kirk 4

Last week I said I'd continue this stream on the church and the importance of the visible church. This will be the last post in this till I round the bend and begin to think about how baptism relates to the visible church and how all this connects to the issue of apostasy.

Two main points became clear in my last post (at least to me). First, God has given us the church, the visible church, and all her ministries because we absolutely need them. We need preaching. We need discipline. We need the church as an anchor for our doctrine. We need the spiritual food we receive at the Table. Without them, there is little hope we'll survive in the faith. Second, Paul threatens those who persist in error - whether teaching lies or living in persistent sin - with excommunication. This is cutting off from the people of God, the visible church, is tantamount to 'handing them over to Satan'. The Church is Christ's spiritual kingdom. For the time being, the world outside is Satan's realm.

I want to push this discussion in a slightly different direction - a more Christocentric one. So far, I've argued the church is necessary for us. But I think there's more to it.

Nevin approaches the necessity of the visible church differently. He writes, “The life of Christ in the Church, is in the first place inward and invisible. But to be real, it must also become outward…the Church must be visible as well as invisible. In no other way can the idea become real.” He draws a parallel between man and the church: a man’s body is not the sum total of the man – there is a soul to be considered also; yet, without a body there is no real man. “Humanity,” writes Nevin, “is not a corpse on the one hand, nor a phantom on the other.” So, the inward life of the church and the outward form must go hand in hand – “Religion must have forms, as well as an inward living force.”  Nevin contends that the church outwardly manifests the inward life of Christ which animates her, and apart from this outward manifestation, no life can truly be said to exist. The invisible church, argued Nevin, can have no proper existence apart from the visible. DG Hart explains, The church, in other words, was the manifestation in the natural world of the resurrected Christ, literally and supernaturally the body of Christ.”

Our first, knee-jerk response may be that Nevin is pushing the body image too far. I don't think so. Schweitzer writes, "Thy Mystical Body of Christ is for Paul not a pictorial expression  nor a conception which has arisen out of symbolical and ethical reflections, but an actual entity." Certainly the body image with all its members is metaphor, but it's metaphor based on an ontological reality - Christ's life manifested outwardly in the church.

What does this mean to us practically?

First, to cut oneself off from the visible church is to cut oneself off from the church, from the people of God. As members of the body, we are connected to the life that flows from our head ONLY by being connected to the body. Self amputation is not a good idea.

Second, we ought to consider carefully the easy abandonment of one body in favor of another. Calvin writes convincingly (and convictingly - is that a word?), "there is no excuse for him who spontaneously abandons the external communion of a church in which the Word is preached and the sacraments are administered." Among these non-excuses he included minor doctrinal differences (though, when the gospel is destroyed a church ceases to exist), hypocrisy, and sin in the church (even by large portions of the church). Those things don't mean the church ceases to exist or isn't still worthy of our reverence. Only when those doctrines that are central to the gospel are perverted.  How radical does this sound to us who live in a church culture where people leave because they were offended by a joke, don't like the song selection, find a better kids thing somewhere, etc.

In summary, the visible church matters - on so many levels, for so many reasons, it matters. But who belongs to the visible church? That's where we're going next in the upcoming posts about baptism.

Mother Kirk Part 3

I concluded the last post in this series quoting from the Westminster Confession of Faith, which states, "The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation" (Chapter XXV, Article 2).

I want to follow up on that, arguing that fellowship in the visible church is absolutely necessary for the believer. I'll let Calvin articulate what I plan to defend, "But as it is now our purpose to discourse of the visible Church, let us learn, from her single title Mother, how useful, nay, how necessary the knowledge of her is...Beyond the pale of the Church no forgiveness of sins, no salvation, can be hoped for" (Institutes 4.1.4).

How can the Westminster Divines claim that outside the church there no hope of salvation? Is Calvin on crack?

Saying you can't be saved outside the church is like a sailor in a lifeboat shouting to a person treading water in the middle of the North Atlantic Ocean - "Get in the lifeboat. Out there in the water there's no hope you'll survive."  God, knowing how weak we are, how frail our faith is, and how Satan prowls around like a lion hellbent on destroying has given us the ministry of the church to preserve us in our faith. Because of our weakness, we need the external helps which God has seen fit to deposit in the Church, in "accommodation to our infirmity."

Consider Ephesians 4:11-14:

"And he [Christ] gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes."

Calvin comments on this passage, "God, who might perfect his people in a moment, chooses not to bring them to manhood in any other way than by the education of the Church" (Institutes 4.1.5).

Consider for a moment what neglecting the ministry of the church says about God. It says, "God, you went to the trouble of establishing the church and instituting her ministries. You think I need to hear the word preached by your ministers. You think I need the sacraments. I disagree. I think I can do it alone, without the helps you have given me in the church." Bold. Foolhardy.

What Paul says in Ephesians 4 is reflected in his words to Timothy as well. In Ephesians 4 Paul says the through the ministry of the church brings us to maturity so that we won't be tossed about by every wind of doctrine, human cunning, or deceit. In 1 Timothy Paul says, "I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth " (1 Tim 3:15). The church is a pillar and buttress of the truth. It's to keep us from being blown around.

If we do not take advantage of these helps, we have no chance of persevering. Calvin again writes, "For our weakness does not permit us to leave the school until we have spent our whole lives as scholars." And, "The paternal favor of God and the special evidence of spiritual life are confined to his peculiar people, and hence the abandonment of the Church is always fatal." One more, "All who reject the spiritual food of the soul divinely offered to them by the hands of the Church, deserve to perish of hunger and famine."

Consider two other passages similar to one another. In 1 Timothy 1:20 Paul says that, "By rejecting this [faith and good conscience], some have made shipwreck of their faith, 20 among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme."  Similarly, to the church at Corinth Paul says, "For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing [slept with his fathers wife]. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord." (1 Cor. 5:5).

The 1 Corinthians passage makes clear that the person was to be excommunicated - put outside the church. This Paul equates with handing over to Satan.  The world is Satan's kingdom. The church is the outpost of the Kingdom of God. The immoral person is put outside as a remedial action, so his carnal/fleshly self may be destroyed through the ordeal of being put out and likely by physical suffering. Having been chastised he will ultimately find salvation and after suffering be restored to the church (2 Cor 2:5-8 - though this person restored is probably the leader of the anti-Paul movement and not the sexual immoral person, the same principle holds).

I will continue this stream of though in the next post, picking up a slightly different tributary and thinking through the ramifications for those who willingly leave the visible church. Fun, fun.

Mother Kirk Redux

Maybe I should quite posting and just embed his videos. Great teaching, if it a bit hyper.

 

 No, I'll keep posting - but I love this.

Baptism, the Church, and Apostasy

Here begins a series on baptism, it's function in the church, and apostasy. Don't see the correlation? Stick with me, I think you will. All of this is flowing out of my study on the believers union with Christ (which has been faith changing!), a study I've been doing amidst increasing conviction that us evangelicals lack a robust doctrine of the church.

Like most series I start, it's for me - I get more clarity as I write. On this, I am really looking for dialogue partners. Some of my convictions are shared widely by other Reformed writers. Other don't seem to be. TI feel like I'm out on a limb by my lonesome. Maybe for reason, so I invite push back.

Here's a basic outline:
1. The church can be talked about in terms of the invisible church and the visible church, or the church militant and the church triumphant. Both are helpful. As evangelicals, I think we way overemphasize the invisible church and way underemphasize the visible church. Not sure we even think about the difference between the church militant and the church triumphant.

2. Membership in the church invisible (and triumphant) is based on God's eternal decree. The number of this church cannot be added to or diminished by a single person. But what is the basis for membership in the church visible, the church militant? I believe it's baptism. It is by our baptism that we are grafted into the church and become members of the covenant community. As circumcision was the initiatory rite that introduced children into the covenant community of Israel, so baptism marks the entrance of people into the new covenant community called the church.

3. This understanding goes a long way in helping me understand the warnings against apostasy in the book of Hebrews, and elsewhere. I don't believe it's just a hypothetical situation. Nor do I think we should say they weren't real Christians. Baptism is what identifies someone as a Christian in the objective sense - the baptized takes the name of Christ in their baptism, being baptized in his name and in the name of the covenant God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This does not mean that they were a part of the elect and lost their election. That is impossible. But they were a part of the visible church, a part of the church militant. They were a part of the new covenant community and party to the terms - faith brings blessing, unfaithfulness brings curse.  They are unfaithful to the terms of the covenant, but they are at least under the terms of the covenant (as opposed to those who bear no mark of the covenant and live outside of it).

Ok, I know I've bitten off more than I can chew on that. I'll be posting on each soon.

Our Destiny in God, Brief Practical Reflection

While the topic of this project seems miles removed from concrete pastoral issues, it is one that does have some practical applications. First, there is a doxological application. As we come to understand that in Christ we have received more than we lost in Adam, and as we grow in appreciation of the extent of our salvation and the radical nature of our participation in God’s nature, our first response must be worship. As with Paul, contemplation of the deep mysteries of God should solicit deep praise.

Second, there is practical import to the profound truth articulated by CS Lewis, “It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship…”[1] When we speak of the dignity with which man has been endowed as image bearers, we ought to keep in mind the dignity to which man is called in union with Christ as well. It is a dignity that many will forfeit by refusing Christ, and this ought to add further weight to our evangelistic appeals and further motivation to preach the gospel of reconciliation with courage.

Third, there is peace to be had. The question I was asked and which prompted this project was born out of an angst that was real, though maybe ill defined. I believe it is an anxiety that many feel if few articulate. The Christian life is a hard pilgrimage. Will we truly be able to rest when the race has been won? Will we find true and lasting peace and security? In Christ, the answer is a resounding “Yes, and Amen!”

[1] C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory (San Francisco, CA: Harper Collins, 1980), 45.

Our Destiny in God, part 6

Our Telos Reached

As we have seen in the previous posts, man was created for union with God and was intended for an even greater union with God than Adam experienced in the Garden. This deeper union was held out to man as reward for covenantal faithfulness but forfeited by Adam in his rebellion. Had man been granted this deeper union, he would have been granted immortality and been confirmed in an inviolable righteousness. (Using Augustine’s categories, man would have passed from the state of being both posse non peccare & posse peccare to a state of being non posse peccare) What was promised but never granted to Adam has been accomplished in Christ; thus, what we gain in Christ is more than what we lost in Adam. As our covenant keeper, Christ earned for us the blessings of the original covenant made with Adam. Christ leads creation to its final telos. To fully understand this we must examine our future participation with Christ in his resurrection.

Paul writes in Philippians 3:20-21, “But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.” The transformation of our bodies at the resurrection is a significant theme for Paul. He expounds upon it in 1 Corinthians 15,

So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. (v. 42-49)

Important in this context is the shift that Paul makes from discussing the believers body which is subject to death and decay because of sin to discussing man’s creational body even prior to sin. Gaffin suggests, “Apparently his interest is to show that from the beginning, prior to the fall, a higher or different kind of body than the body of Adam, the psychical body, is in view. Adam by virtue of creation (not because of sin), anticipates and points to another, higher form of somatic existence" (Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption, 82). The body Adam was given in creation was not immortal, not heavenly, but earthly. Adam would have gained this heavenly body as reward for faithfulness, but forfeited it. Now it is ours in Christ on the basis of his covenant keeping as the second Adam. Though quoted above, Calvin’s comments on Genesis 2:7 bear repeating,

Paul makes an antithesis between this living soul and the quickening spirit which Christ confers upon the faithful (1 Corinthians 15:45) for no other purpose than to teach us that the state of man was not perfected in the person of Adam; but it is a peculiar benefit conferred by Christ, that we may be renewed to a life which is celestial, whereas before the fall of Adams man’s life was only earthly, seeing it had no firm and settled constancy (John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis).

Fee clarifies, “It is ‘spiritual,’ not in the sense of ‘immaterial’ but of ‘supernatural’…The transformed body, therefore, is not composed of ‘spirit’; it is a body adapted to the eschatological existence that is under the ultimate domination of the Spirit" (Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians NICNT, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987, 786).

It is into this transformed existence that we are being moved in our union with Christ and his resurrection, and it is this transformed existence that makes possible a more full experience of participation with God [i]. When we speak of the image of God being restored in us, it is no longer the image of God as revealed in Adam, but as revealed in Christ that is the end goal of God’s redemptive work. This certainly echoes a key theme in Calvin summarized by Mosser, “The goal of salvation, in other words, is to have the image and likeness of God restored in them as fully as it is in Christ and thus to participate in God and reflect his glory" (Carl Mosser, “The Greatest Possible Blessing,” Scottish Journal of Theology 55.1, 2002: 42). Mosser’s statement points in two directions, both articulated by Calvin, namely the restored image as participation in God and as reflecting God’s glory.

Julie Canlis picks up the participatory idea, writing “for Calvin, our telos is not moral perfection (outside the Mediator) but communion. This is why redemption has surpassed creation (I.15.4): we now have the ‘life-giving Spirit,’ who enables us to participate in Christ more fully and to enjoy the Father’s fatherhood (III.1.2)" (Canlis, Calvin’s Ladder, 63). The text of Revelation 19-22 gives us indications that our hope of a deeper participation is not misplaced.

To begin, the believer participates in the Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19:6-9). The Bride, having been cleansed Christ (Eph. 5:25-27) is now presented to the bridegroom. Marriage has, since the beginning, been about union – two becoming one (Gen. 2:24; Eph. 5:28-32). Though the church is the Bride of Christ, the union is only consummated in the eschaton. R. Tudur Jones explores this theme in the Puritans, expressing surprise at the ease with which they applied the most romantic/erotic portions of the Canticles to their spiritual marriage with Christ. Jones quotes Rutherford, “we cannot rest till we be in other’s arms – and o, how sweet is a fresh kiss form his holy mouth: His breathing that goeth before a kiss upon my poor soul, is sweet, and hath no fault, but that it is too short" (Quoted in R. Tudor Jones, “Union with Christ: the Existential Nerve of Puritan Piety,” Tyndale Bulletin 41.2, 1990: 201). What Rutherford anticipates becomes reality in the consummation of our union with Christ.

In addition to the marriage image, the tree of life reappears in the eternal order (Rev. 22:2,4,14), signaling again a deeper union to be enjoyed. What Adam was not privileged to experience when barred from partaking of this sacramental tree, we now experience as the reward for Christ’s conquering. If the tree of life as a sacrament points to man’s union with God (as the sacraments do), then we must conclude, as with the other sacraments, the gift is given in the sign. Thus man, as he partakes of the fruit of the tree is brought into a deeper participation with God. Add to these images the never fading, never departing, all-encompassing presence of God in the new heavens and new earth, the cosmic temple, and the sense of our more full participation in God is impossible to miss.

Moreover, due to our transformation there is a more profound experience of seeing and reflecting the glory of God. Commenting on 1 John 3:2 Calvin writes,

But as far as the image of God is renewed in us, we have eyes prepared to see God. And now, indeed, God begins to renew in us his own image, but in what a small measure! Except then we be stripped of all the corruption of the flesh, we shall not be able to behold God face to face… he does not teach us that we shall be like him because we shall see him; but he hence proves that we shall be partakers of the divine glory, for except our nature were spiritual, and endued with a heavenly and blessed immortality, it could never come so nigh to God… Hence the majesty of God, now hid, will then only be in itself seen, when the veil of this mortal and corruptible nature shall be removed ( Calvin, Commentary on The First Epistle of John, comment on 3:2).

Likewise, Calvin argues based on 2 Thessalonians 1:10 that Christ “irradiates them [believers] with his glory, and that they may be partakers of it" (Calvin, Commentary on The Second Epistle of Thessalonians, comment on 1:10). In our experience and radiation of God’s glory, we surpass even the angels. Interestingly, Mosser connects dots in Calvin’s theology that Calvin does not connect himself. Mosser concludes, “The appropriateness of angels being designated gods due to their reflection of the divine glory combined with statements about the believers’ glorification leads to the conclusion that glorified believers can appropriately be designated gods" (Mosser, “The Greatest Possible Blessing: Calvin and Deification,” 52). This brings us to the concept of theosis or deification [ii].

Does Scripture give us warrant to proclaim that human’s will be deified? Mosser clearly sees this concept in Calvin, arguing, “Deification is not merely an eschatological concept for Calvin. It is rooted in the divine intentions for the creation and recreation of humanity” (Mosser, “The Greatest Possible Blessing: Calvin and Deification,” 41). Donald Fairbairn concludes that the Orthodox doctrine of deification is not as incompatible with evangelical understandings as the word may make it sound, though he is quick to identify significant deficiencies in the Orthodox understanding of how one is moved towards this goal (Fairbairn, “Salvation as Theosis: The Teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy,” 47). The concept does not seem to have been a stumbling block for Calvin, who, though he distanced himself from improper conceptions of theosis, could still write on Romans 6:5,

But there is no reason why you should seek to apply the metaphor [of engrafting] or comparison in every particular; for between the grafting of trees, and this which is spiritual, a disparity will soon meet us: in the former the graft draws its aliment from the root, but retains its own nature in the fruit; but in the latter not only we derive the vigor and nourishment of life from Christ, but we also pass from our own to his nature (Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans).

Likewise, he comments on Romans 5:2, “The hope of the glory of God has shone upon us through the gospel, which testifies that we shall be participators of the Divine nature; for when we shall see God face to face, we shall be like him. (2 Peter 1:4; 1 John 3:2)" (Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans). Maybe most startlingly, on 2 Peter 1:4 he asserts, “The end of the gospel is, to render us eventually conformable to God, and, if we may so speak, to deify us" (Calvin, Commentary on the Second Epistle of Peter). Again, Calvin distances himself from any understanding of deification that would makes us something other than creature or sharers in the substance of God. For example, in the Institutes Calvin makes clear that “the Spirit does not work in us so as to make us of the same substance with God" (Calvin, Institutes, 1.15.5) But, having set those false understandings of theosis aside, he does articulate the doctrine throughout his writings. It is the “height of honor,” the goal of all that God has been doing in Christ, “For the Father has given all power to the Son, that by his hand he may govern, cherish, sustain us, keep us under his guardianship, and give assistance to us. Thus, while we wander far as pilgrims from God, Christ interposes, that he may gradually bring us to full communion with God" (Calvin, Institutes, 2.15.5).

Billings concedes that Calvin does not have a fully detailed, technical doctrine of theosis; yet he sees, as does this author, that for Calvin, “Redemption involves the restoration and fulfillment of the original union of God with human beings in creation [emphasis added]" (Billings, “United to God through Christ,” 333). Whether one wants to term this fulfillment of man’s original union theosis or ‘deification’ is somewhat immaterial. More important is that we realize we are to be blessed with a more full participation in the divine nature. This is what makes our eternal state more blessed and more secure than Adam’s original state – a deeper participation in the divine nature made possible through our transformative union with Christ.

Notes
[i] In his comments on 2 Peter 1:4, Calvin says that we participate in the divine nature “as far as our capacities will allow.” While our capacities after the resurrection are still creaturely, finite capacities, it seems reasonable to conclude that our capacities have been enlarged and enhanced in our new, post-resurrection humanity. Thus, while we are still limited, we are less so after our resurrection.

[ii] Mosser offers a good, succinct definition: "theosisis for believers to become by grace what the Son of God is by nature and to receive the blessings that are his by right as undeserved gifts.”(“The Greatest Possible Blessing,” 36).

Our Destiny in God, part 5

Having considered the necessity of our union with Christ in his humanity, his life and his death, we can now consider briefly our participation with Christ in his resurrection.

Resurrection (and Ascension)

Billings correctly asserts, “participation in Christ’s death is always followed by a participation in Christ’s resurrection, which involves a fulfillment of the original telos of creation" (J. Todd Billings, “United to God through Christ: Assessing Calvin on the Question of Deification,” Harvard Theological Review 98.3, 2005: 320). As the old humanity dies with Christ in his death, so in union with Christ a new humanity is raised with Him in his resurrection. Gaffin contends that apart from our union with Christ in his resurrection, the gospel and the Christian life are unintelligible, “’Raised with Christ’…is a most basic element in Paul’s soteriology; apart from it the structure of the whole cannot be grasped" (Richard B. Gaffin Jr., Resurrection and Redemption: a Study in Paul’s Soteriology, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1987, 59).

When approaching our union with Christ in his resurrection, we must be aware of a tension in Paul’s writings coinciding with the already-not yet tension. On the one hand Paul can easily speak of the resurrection of the dead as a future hope to be anticipated. This is clear in 1 Corinthians 15:20-23:

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.

Richard Gaffin’s comments on the term “firstfruits” are helpful:

‘Firstfruits’ expresses the notion of organic connection and unity, the inseparability of the initial quantity from the whole…His resurrection is the representative beginning of the resurrection of believers…His resurrection is not simply a guarantee; it is a pledge in the sense that it is the actual beginning of the general event…At the same time, however, he clearly maintains a temporal distinction between them (Richard B. Gaffin Jr., Resurrection and Redemption: a Study in Paul’s Soteriology, 34-35).

Yet, on the other hand, it is true that God has “raised us up with Him” (Eph. 2:6), that we “have been raised with him through faith” (Col. 2:12, see also Col. 3:1), and now we ought to “walk in the newness of life” (Rom. 6:4) made ours in our participation with Christ’s new resurrection life[i]. As Gaffin correctly points out, these layers of meaning cannot be divorced from each other – the ”organic tie” between the historical event of Jesus’ resurrection, the believers experiential event of being raised with Christ, and the future bodily resurrection from the dead must be preserved (Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption, 60). We will come back to the significance of our future bodily resurrections below, as that brings us near the goal of this paper, but in this space it is fitting to reflect on our present experience of union with Christ in his resurrection (and ascension). Commenting on Ephesians 2:6 Calvin writes,

The resurrection and sitting in heaven, which are here mentioned, are not yet seen by mortal eyes. Yet, as if those blessings were presently in our possession, he states that we have received them; and illustrates the change which has taken place in our condition, when we were led from Adam to Christ. It is as if we had been brought from the deepest hell to heaven itself. And certainly, although, as respects ourselves, our salvation is still the object of hope, yet in Christ we already possess a blessed immortality and glory; and therefore, he adds, in Christ Jesus (Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians).

That this present possession of resurrection life (indicative) is the ground for whole set of ethical commands (imperatives) in Paul’s theology is most clearly seen in Colossians 3. In one stroke Paul connects death, resurrection, ascension and return in glory, making us participants in all of these events in union with Christ. We died with Christ, we have been raised with him and seated with him in heaven (where our true life is hid “with Christ in God”), and will one day return with him in glory. Paul immediately follows these statements with the instructions to “Put to death…” the deeds that characterized our old sinful humanity and to “Put on…” works in keeping with our new humanity. This is not simply a “he has done this for you, now do this for him” appeal. Rather, it is a call to recognize our union with Christ in his life and an appeal to allow this life to manifest itself in us. It is a call to be who we most truly are because of our union with Christ. This is Calvin’s “wondrous exchange”, and exchange that will be more fully realized upon Christ’s return, but is now our experience in part,

This is the wondrous exchange made by his boundless goodness. Having become with us the Son of Man, he has made us with himself sons of God. By his own descent to the earth he has prepared our ascent to heaven. Having received our mortality, he has bestowed on us his immortality. Having undertaken our weakness, he has made us strong in his strength. Having submitted to our poverty, he has transferred to us his riches. Having taken upon himself the burden of unrighteousness with which we were oppressed, he has clothed us with his righteousness ( Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.2).

Union with Christ’s death and especially his resurrection is transformative (while also being forensic, as Calvin establishes these cannot be separated for both come to us in Christ who cannot be divided; see Institutes 3.11.6). Calvin writes, “For if we have true fellowship in his death, our old man is crucified by his power, and the body of sin becomes dead…If we are partakers in his resurrection, we are raised up by means of it to newness of life, which conforms us to the righteousness of God" (Calvin, Institutes, 3.3.9). Hart sums this up well, writing that Christ establishes with humanity “a new relationship with God, the exaltation of humanity to a previously unknown glory…Far from leaving humanity essentially unchanged, the glorious exchange involves a radical transformation of our being" (Hart, “Humankind in Christ and Christ in Humankind,” Scottish Journal of Theology 42.1, January, 1998, 74-75).

Yet again we cannot neglect the tension between the already and the not yet. We have already been transformed, we are being transformed as the Spirit works to bring us into deeper union with God, and we anticipate the completion of this transformation in the future. Calvin reminds us, “Redemption would be defective if it did not conduct us by an uninterrupted progression to the final goal of safety" (Calvin, Institutes, 2.16.1). This leads us to the third substantial section of this project, which I'll take up in a post tomorrow, and close to answering the question posed in the introduction, “what makes our eternal condition more secure than Adam’s original condition?”

[i] Gaffin goes into further detail, outlining another challenge in understanding Paul’s view of our union with Christ in his resurrection, namely, do the aorist verbs and the temporal references point “solely to what took place in the historical experience of Christ or do they apply to what has happened in the actual life experience of the individual believer?” (Resurrection and Redemption, 41).

Our Destiny in God, Part 4

In the last post on our destiny in God, I considered the importance of our union with Christ in his incarnation. We continue this series looking at our union with Christ in his living and dying.

Life
Having considered Christ’s assumption of our humanity, we can proceed to reflect upon Christ’s full life of obedience. All Jesus accomplished for us he accomplished in union with us, with our humanity, and to facilitate a yet deeper union between God and man – the union promised Adam in the Garden but never realized due to Adam’s failure. Christ’s active obedience, his perfect conformity to the will of his Father, is an indispensable aspect of Christ’s work for us.

Paul writes in Romans 5:19, “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.” While this verse seems to have Christ’s obedience unto death primarily in view (his passive righteousness) we cannot fail to acknowledge that this act of obedience was the capstone of all of Christ’s perfect submission to his Father’s will. As Jesus attempted to persuade John that it was appropriate, in fact necessary, for him to be baptized by John, he said, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15; similarly see Matthew 5:17). Calvin insists that this fulfilling of all righteousness, in fact all of Jesus’ life and obedience, was performed as public man, consciously aware that he all he was doing was for the benefit of other. Canlis summarizes, “Every event in Jesus’ life was done with the intent that humanity be able to draw from it and be made new by it: (Canlis, Calvin’s Ladder, 99). From Calvin’s pen we read, “Therefore, our Lord came forth very man, adopted the person of Adam, and assumed his name, that he might in his stead obey the Father" (Calvin, Institutes, 2.12.3). Christ’s bringing our human nature into union with himself was crucial for his covenant keeping role.

As the public man, Jesus steps into the covenant left unfilled by Adam’s failure. He resists the temptation that destroyed Adam and all humanity in Adam (Matthew 4:1-11) and keeps perfect faith with his Father. Christ conquers, he overcomes, and wins for all those who are in him the right to eat of the tree of life. Thus, in a very real way we can speak of Christ earning salvation and eternal life for us. Calvin speaks along these lines,

That Christ, by his obedience, truly purchased and merited grace for us with the Father, is accurately inferred from several passages of Scripture. I take it for granted, that if Christ satisfied for our sins, if he paid the penalty due by us, if he appeased God by his obedience; in fine, if he suffered the just for the unjust, salvation was obtained for us by his righteousness; which is just equivalent to meriting (Calvin, Institutes, 2.17.3).

Again, in danger of belaboring the point, Jesus’ union with our humanity is crucial, for in it this covenant keeping is rescued from being merely cold and legal. Nevin was correct in emphasizing the organic nature of this union (though not to the exclusion of the forensic),

The Word became flesh; not a single man only, as one among many; but flesh, or humanity in its universal conception. How else could he be the principle of a general life, the origin of a new order of existence for the human world as such? How else could the value of his mediatorial work be made over to us in a real way, by a true imputation, and not a legal fiction only…He [Adam] stood in the case as their federal head, because he was their true organic head…Christ too is the federal head and representative of humanity as a whole…Not in the way of a mere outward imputation…but on the ground of a real community of life (Nevin, Mystical Presence, 211-212).

Pointing to the significance not only of Christ’s union with our human nature, but our personal union with him as Savior, Letham writes,

Christ, in his incarnate life and ministry, was the second Adam. Man had sinned; man must put things right, not only by avoiding sin but by actually rendering to God the obedience that Adam failed to supply…[Christ fulfilled] the law of God, on our behalf and in our place but also in union with us…Because of our union with him, we were in him as he did it. He was captain of the team and his actions are ours (Letham, Union with Christ, 58-59).

Our personal union with Christ is vital for the “drawing from” Calvin refers to is not merely an external transaction, but one performed in union with Christ. Calvin never wavered on the necessity of our participation in Christ if we were to benefit from his work: “Would ye then obtain justification in Christ? You must previously possess Christ…”(Calvin, Institutes, 3.16.1).

Death

What is true of Christ’s life is true of his death also – Christ died in union with our nature, we die in union with Christ. In addition, this work was done to enable a yet deeper union with God by removing the impediment of human sin and guilt. What was said above regarding the necessity of Christ’s union with our human nature so as to be in a proper position to merit on our behalf the rewards promised Adam holds also for his dying. For Christ to be in a position to die for us, to suffer the covenantal curse as our representative and substitute, he must have been truly human. The author of Hebrews is clear on this,

Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people (Heb. 2:14-17).

Calvin understands well the importance of Christ’s union our human nature for the atonement, writing,

But special attention must be paid to what I lately explained, namely, that a common nature is the pledge of our union with the Son of God; that, clothed with our flesh, he warred to death with sin that he might be our triumphant conqueror; that the flesh which he received of us he offered in sacrifice, in order that by making expiation he might wipe away our guilt, and appease the just anger of his Father.(Calvin, Institutes, 2.12.3).

Beyond Christ’s taking of our nature into union with his person, we must also consider our experiential, personal union. Letham asserts correctly, “The concept of union takes us a stage further than either of these two metaphors [substitution and representation]. In this case, all that Christ did and does we do, since we are one with him…because of the union sustained between Christ and ourselves, his actions are ours" (Letham, Union with Christ, 63). In other words, when Christ died, we died with him. Paul makes this point in Galatians 2:19-20, “For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.” It is at first hard to understand how Paul died to the law through the law, but when understood in connection with our union with Christ, it becomes clear. The demand of the law was harsh and unbending – death for disobedience. Through his union with Christ, Paul can say that he died (see also Col 2:20, 3:3). He was crucified along with Christ by virtue of his union with Christ (v. 20). Thus, since the law has exacted its punishment and received its pound of flesh, it has no more hold on him. He is dead to it. Paul expresses this union most profoundly in connection with our baptism in Romans 6:3, asking, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?”

Not only is Christ’s cross work efficacious for us because of our union with him, but Christ’s goal is to reconcile the world to God, re-establishing the union lost by Adam and advancing it. Batey writes,

Before the foundation of the world God chose the Church, destining it in love to be the realization of his purpose to unite the universe in Christ in the fullness of time (Eph. 1:3-14). This union is being made possible by the power of God revealed in the cross. Through God’s power, motivated by love, the barriers separating men from God and one another have been destroyed, and the twofold reconciliation brings hostility to an end and makes peace (Richard A. Batey, “The Mia Sarx Union of Christ and the Church,” New Testament Studies 13.3, April 1967: 280).

Christ’s death is never less than penal, but it is also more than that. It is just (fair) punishment, but not just (merely) punishment. It is also epoch ending. The old humanity dies with Christ in his death. Canlis asserts, “Even as ascent is ‘natural’ to humanity (in that communion is God’s creation-purpose for us), it is also profoundly ‘unnatural’. Guilt had to be pardoned, sin had to be paid for, rebellion had to be quashed" (Canlis, Calvin’s Ladder, 93). This leads us to consider our union with Christ in his resurrection and ascent, which we will pick up on post #5 later this week.