How Could It Happen?(1)

1. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.

1. Although God created man upright and perfect, and gave him a righteous law, which had been unto life had he kept it, and threatened death upon the breach thereof, yet he did not long abide in this honour; Satan using the subtlety of the serpent to subdue Eve, then by her seducing Adam, who, without any compulsion, did willfully transgress the law of their creation, and the command given unto them, in eating the forbidden fruit, which God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.

2. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.

2. Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.

3. They being the root of mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by original generation.

3. They being the root, and by God’s appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them free.

4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.

4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.

5. This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.

5. The corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and the first motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.

6. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal.

1. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create or make of nothing the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good.

1. In the beginning it pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, to create or make the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good.

2. After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness after his own image, having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it; and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change. Besides this law written in their hearts, they received a command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; which while they kept were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.

2. After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, rendering them fit unto that life to God for which they were created; being made after the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfil it, and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject to change.

3. Besides the law written in their hearts, they received a command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which whilst they kept, they were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.

I will try to work through these chapters of these historic confessions (1646 WCF and the 1689 LBCF) in a couple of posts. This first one I will just ask questions and give the answer and then ask you to consider how could it happen? The answer to that is found somewhat in the confession, but I am not asking simply to repeat the description of the actions of the subtlety of the serpent, but what had to happen to man or his environment for that deception to work given man’s state. There are major implications for how we view other anthropological doctrines as well as how we view soteriology. I contend that if you get the fall wrong, you will not clearly understand the means of salvation.

Think about it and in this first part define the terms which describe man’s state. We’ll take up more later.

What was the state of man before the fall?

The answer given in these two confessions is, very good, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness after his own image, having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it; and yet under a possibility of transgressing, upright, perfect, righteous, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject to change, and in communion with God.

What does that mean?

Considering what that means, how could the fall happen?

Ain’t Dat Da Troof!

Two articles very much worth the read:

Is Truth Really Plural? Postmodernism in Full Flower

A Most Ingenious Paradox

Both men are Southern Baptists and both come from a faction of the SBC that is in opposition soteriologically to the vast majority. When it comes to the inerrancy of Scripture one of the things that must be discovered is what the texts actually say. There can be no contradiction, which is: Why The Southern Baptists Will Again Lose The Innerancy War. They have no credibility and the majority party would rather deny or hide the truth than take an honest look at it.

How can I say they lost in the first place? Well this current controversy over knowable truth, as is indicated in the articles mentioned, started two centuries ago. Out of that milieu came a resurgence of the Roman views of free-will within protestantism. The vast majority of Southern Baptists have come to embrace the contradictions of Arminianism or as they might assert, their non-Calvinism, or as I assert their robeless Catholicism. Some have even gone so far as to call for the Roman Catholic doctrines of Molina to become the standard. The two schools, the Calvinistic/Reformed and the Arminian/Nons are incompatible, contradictory systematic theologies. Indeed, Arminianism is inconsistent and self-contradictory within. One primary contradiction between the two systems is found in the oppositional doctrines of monergistic Calvinistic soteriology versus the Romanish veiw of Arminianism which adds mans works to the final work of Christ, or synergism. That difference results in a rejection of the Solas of the Reformation by the diminution of the sufficiency of grace.

Until the contradictions are reconciled within the SBC they can hardly lay claim to inerrancy. Scripture either teaches monergistic salvation, or it doesn’t. A dying world is waiting to hear that the Word is not divided against itself and is something which can be trusted in its Gospel offer. The price is too great to pay just to have a Great Commission Resurgence for numbers sake without the authority which demands a non-contradiction necessary to have an inerrent Word from God.

Come, See A Man Who Told Me All That I Ever Did.

Michael Horton, in an interview, says about seeking God for something other than himself that:

This has turned God into a tool we can use rather than the object of our faith and worship.

The idea that there is anything we can bring to God or that we go to him to see what we can get is to seek a christ foreign to the Gospel. It is true that we must go to God to be served and this is reflected in several Scriptures, but beginning with John in the title, I will stay there and take a look at the supper the night before the Lord’s betrayal to begin this review of the interview.

Of the Gospels this is the only one that does not contain the supper, per se. Instead, it focuses on one aspect of the communion. Namely, that it is Christ’s supper, and it is there that he washes the feet of his saints. Why that focus? Jesus reprimands Peter in the scene, saying that if this was not done, Peter would have no part in him. It is primary that in the context of the communion of the saints we sit and be served by the Lord. It is true, that he has commissioned some sent ones to do the washing for him, and it is true of the believer, as Jesus tells Peter, that they have been sanctified by the Word of the Lord. Yet, it is required that we allow him to perfect that work through the ministry of Christ’s Word by the Spirit at the gathering of believers where we break the bread the Lord gives.

An interesting thing as a side note is the English term Lord. It comes from an OE term that means the keeper/giver of the bread. It was as close as one might get to the providential meaning of kyrios. The lord of the land had sovereignty in the disposition of all material and subjects of his land. Though all the subjects worked, the substance of their labor and theirselves belonged to the one who provided for the preservation of life.

In view of this concept, there is nothing which we can bring to the Lord, nor anything we can demand from him. On the contrary, all that we have we have by his grace, and though we serve at his beckon call, it is his serving us that provides for us life and freedom from fear.

Yes God serves us, so this attitude should be in us also, but no one should think that God owes anyone for what they have done. Instead, we have God who is the provider of everything and we stand naked before him, depraved and cast down in need of mercy which he amply provides to all who call upon his name with a beggers hand extended.

Horton explains:

There are a lot of well-meaning folks who say—and they’re speaking against the consumer-driven worship service—that worship is about what we do for God; we’re serving Him; we’re the ones worshiping. And I want to say to them: It’s not that we’re consumers, but we’re not worker bees either. It’s better than that. It’s better than we could have ever imagined. The God of all the universe—who looks after the movement of the planets—became flesh for us, not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.

To join in, then, is about what God is doing, through his church and her people, not what they are doing. It is during this meal that God humbles himself, takes on the towel and becomes the servant, washing the feet of his bride. Remember the supper. What a strange event. Normally, the host would wash the feed of the guests before the meal. But in this case it is in the midst of the meal that the sanctification that makes ready for the meal is done. Or as Christ had told Peter, he was already clean by the Word, now all that is necessary is the upkeep.

This takes us to a paradigm that is is not much discussed. We acknowledge the monergistic work of God in regeneration, and now, we see that it is Christ that accomplishes sanctification, also. It is interesting isn’t it, that Christ doesn’t in this case leave man out of that work. Instead, he commands his servants to be active in doing this, one for the other. So, in the work of sanctification we first see that man is passive, but is active also, after the work of the Lord. For at the Lord’s correction to Peter’s resistance, Peter submits.

We also have in view here that not all who recieve the outward washings are cleaned by it, for Judas was there. It was Judas’ inward uncleanness that made of no effect the outward element. Thus, no religious activity can sanctify the heart that is not already regenerated. No Arminian scheme, no Roman Catholic sacrifice, is efficient to sanctify from the outward in. No man can receive except that it is given him from heaven. Unless a man is born again, John reminds us earlier, there is no entrance into the kingdom, and except that Christ does this, He tells Peter, a man has no part in him. Yes, it is Christ’s work alone, beginning to end, and only if God gives first the renewal of heart will the outward be effectual.

Michael Horton nails the purpose of the Great Commission with:

There’s a distinction that I think is so important for us to make between the Church as the people of God, and church as a place where people come. In other words, if this feeding is going on—this serving of the Lord’s, then [the people] will become robust witnesses who go out into the world.

The Great Commission and caring for the physical and spiritual welfare of the saints—that’s all that the Church is commissioned by Christ to do.

That, not evangelism, is what making a disciple means. Yes, evangelism happens, in fact it is a primary duty of the Elders and secondarily a purpose given to all who are in the world but not of it.

Horton has previously said that not all are in “the ministry.” Few out of the multitude are called to serve the Lord’s table. But he is clear, all are to be served from it and by that they become robust witnesses as lovers of the brethren.

It is by this that we proclaim faithfully the one who has told us all that we have ever done and yet he has the words of life for us. What a wonderful message, that there is a table where there is no condemnation for those who are in Him, irrespective of what they have done. And who would not invite others to come and see, not what we have to do, but what he is doing? He is the Lord of the manor. Where else is there to go but to the table to be served? It is by this that the world sees that we have love for one another. That is the true witness, not that we are some how better than the world. To the contrary, we come to the table naked, bereft of any offering, sinners in need of cleansing from the sin in our lives. We offer ourselves to God who knows what is in man and to that knowledge in the hands of a Holy and Righteous Judge, we can only admit that we need mercy. It is that which the world so desperately needs to see. That it is not for our sake that he has come down to serve, for there is nothing worthy in us that should bring him down, but out of his compassion he condescends to serve those who deserve only to be put to death.

Let’s remember the words of the Psalmist:

I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will praise you:

You who fear the Lord, praise him!
All you offspring of Jacob, glorify him,
and stand in awe of him, all you offspring of Israel!
For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted,
and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him.

From you comes my praise in the great congregation; my vows I will perform before those who fear him.
The afflicted shall eat and be satisfied;
those who seek him shall praise the Lord!

May your hearts live forever!

Not To Judge, But For Judgement

James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries writes at

Reformed Baptist Fellowship:

 

Jesus explains that He has come for a purpose, and it is not what you normally hear about during the 14th verse of Just As I Am. He has come for judgment, and the judgment involves sight.

John has been working over this point from the first salvos in chapter one. The purpose of Christ coming into the world is the judgement sent by the Father on the world. It is the light which exposes what has been from the beginning now revealed by the advent of the Son.

 

White goes on:

 

We need to be reminded, often, of the powerful Christ, the Christ who walks the pages of the gospels, but whose presence is often muted by our traditions and our fear of the faces of men. The Jesus of the Gospels tramples all over the canons of political correctness.

In John three we note:

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

And it is often said that kosmos means all mankind. However, that does not square with the rest of this quote if what it means is that God loves the entirety of man kind without discrimination. Kosmos means all the kosmos, no doubt, but if it is the case that some are given salvation and eternal life (the believing ones) and others are condemned (the unbelieving ones) with ever-lasting punishment, then the love which is general in view of the kosmos is particularly applied so that the judgement is carried out. Simply put, Jesus is the Father’s executioner, sent to separate, to judge between sheep and goats, or in the OT way of saying it, between cattle and cattle. It is also in OT ways of thinking, the purging out of the household of all that makes it impure so that life which is in the passover can be consummated.

 

So then, John three speaks of those condemned already, and yet the kosmos is not condemned. How can that be unless kosmos here is not men, but the created order, one which God loves in a particular way. That is what so in God so loved, really means. God loved in this way the kosmos that he gave his Son to judge those condemned and to give everlasting life to those who believe. You can check out John’s writing, kosmos is used in varying ways, and often in the sense of the created order, and not simply all mankind. It is this love for the creation that sends the Son to carry out the judgement of the Father so that the kosmos will be saved and so to those men chosen out of the kosmos. In this way, God so loved, that by saving some, the whole would be saved.

 

This is the Jesus that few know.

 

John informs us in Ch. 5 that judgement is the reason that Jesus came into the world. Take note there the inter-play of judge and judgement. You’ll see that Jesus is one with the Father according to his judgement, and though Jesus is not the Judge, he does judge. The execution of the Father’s judgement is in the hands of the Son for the Father does not judge but he is the Judge. It is Jesus who executes the will of his Father and in this sense, Jesus judges.

 

It is politically incorrect as James White says, as Brian Thorton rightly discerns, the Jesus that most Christians do not know is this Christ who blinds the eyes of those who say they see and opens the eyes on some. I repeat that, some.

 

John 3 does not say that God gave his only begotten Son that any or all might have eternal life. It does not say that. It says quite clearly that some are already condemned when the Son comes into the world. That judgement rendered by the Father happened before the creation of the world, and it was through the means of sending the Son to execute that judgement that some would believe and be saved and by that means God would so love the world.

What does this mean? It means that Norman Geisler is weaseling, to put a word to White’s definition.

So, You Want To Be An Elder? Whatever…

No, that cannot be the attitude. Listen to what John MacArthur says about empithymeo, the desire I spoke of in the previous post:

But if we can just push the point a little bit here, I believe a man is called into the leadership of the church when he feels the passion of his heart to the extent that he doesn’t have any options. He’s not saying, “Well, this is the best out of the five I looked at.” He doesn’t have five, he’s got one. And he’s compelled into that and he’s so compelled into that that’s all he can do and he gets himself in the track that reaches after that and then he becomes qualified in that process.

I mean, I never sat down and analyzed my gifts and talents. I don’t ever analyze myself. I don’t like to do that. I don’t know what my gifts are in that sense of human talents…I know what my spiritual gifts are, but I didn’t sit down and say, “Well let’s see, if I was going to be a doctor, a lawyer, an Indian chief, let’s see…if I was going to be a pastor, or a school teacher or whatever, mechanic or something..what would I choose? Well let’s see. What are my talents. I better go take a personality inventory test.” I never said that. I never said anything like that. All I knew was that by the time I was mid way through college I had one thing in my heart to do and that was all I ever thought about. There wasn’t any option. There wasn’t any discussion. There wasn’t any analysis of that.

Now I don’t want to sort of push that subjectiveness in my own life off on everyone. You may be saying, “Well, I’m…I’m thinking about the ministry but I’m not sure.” Well maybe the Lord hasn’t yet set the fire yet in your heart and maybe that will come, I don’t know that because I can’t tell you how the Holy Spirit will work. I know people who have done a lot of things for a lot of years and all of a sudden in their mid thirties or mid forties felt a call of God into the ministry, and it was then that the compulsion was born in their heart. People have asked me that all my life. If you weren’t a pastor, what would you be? I don’t have any idea. I’d be dead. I would be out of existence. There’s nothing else. There’s…I don’t have anything else, I don’t know anything else. I can’t fix anything. I can’t do anything. I mean, you talk about a one‑ring circus, this is it.

I think that about surrounds the question. When considering the ministry it is an emptying of all other desires, setting them aside for this one. A man embarking upon this career track cuts off all opportunity to go another way. There is no junction ahead and the track behind is torn up as the train moves forward. There’s no returning to Egypt, the waters have closed behind.

The calling has a goal, a single-minded goal. That is in fact the sum of the qualifications. An Elder must be a one woman man, a man who is not double-minded. The word reproach as well as the other qualifications show this. Someone who is reproachable is one who can be captured by other interests, lead away, as it were, to abandon the trust charged for the lure of other interests. An Elder must lead surely for all those who follow depend for their lives upon the direction he takes them. Their lives are in his hands. Such a call is too precious to leave to those who can do… whatever.

Perhaps it is best summed up in the call of Peter as a shepherd:

Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.” (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this he said to him, “Follow me.”

The exacting nature of the calling is so characterized as MacArthur states as compelling, another hand is upon the shepherd. But there is also in this passage the reason given. It is not about the shepherd, but the lambs whose lives are to be brought to maturity. It is from the lambs that sheep become. And no shepherd, having once been called, abandons them. That man Jesus mentioned before:

He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.

The Good Shepherd says:

The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

What or who the “these” in John 21:15 above indicate is a matter of question. However, seeing that Peter had just come ashore from fishing, it most likely was the fish that the Lord was referencing. In otherwords, Peters occupation, a reflection back to:

“Follow me, and I will make you become fishers of men.”

No, this is no common calling, not just another vocation in addition to others one might choose. To this calling one is compelled to go forth from the life that preceded it and complete the great commission it was assigned. And as with Jesus, as with Peter, in the end, it is a call to lay down ones life for the sheep. For there is no greater desire, no greater love, in the heart of one called to be an Elder.

By Grace Alone Through Faith Alone In Christ Alone

For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law…What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.” He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb. No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.” But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification…Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Is this so hard to understand? Abraham was without ability to fulfill the work that God had set before him. God took it completely out of his hands. In fact, when considering in whom the seed would be blessed, it wasn’t Abraham, but Isaac.

To say it another way, Abraham’s faith was based in the promise of the one coming, not in what Abraham had done, nor anything he would or could do, but in one not yet born. Paul further tells us that it is not Isaac who is spoken of, but Christ, the Seed, in whom faith would abide. Furthermore, we see that Christ is spoken of as the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world. This is in perfect harmony with Hebrews where Christ is called the author and perfecter of our faith. It is he who we look to, his works begun and completed on our behalf.

Then the passage in Phillipians rings clear. The beloved work out their salvation, always. It is inherent in faith that it is sure and certain to attain the thing which is possesses, Hebrews 11:1. We will work it out because it is God who works in us both the willing and the doing of his good pleasure. This statement in Phillipians is a reflection on another verse there:

And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

This is our faith, not in ourselves but in the One to come. Indeed, how could there be any hope, any joy, any peace if we could not say that:

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Jason Engwer has written a succinct rejoinder to one Roman Catholic apologist’s take on the necessity of a works to complete the salvation package:

Works (including involvement in baptism and other sacraments) are 100% absent in the paradigm case of Abraham (Genesis 15:6) and 100% absent in the historical descriptions of how others were justified (Mark 2:5, Luke 7:50, Acts 10:44-48, Galatians 3:2-9, etc.). Works were present in Abraham’s life, a point made in James 2, and they would have followed faith in cases like those in Mark 2, Luke 7, etc. But justification occurs at the time of faith, not at the time of baptism or any other work. Not only would it be a less natural interpretation to dismiss these passages as exceptions to a rule, but some of these passages are presented in contexts that are about what’s normative, not what’s exceptional. People like Abraham, the tax collector of Luke 18, Cornelius, and the Galatians are treated as if the means by which they received justification was normative. Every one of them received justification through faith alone, without the presence of baptism or any other work.

The beauty of the parable of the tax collecter and the Pharisee cuts to the heart of Roman Catholic doctrine. It is precisely the dependence upon good works that kept the Pharisee from being justified. In contrast to him was the sinner who knew the only plea for his justification was to the merciful works of God.

I would also recommend this Dividing Line program on the same subject.

Calvinism Is Not An Obscure Species of Christian Theism- It Is Christianity

Speaking paraphrastically is often done in an attempt to clearify. Unfortunately, what happens many times is that the object of discourse becomes an afocussed target. Often used by magicians, brightlights and flashes cause vision problems making presdigitation easier. Rather than the lighting making the object clearer, it actually blurs.

Machen’s Response to Modernism and to Fundamentalism

Machen’s years at Princeton were the two decades which are known for the ongoing mondernist-fundamentalist controversy. We will see Machen’s distinctive response to Modernism if we contrast it with what was known most widely as fundamentalism. In the process of defining his response the meaning of Modernism will become clear.

He was seen as an ally by the fundamentalists; and his ecclesiastical opponents like to make him “guilty” by association with them. But he did not accept the term for himself.

In one sense fundamentalists were simply those who “[singled] out certain great facts and doctrines [i.e., Fundamentals] that had come under particular attack, [and] were concerned to emphasize their truth and to defend them” (see note 18). But there was more attached to the term than that. And Machen didn’t like that. He said,

Do you suppose that I do regret my being called by a term that I greatly dislike, a “Fundamentalist”? Most certainly I do. But in the presence of a great common foe, I have little time to be attacking my brethren who stand with me in defense of the Word of God (see note 19).

What he didn’t like was

1) the absence of historical perspective;
2) the lack of appreciation of scholarship;
3) the substitution of brief, skeletal creeds for the historic confessions;
4) the lack of concern with precise formulation of Christian doctrine;
5) the pietistic, perfectionist tendencies (i.e., hang ups with smoking (see note 20), etc.);
6) one-sided other-worldliness (i.e., a lack of effort to transform culture); and
7) a penchant for futuristic chiliasm (or: pre-millenialism).

Machen was on the other side on all these things. And so “he never spoke of himself as a Fundamentalist” (see note 21).

But none of those issues goes to the heart of why he did not see himself as a Fundamentalist. The issue is deeper and broader and gets at the root of how he fought Modernism. The deepest difference goes back to Machen’s profound indebtedness to Benjamin Warfield who died February 16, 1921. Machen wrote to his mother, “With all his glaring faults he was the greatest man I have ever known” (see note 22).

In 1909 at the 400th anniversary of Jon Calvin’s birth Warfield gave an address that stirred Machen to the depths. Warfield made plea that the Reformed Faith—Calvinism—is not a species of Christian theism along side others, but IS Christianity come to full flower.

Calvinism is not a specific variety of theistic thought, religious experience, [or] evangelical faith; but just the perfect manifestation of these things. The difference between it and other forms of theism, religion, [and] evangelicalism is difference not of kind but of degree … it does not take its position then by the side of other types of things; it takes its place over all else that claims to be these things, as embodying all that they ought to be (see note 23).

So he says Lutheranism is “its sister type of Protestantism” and Arminianism is “its own rebellious daughter” (see note 24). Calvinism’s grasp of the supremacy of God in all of life enabled Machen to see that other forms of evangelicalism were all stages of grasping God which are yet in process of coming to a full and pure appreciation of his total God-centeredness.

What this came to mean for Machen was that his mission in defense of super naturalistic Calvinism was nothing more or less than the defense of the Christian faith in its purest form. So his biggest problem with the term fundamentalist was that, it seems to suggest that we are adherents of some strange new sect, whereas in point of fact we are conscious simply of maintaining the historic Christian faith and of moving in the great central current of Christian life (see note 25).

He was invited to the presidency of Bryan Memorial University in 1927 —a move that would have aligned him with fundamentalism outside the Reformed tradition. He answered like this:

Thoroughly consistent Christianity, to my mind, is found only in the Reformed or Calvinist Faith; and consistent Christianity, I think, is the Christianity easiest to defend. Hence I never call myself a “Fundamentalist” … What I prefer to call myself is not a “Fundamentalist” but a “Calvinist” —that is, an adherent of the Reformed Faith. As such I regard myself as standing in the great central current of the Church’s life—the current that flows down form the Word of God through Augustine and Calvin, and which has found noteworthy expression in America in the great tradition represented by Charles Hodge and Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield and the other representatives of the “Princeton School” (see note 26).

So Machen moved in a different world from most Fundamentalists. And when he took on Modernism he took it on as a challenge to the whole of Reformed Christianity. His most important book in the debate was Christianity and Liberalism, published in 1923.

The title almost says it all: Liberalism is not vying with Fundamentalism as a species of Christianity. The book is not entitled Fundamentalism and Liberalism. Instead Liberalism is vying with Christianity as a separate religion. He wrote the blurb for the book:

Liberalism on the one hand and the religion of the historic church on the other are not two varieties of the same religion, but two distinct religions proceeding from altogether separate roots (see note 27).
Stonehouse tells us that Machen’s only regret is that he had not used the term “Modernism” rather than “liberalism” in the book, since the word “liberalism” seemed to give too much credit to the phenomenon (see note 28). The words refer in Machen’s vocabulary to the same thing.
Now what was that?

Here again Machen did not move quickly with the Fundamentalists to show that the modernists were people who denied certain fundamental Christian doctrines. That was true. But his analysis was wider and deeper. He approached the phenomenon of Modernism first through an analysis of modern culture and the spirit of the age. He tries to think through the relationship between Modernism and modernity (see note 29). He wants to understand it from the inside as it were, on its own terms. Provided by Desiring God.

Piper quotes Machen in one of his subtitles:

Machen alerts us to the danger of indifferentism – the attitude that says “affirming or denying truth is not a matter of great import . . . just leave the doctrines aside and unite on other bases.”

Machen impressed:

Calvinism is not a specific variety of theistic thought, religious experience, [or] evangelical faith; but just the perfect manifestation of these things. The difference between it and other forms of theism, religion, [and] evangelicalism is difference not of kind but of degree … it does not take its position then by the side of other types of things; it takes its place over all else that claims to be these things, as embodying all that they ought to be (see note 23)…Thoroughly consistent Christianity, to my mind, is found only in the Reformed or Calvinist Faith; and consistent Christianity, I think, is the Christianity easiest to defend. Hence I never call myself a “Fundamentalist” … What I prefer to call myself is not a “Fundamentalist” but a “Calvinist” —that is, an adherent of the Reformed Faith. As such I regard myself as standing in the great central current of the Church’s life—the current that flows down form the Word of God through Augustine and Calvin, and which has found noteworthy expression in America in the great tradition represented by Charles Hodge and Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield and the other representatives of the “Princeton School” (see note 26)…

To this Machen asserts:

Liberalism on the one hand and the religion of the historic church on the other are not two varieties of the same religion, but two distinct religions proceeding from altogether separate roots (see note 27).

The historic church:

that flows down form the Word of God through Augustine and Calvin, and which has found noteworthy expression in America in the great tradition represented by Charles Hodge and Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield and the other representatives of the “Princeton School”

Then what remains? That is a difficult question because we are faced today with the Emergent Church and a plethora of “modernist” spirited churches. Pragmatics, rather than dogmatics, E.Y. Mullin’s latitudinarianism rather than the narrow path are the soul of conservatives such the Southern Baptist Convention. As Piper says, the infatuation with the new, the popular, breeds a desire to redefine reality. What eventuates is a post-modernist world where desconstruction of meaning leads to dissolution of the transcendent fixed reality of meaning; the dissolution of the sufficiency of Scripture. Unfortunately, the battle for inerrancy wrecked upon the rocks of opinion and a false definition of soul competency and liberty of conscience, of free-will and autonomy. No longer is it politically correct to demand of fellow believers the adherence to certain meaning in Scripture, to certain creeds (beliefs). The reality is that we are far too willing to let opposing opinions stand equally under the rubric of unity and cry “Peace, peace,” when we are at war.

I stand with Machen upon this truth that my brother’s are in error in their Arminianism. And most fundamentalism is Arminian. An error that cannot be allowed to stand if we are to reverse the tide of modernistic advances against the dependability, that is the authority, of the Word of God. We can not admit equivocation saying that the Arminian’s doctrine is acceptable and on equal footing, for that undermines the very definition of the perpescuity of what we say we know to be true. It is also dishonest and disingenuous treatment of a watching world which is not unlike fundamentalism’s anti-intellectualism, that Machen so loathed. Machen was right when he acknowledge Arminianism as the “rebellious daughter”. He recognized that she must be turned, she must repent, for from her refusal to admit to the historic clearity of Scripture, for from unclearity arises the Phoenix of modern error. Arminianism was a return to the Roman Church and traditionalism, contemporaneous magisterial interpretationism, a return to the sacramental faith of free-will and the auto-nomos, self-law. The Reformers exalted the Scripture to its rightful place and fought for the truth it contained against Rome whose fount was not unlike that of the current milieu.

Do you suppose that I do regret my being called by a term that I greatly dislike, a “Fundamentalist”? Most certainly I do. But in the presence of a great common foe, I have little time to be attacking my brethren who stand with me in defense of the Word of God (see note 19).

It was this struggle against mondernism that moved him to tolerate Arminianism as a necessary ally.  I have criticized Machen for this tolerance of Arminianism because tolerating it led to marginalizing Reformed doctrine, today. He at least was not timid in his defense of Calvinism as the true Gospel. So we can thank him also in that he draws the battle lines of our current struggle for us against the diminution of Christianity for us at any form of Arminian doctrine, and its architects, who refuse the clear language of Scripture. That, as Machen would inform us, is the source of all modern error.

What is shared among the modernist or the post-modernist, the fundamentalist and Arminian, is the very thing that Machen decried; the need to undo definition and create a new meaning for words that have long been understood. The heart of Machen’s effort as Piper remarked: What I prefer to call myself is not a “Fundamentalist” but a “Calvinist” —that is, an adherent of the Reformed Faith. As such I regard myself as standing in the great central current of the Church’s life—the current that flows down form the Word of God through Augustine and Calvin…

Happy Reformation Day

After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the Scripture), “I thirst.” A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth. When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

The problem for most who claim the name is that they really don’t believe that Christ finished the mission of John 17. Was he glorified by the father for having saved those he prayed for, including those who would believe on his word, and not those in the world who the Father had not given him. Or does he lose some?

As the video says, not one drop was wasted on those who would not believe. It was a perfect sacrifice.

So, You Want To Be An Elder?

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.

Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.

The Greek word epithymeo connotes more than a passing notion, or a fleeting infatuation. It is the idea of an all consumming passion, one that denies all other suitors. It denies its self-pursuits. It says there is no greater love than this.

I recently heard in an installment service the depth to which this calling reaches into the heart of a man. The selected verses were out of Colossians 1: 24-29. Their importance should not be neglected, nor should the fact that this charge given to Paul by Christ, empowered and worked in him by the Spirit, is the same charge that Paul entrusts to Timothy to pass on to other faithful men who in turn are to do the same. Paul urges Timothy as one called to be a fellow elder, to labor and suffer for Christ in this manner:

You then, my child, be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him. An athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules. It is the hard-working farmer who ought to have the first share of the crops. Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything. Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my gospel, for which I am suffering, bound with chains as a criminal. But the word of God is not bound! Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

The abandonment of civilian pursuits coupled with the enduring of suffering has in mind only one object: the sake of the elect.

When we couple that together with: “For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable,” we find that there is no turning back, no laying down of the cross, no removing the hand from the plow once the call of God on a man to become an elder burns with epithymeo. Lest any consider this verse as only referring to general gifts, Paul goes on to describe particular calling to ministry:

For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.

As it has often been said, a man who is content to do anything other than be an elder, has not been called to be one. This does not mean that a man might not work at an occupation, but what it calls for is that even those things, eventually, be laid aside for a life with single minded purpose:

Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. Only let us hold true to what we have attained. Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us. For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.

Dr. J. Ligon Duncan III writes:

Now the other thing that you need to know when Paul is speaking here, is that Paul doesn’t describe elders in terms of office or status, but in terms of work. Notice that Paul says that “if any man desires this work….” Paul is concerned for the work, for the function of the elder; not so much the status or the title, or the prestige of the office. Paul’s concern in speaking of the qualification of desire is not that a man would desire a status of authority and reputation, but that he would desire a work.

Now let’s get back to the desire. That is the first qualification: he desires this work. What is Paul saying? Paul is saying that the first qualification of the eldership is that a man would desire to do the spiritual work of a shepherd in the church. Not that he would desire to be esteemed in the local congregation as one who is holding the highest rank that the church has to offer. And it is a glorious thing, my friends, to be an elder…

…But the thing that Paul wants is not a man to aspire to that honor, but to aspire to the work. He wants men who are burning with the desire to shepherd the people of God. He wants men who want to be pastors. All elders are pastors, not just preachers! Not just professional, full-time ministers, but all elders are pastors.

So what are you looking for, when you’re looking for an elder in the church? You’re looking for a man in this congregation who wants to shepherd the souls of people. Yes, they have to make hard decisions about budgets and buildings. But you know what? They do that because they love you. That’s the part of the job that they have to do. What they really love to do is shepherd the souls of men and women, and boys and girls. That’s their great desire. The other stuff they have to do: that’s their great desire. The other stuff they have to do. We’d almost have to pay them to do that other stuff, because it’s hard! But the thing that they really desire is the pastoral, shepherding ministry.

That’s the first qualification for an elder. He has to desire to shepherd the people of God. You can see that in a man. You can see that in the way a man studies his Bible; you can see that in the way a man studies to teach the word; you can see that in the way a man commits himself to the life of a local congregation, in the way he attends church (Sunday morning, Sunday evening and Wednesday night)—you can see those desires expressed outwardly in a man who desires to shepherd the people of God. He’s involved in evangelism and discipleship, he is involved in preparing to shepherd the people of God. So there’s the first qualification. He has a desire for the work of ministry that is entailed in being an elder.

And I might add that he attends to that purpose as Paul might refer, to spend and be spent for the sake of the flock as an undershepherd of the Chief Shepherd as one who laid down his life for them as the sole consumming passion of his heart. To Jerusalem, to the cross, as the Chief Shepherd, the elder forbids anything to interfere with attaining the one goal, the highest calling, set aside as one whose life and purpose is consumed by a single desire.

Peter wrote:

Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. (1 Peter 5:1-4)

John MacArthur said:

…by virtue of their calling and their gifts and their affirmation by the church, they have a responsibility that is different than the rest of the sheep. Responsibility is the key word, or accountability. The Chief Shepherd will hold them responsible—he will call them to give an account someday for exercising oversight. The rest of the sheep will not be called to give an account for oversight. Only the elders, the shepherds.

The calling is not to be slighted by spending effort to fill life with civilian pursuits. The presenting of a bride without spot or blemish to Christ is too precious a charge to have interests divided. The crown is too prescious to be seen as an addendum to the things that other men desire.

John MacArthur continued:

…The Lord has always sought for leaders. In some ways, apart from the very work of God Himself in an individual’s life, spiritual leadership is the most essential element of church structure. So it is an important calling.

There is really no more important calling than this. The Lord has always sought for leaders. You can go all the way back into the Old Testament, 1 Samuel 13:14, and you read there, “The Lord has sought out for Himself a man after His own heart.” You find again the words of Ezekiel 22:30, “I searched for a man who should stand in the gap before Me for the land.” God has always looked for leaders. There is a great need in the church for spiritual leadership.

I read you somebody’s description of how a pastor ought to act, and some of you might be saying, “That’s a too demanding kind of exhortation for me to deal with.” Others might be saying, “Let me have at that. In the power of the Spirit of God, that would be what I would like to be,” and the difference is the compelling of the heart.

I never compel anyone to go into the ministry or the pastorate. If that is not an all-consuming desire of the heart, then either the call of God is not there or sin is there, which means the call of God is muffled. Either way they aren’t fit for ministry. If the call isn’t there or if the sin is there muffling the call, then who am I to call them to ministry?

…this is a demanding calling. He says it is a noble, fine, honorable work. It is a work. It is not just an honored position. It is a lifelong task.

…Paul said to Timothy, “Do the work of an evangelist.” To the Thessalonians Paul wrote and said, “Honor those over you for their position,” no, “for their work’s sake.” Paul in Ephesians 4:12 talks about the work of the ministry. It is a demanding calling. It is diligent, hard work.

…And then finally, it is a holy calling. Verse 2, an overseer then – then -takes us back, because it is an essential calling, because it is a limited calling, because it is such a compelling calling, because it is such a responsible calling, because it is such a noble calling, because it is such a worthy calling or a – not only a worthy calling, but a hard calling, a demanding calling. An overseer then must be above reproach. He must understand it’s a holy calling, because only a holy man could approach such a formidable task.”

At Jerusalem there arose debate about tasks less important, yet tasks necessary to be done. The Elders’ reply was succinct:

Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”

It is too important, and as John MacArthur says, it is a work which requires diligence because it is a formidable task. Now consider, if the secondary ministries of serving in other capacities in the church was not deemed important enough to distract, then how much less civilian pursuits from which they had already been called. Jesus in calling Peter and Andrew said, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” This is a defining moment, they were to leave home, family, occupation for the high calling of becoming shepherds of God’s flock. They were to be made holy men, set aside, made overseers, not self-willed to be. The task is too precious, too demanding, requiring the absolute attention of the laborer called into the harvest, and cannot be subjugated to the things that occupy the lives of other men. It is a monumental thing, a good and hororable thing, a consuming, arduous work, to aspire to be an elder. But it must be a desire above all else, or it is not God calling.

Paedobaptism Presumes Grace

From the 17th Article of the Canons:

The Salvation of the Infants of Believers

Since we must make judgments about God’s will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.

If children who die in infancy are holy is it true that they are always elect and assured of salvation?

If the answer to that is yes, is it possible that children who grow up can reject the covenant? That is, if they are holy by the covenantal relationship of the parents, of which they were not parties to its creation or consummation in Christ, but only are made its beneficiaries by virtue of relationship with the parent, can they by their actions void that which God promises cannot be voided?

John 1: 12-13 tells us:

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

The first thing we notice from this is that it is those who receive who are those who believe and are given the right to become children of God. Second, it is they who are not born of anything inherent in man, but exclusively are born of God.

The word blood in this passage is in the plural indicating lineage; bloods are those who are in relationship to the progenitor as offspring. The right given to become children of God is in contradiction to this means. That is, the right to become the child of God does not inhere in the relationship of natural offspring to their natural parent. It goes along with another famous passage:

“But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.”

This means that it is not the children of the flesh, of natural procreational descent who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. The children of Abraham who are of the faith came through Isaac. There is a natural disconnect and a necessary spiritual connection made with the promise of God. For this is what the promise said:

“About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Notice, it is clear that the relationship to the believing parent does not gaurantee, place into covenant by natural descent, Esau. And that before they were born. The conclusion is that the children are not affirmed as in covenant by natural generation, but election. The promise of Isaac likewise, was not of natural descent, but the passages are clear that his was a miraculous conception beyond the means of natural man.

We remember also that it was not Ishmael who was sanctified by his relationship to Abraham eventhough Abraham pleaded with God that it might be so. In fact all three negative cases out of John come into play in the relationship to the covenant made with Abraham. What makes the covenantal relationship is God’s declaration and the children are so called children of promise… not procreation.

Here is the analysis. Even though Dort has in mind what has been the traditional view, it holds little value except for comfort. In another portion the Canons we read that this mystery is not to be pried open by vain inquiry. There is mystery in election. Infant covenantalism would eliminate such. So it is held that it was the elect infants who are regenerated and made holy ones who are those who are the ones in covenant relationship. It cannot be said that all infants are elect. It is not simply a blanket covering because there is blood lineage. Despite the beauty of this Canon and of the WCF, of Calvin’s erudition and many others also, it is error to say that bloods make for one’s election.

Dort says

not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included.

The bible passage being addressed is:

For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

The problem of course is the meaning of holy. If it is true that the children are considered to be elect, then why not the unbelieving spouse? The passage is addressing the legitimacy and sanction of mixed marriage -believer to unbeliever- and whether or not it is acceptable to remain so when one has been converted in marriage and the other not, 1 Cor 7:10, cf. vs 17. Curious is verse 16. There is no reason to accept that a believing spouse sanctifies the husband to election, and likewise no reason to extend election to the children by the same logic. Paul is making appeal to the marriage covenant which is not annullable. If divorce ensues, that would make illegitimate children out of legitimate. Or in other words, it would make unholy what God considers holy and so the issue of that unholy relationship. The context, regardless of Calvin’s take on it or any others, is marriage, not election.

John 1 says that the right to become children is not contingent upon the relationship with the covenanted parent, but it is a covenanted right given to those who receive and believe who are those who are born of God and not of natural descent. Point being, they believe. Short of the confession of faith, we have no knowledge as to the status of a person’s election. To make 1 Cor 7 say what it does not is to contradict John. That cannot be allowed no matter how appealing it might be to think that all children of believing parents are elect.

In the case of this clause of the Canons of Dort, infant baptism is not necessarily indicated, eventhough one may make historical appeal to it. The holiness indicated is that of informal relationship with the fellowship of believers derived from the formal relationship. They can be afforded only the common blessing of the covenantal parent, and cannot be afforded anything more because, as the clause stipulates, they are not regenerate according to nature, and therefore cannot be said to be in the body of Christ. Being unregenerate, having no part in the body of Christ then, they would not be eligible for all benefits pertaining to the believing parent such as baptism and the table.

The mystery of election is great, and one that is not to be taken for granted. We all too often find that holy little children grow to be whores to the faith and horrors of history. To say that those who once were considered elect can grow to dishonor Christ, rejecting him wholly, blasphemously and heretically, and die so, were once holy ones who lost their faith, is to deny the very thing that makes the promised covenant His perfection and not ours.

In a discussion of paedo versus credo baptism, often the arguement resolves to confessions and church history so I approached it through this discursis on a portion of the Canons of Dort. Some appeal to it, and others to the WCF, or the church fathers, as their authority for infant baptism. Our authority should not rest there, but instead in Scripture and what can be reasoned about the subject from it. Making baptism requisite to inclusion in the covenant would reverse much of the rest of what the Canons teach. The Canons reject the works that forms so much of Arminian schemes- much of the reason for the Reformation and the rejection of Roman teaching. Our faith is not one of instrumentalism, nor of implicit mental assent, nor one in which the sacraments become the ticket to heaven because dad happened to believe and it was credited to his children as righteousness. We find that it is for this very reason baptism of infants is not commanded or even indicated in Scripture. Though one might think baptism of infants might find its way into the Canon, it did not. It isn’t because it would have lent credence to the heresies being denied by the Canons which had attempted to make man’s affiliations, efforts and will, the determiners of the convenantal relationship and not that of the grace of God:

This same election took place, not on the basis of foreseen faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, or of any other good quality and disposition, as though it were based on a prerequisite cause or condition in the person to be chosen, but rather for the purpose of faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, and so on. Accordingly, election is the source of each of the benefits of salvation. Faith, holiness, and the other saving gifts, and at last eternal life itself, flow forth from election as its fruits and effects. As the apostle says, “He chose us” (not because we were, but) “so that we should be holy and blameless before him in love” (Eph. 1:4).

If obedience of faith does not make even a believer to be in covenant according to election, but rather faith itself is a benfit, a “fruit” flowing out of election, if children of believers can reject the faith and be condemned, how much less so infant baptism where it is, without doubt, the act of another’s faith?

The WCF holds:

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.

V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time.

But we must ask why. If it is true that the efficacy is not attached to time, then why not comform to Scripture which places the right to become children of God as being a receiving and believing post new birth? Why even consider presuming upon the grace of God in this way? As with the Supper, where the body and blood of Christ are offered to be consumed, hiding as it were, Christ within the believer, baptism performs the complimentary symbol of being hidden in Christ. This symbol of vital union, though, is accepted as reality only upon confession of faith. Then we must finally ask, why would anyone diminish its meaning by presumptive baptism of infants as though it were based on a prerequisite cause or condition in the person?