Stevie Wonder said it best….

I dunno.  Mebbe I’m obtuse.  I would love to see some work on the word “sign” in regards to the sacraments.  Most take it as merely representative, not really the thing a se but the thing really per se.  That is, the sacraments are mere promises to do something not the act of the thing to be done.  But I think this is to deflating.  In baptism God does not merely say, “With this water I, thee, promise.”  He has already made the promise in his word–”I will be your God and the God of your children.”  So that when baptism comes around it is a SIGNificant act of God being acted out: I am making good on my promise.  I have given you children and they are mine.  It’s a done deal.  Signed, sealed, delivered, I’m yours. [that's the Stevie Wonder part]

Take what a friend of mine wrote me:

The word “applied” is used in Q. 92 of the WSC in reference to the sacraments in general:

Q92: What is a sacrament?
A92: A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ, wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed [which means ‘promised’], and applied to believers.

Huh?!  When does one word mean another?  When does “sealed” (very definite) mean “promise” (very blah!) ?   I mean, come now.   A promise is not the thing but the earnest vow to provide the thing.  A seal is at least the production of the thing promised.  Or it is the verity of the thing enacted.  My wedding ring is not a promise to my wife but the seal of my promise.  They are not the same thing.

Then, when the WSC addresses baptism specifically, two questions later, the word “applied” is noticeable absent, having been intentionally omitted:

Q94: What is baptism?
A94: Baptism is a sacrament, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, doth signify [same as ‘represent’] and seal [which means, ‘promise’] our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord’s.

The word “sealed” clearly means “promised” and not “applied”, otherwise Q# 92 would be redundant.

No.  I do not accept this poor use of vocabulary.   Seal does not mean promise nor does it mean applied.  The only true statement is that it would be redundant if this were so.  But to use the WSC own language, the sacraments, represent, seal and apply.  Baptism signifies and seals.  To say that these words merely only stand for one thing and are not the reality of the thing itself is to deflate them.

Commenting to be continued……

The WSC represents a compromise position on the sacraments between those in the Church of England who had a “high” (Catholic) view of the sacraments and those who had a “low” (Calvinistic) view.  The language is carefully nuanced to appease both sides, but it definitely does NOT teach baptismal regeneration or baptismal justification.  These doctrines, which are held by some in the FV camp, are completely unacceptable to historic Reformed thinking and to the PCA and to New Covenant.  They are held by Catholics, Lutherans and many Anglicans, but they undermine much of Calvinistic doctrine and much of Paul’s teachings and are unacceptable in reformed circles, whether that be the Scottish Presbyterian tradition or the Dutch Reformed tradition. 

I believe in the promises of the covenant of grace, and I am eagerly looking forward to the day when my boys will profess Jesus as their Lord and Savior before the church and the world.  However, I believe it would be dangerously presumptuous for me to say that they are now already saved or justified or regenerate simply because they have been baptized.  God has made a promise and the waters of baptism represent that promise and apply the promise (“seal” – the application of a promise to a particular person) to my boys, but I am still looking forward, by faith, to the day when the Lord will keep that promise.

It is similar to where you and I stand with regard to our glorification.  God has promised it.  We trust God for the promise.  We have received the Holy Spirit as the seal / deposit / guarantee of the promise (Eph. 1), but we cannot yet say that we have been glorified and that we are already perfected.  While that it a finished reality from God’s perspective (Rom. 8:30 and Heb. 10:14), yet it would be dangerous and presumptuous for me to say that God has already made me perfect and I am now perfect.

Final Justification and John Robbins

Final Justification.JwRobbins.MP3

Auburn Avenue and Union

AuburnAve. Union With Christ.MP3

Alan Strange on “Relational vs Legal”

<a href=”Alan Strange.Relational VS Legal

Got baptism? Got Jesus.

 Butchering covenant theology by espousing that FV-ers get grace through the sacraments Sorensen objects that “We [Christians]” get grace by faith.  This is typical of how far yet we have to go in defending sola gratia.  I feel like this battle is likened to a poor marriage relationship where the husband is saying on thing and the wife hears something else utterly foreign.  Listen to the Confession,

WCF 27.2 

There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.(1)

(1)Gen. 17:10; Matt. 26:27,28; Tit. 3:5

WCF 27.3 

The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it:(1) but upon the work of the Spirit,(2) and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.(3)

The grace of the sacraments is real.  How is it made sure?  Not a se.  Not in themselves.  Bread is wheat and yeast.  Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen and all parts AquaFina®.  (I should get endorsements.)  It is made sure b/c the Spirit makes it so.  It is also accompanied by a word of institution and assurance.  The word of assurance is termed here “promise of benefit.”  That promise of benefit is grace, love, mercy, favour, forgiveness, adoption, etc.

And elsewhere:

WLC 155  How is the word made effectual to salvation ?

A. The spirit of God makes the reading, but especially the preaching of the word an effectual means of enlightening,(1) convincing, and humbling sinners;(2) of driving them out of themselves, and drawing them unto Christ;(3) of conforming them to his image,(4) and subduing them to his will;(5) of strengthening them against temptations and corruptions;(6) of building them up in grace,(7) and establishing their hearts in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation.(8)

WLC 161  How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?

A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered, but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they are instituted.(1)

Again, and again, we see the combination of the Spirit’s work with and in and by the sacraments juxtaposed with faith.  Faith is the key.  Do I get grace through the sacraments?  Yeah, you bet.  You come, too.

FV-ers see union with Christ as central where as “we” see justification.  Really.  How is one united to Christ? Faith.  What is the verdict of the one united to Christ? Justification.  Is it really this hard? 

Brother, are you…..

 The scriptures do not know of a Christian who is not baptised; there are exceptions…they are not the rule. To say the same thing in a different way: the scc do not know of a baptised person who is not a Christian. It is vital to understand this b/c there are times when people speak in such a way that is not biblical. Someone might say, “Well, I think she’s a Christian” or “Do you think he’s a Christian?” And we might have valid reasons for questioning their faith. We might see a person’s life and have cause to wonder about their faith b/c their fruit is slim-to-none. Has the person made a person made a profession of faith, that Jesus is King? And then, has that person taken to herself the sign of God’s relationship which is baptism. If those two things are in place: the profession of faith and baptism, that person is a Christian in the fullest sense. We must understand this. A baptised person is a Christian. Again, there might be certain responses, “But what about…” or “Yes, but, she is…” We must understand that first and foremost a person’s relationship with God is contractual. It is a binding contract. It would be like asking, “Do you think that he’s really married?” What we are really saying is, “He’s not acting married (he doesn’t touch his wife affectionately, etc).” You see, were we to see a ring on his finger, we would understand that he has gone through the ceremony and is truly married even if he acts contrariwise. So to ask, “Is he saved?” is not the question. The question is truly, “Is he baptised?” For if he has not gone through the ceremony, the question is moot. Do you follow?

Repent and be Circumbaptisised!

 Baptism and the circumcision of Christ: OT sign is twofold: one is a threat of death and exile from the life that God promises in his cov’t; it threatens the sign taker with the reminder that breaking this cov’t (ie abandoning God completely, wholly, fully) leaves the believer with no hope but death. So when A took the Sign to himself and his posterity, he basically said, “We are followers of the one true God and is we leave the protective love of this one true God, there is nothing for us but God’s curse.” So A would raise his children to follow in faith this one true God upon the pains of death. Christ is circumcised for us; he is cut off from the land of the living as he hung on the cross. Not b/c of his cov’t unfaithfulness but b/c of ours b/c left to ourselves we would forsake God. Left to ourselves we would turn from him. And in order for God to protect us from ourselves is to remove from us our rebellion; and the only way to do that is to carry out the curse of the cov’t. You see way God removes rebellion is by cutting out the rebellious; severing them from this life. To carry out the consequences of sin God must perform this surgery. But God. But God demonstrates his own love for us in that while we were sinners, Christ was cut off for us. This is the good news of God’s love. Were you to stand before God on your own, you would be cut off; you would have no hope; you would be circumcised were you to stand on your own. And that is why we need Jesus. By the circumcision of Christ, we are cut off. B/c Christ has been cut off, we will not be. But that does not take away from the fact that we are obligated to walk in faithfulness. This is no different that the OT; when sacrifices were offered in the OT there is the demonstration of circumcision in the negative sense; every time an animal was offered up there was the crucifiction typified. So if we were to put Paul’s words in Colossians in the language of the OT sacrifices, we would say we are circumcised by the circumcision of this lamb; of this bull. I am preserved because this animal is being cut off in my place.

What’s the Big (or)Deal?

 So what’s the Big (or)deal about baptism?

a.      in baptism declares to us that the same love with which he loves his son belongs to each of us by faith

b. it is faith that determines whether or not baptism’s curse or blessing is applied to the person baptised both in this life and in the life to come.

The sign = reality. How do you know God loves you? We might give answers that reflect a works answer: I know God loves me b/c I believe in Jesus. But the whole point of the Gospel is to direct your gaze away from yourself to the promises of God. So that, so many times we doubt our salvation. So many times we flop and flail in our assurance of God’s love: (whining) “How can God love me after what I just did? There’s no way…there’s no way he can love m…”

NO! Listen, How do you know God loves you? There is no stronger, biblical answer than, “I know that God loves me b/c I am baptised.”

Why? B/c the sign is so powerful; not b/c of me but b/c of him who promised his unending love in the sign. In the sign, he promised to pour out his love; his affection and devotion; his entire being into being your heavenly Father. So that to doubt the sign is to doubt God.

Do you doubt your faithfulness? Remember your baptism.

Do you doubt your salvation? Look to the visible promise.

Do you doubt your heart? Trust God. He loves you.

(sniveling) “But I don’t feel like…”

AH! Listen! He was washed away your stain. Look to the sign.”

“I don’t think he..”

“Look to the sign. Do you have the sign?”

“Yes.”

“God loves you.”

“That’s all you have to remember.”

Well, that’s not ALL, but it’s most.

Let me count the ways…

 

“How do you know God loves you? Do you have the sign?”“Well, I hope so. I’m a pretty good person all around, ya know…“No! Are you baptised?”“Well, I never really saw any need to…”“No. God does not love you.”“Whadaya mean God doesn’t love me?”“Because you have something within you that needs to be cleansed.”
”Sin, I know. But I believe Jesus died for me.”“OK. Great. Then you must come to God and receive his promise to you to be your Father. Not to take the sign is to not take God as your Father. He gives you a sign—not of your faith, but for your faith, even the weakness of your faith. And you are weak sometimes and God wants you to know that all of his covenant promises are Yes to you. I love you. I will never forsake you.”“God, do you love me?”“Yes.”“How can I be sure?”“I have washed you in the blood of my son.”   

I can’t say…..really

 A credible profession of faith for admittance into the visible church? Ok.
As I listen to John W Robbins (www.trinityfoundation.org) in his lectures on AA theology (www.sermonaudio.com) I am constantly preaching to myself as I drive my 18 wheeler all over God’s blesses state of PA. Brothers, as I listen to these lectures I am constantly and consistently falling more and more in love with the healthier view of grace (ahem, the FV).
Robbins is a Clarkian and begins his series by condemning the AA/FV as Van Tillian heretics. He continues to espouse that we deny propositional truth for relational schmaltz.
John Robbins will critique the AA/FV for proclaiming that belonging to the church by virtue of profession and baptism across the board eliminates the possibility of talking appropriately to the flock. That is, if by baptism one is adopted, justified (sic), sanctified…..etc but can later fall away, how can one have any assurance? Surely, he concludes, there can be no true assurance of perseverance if in the future one can fall away.  We lose, he says, one of our beloved Calvinistic doctrines: definite atonement.  Do we?

But to the issue of able to talk or not talk.  Does this biblica doctrine of apostasy take away from a pastor’s ability to speak to his sheep?  I believe, rather, it establishes it.  Truly (this has already been said in previous FV publications) the Bible gives us the language with which to speak to our sheep.  I recall at my ordination exam falling for the “ol’ banana in the tail pipe.”  On my exam I was asked, “Why does WSC # 4 not include “love” as one of the attributes of God?”  I wished I would have said, I mean really, I wished I would have said, “B/c the nature of covenant and God’s relationship to man through it can change.  A man who is newly converted and baptised can be thoroughly assured of God’s love b/c of that man’s repentance unto life, faith in Christ, and endeavour to walk in newness of life.  But, were that man to apostasize (sic) later on, he could not be assured of God’s love.  So, insomuch as WSC #4 lists attributes of God that are immutable, I conclude therefore, yea and verily, that God’s love in this regard and in this fashion cannot be said to be immutable…..” But instead I said, “Heh! Got me there.”

Actually I did say the former.  U can imagine the hullaballoo.  I was reemed.  But on further discussion with the committee, I asked one of the venerated and esteemed T.E.s of our presbytery, “So you are saying that b/c you don’t know the eternal decree, you aren’t able to say to the person you just baptised, ‘God loves you.’?”  He looked me in the eye and (with much pre-Sonship-Jack-Miller-pharisaical-matter-of-factness) said, “No.”

Now, who has the speech impediment?