The next issue of Credenda is going to be addressing the whole issue of the Federal Vision, and in that issue you will find a statement of convictions signed by some of the leading participants in this conversation — we have released that document early so you can take a look at it here. For hard copy, get a hold of the next Credenda.
Greenbaggins is continuing his conversation with me here, and I respond below.
There are places where I don’t differ with the substance of what Lane is saying, but I wouldn’t put it the way he does.
“The elect participate in the ordo salutis and the non-elect don’t, even if they are all participants in the administration of the covenant of grace. I’m not sure that Wilson would disagree with this. And least, I hope he doesn’t”
No, I don’t disagree. But let me make this qualification. The ordo is not a car you ride to heaven. Rather, presupposing election, it is a description of what happens to a person throughout the process of his salvation. I do agree that it accurately describes what happens to the elect, and does not at all describe what happens to the non-elect. But at the same time, I do believe that the reification of certain theological abstractions sometimes gets in the way.
Lane asks what covenantal union is, and how that covenantal union relates to the ordo salutis. But he sets the stakes in a truly odd way.
“In order to be Reformed, the FV would have to prove that ‘covenantal union’ confers zero ordo salutis benefits.”
But what is this? There are at least a couple ways to take the word “prove” here. One is to establish to somebody’s satisfaction that there is no inherent logical contradiction between our view of covenantal union and decretal theology. But this is not a requirement we apply elsewhere. In order to avoid hyper-Calvinism, you need to affirm that man is responsible along with an affirmation that God is exhaustively sovereign. But do you need to prove it? Yes, in the sense that you have to prove each of these tenets from Scripture. No, if you mean that you have to prove there is no logical contradiction between them. I can’t do that — I can’t show the math. But I can easily affirm both as being taught in the Bible. But this leads to the next sense of the word prove.
It could mean that we need to prove that we really do hold to both covenantal union and decretal theology — in short, the demand might be that we have to prove that we’re not lying. But when distrust has escalated to the level it has, something like this is almost impossible to prove as well. How do I prove that I am not a lying skunk? But, for what it’s worth, I do affirm that all God’s people, elect and non-elect, share in a covenantal union with Christ. I also affirm that the fullness of this heritage belongs in truth only to the decretally elect. And so, Bob’s your uncle.
“Would Wilson agree that the Covenant of Grace is made with Christ and with the elect seed in Him (LC 31)”?
Yes, I would — in the narrow sense. In the broad sense, the covenant of grace is made with all believers and their children. I do this for the sake of making basic doctrinal distinctions, and the difference beween the elect and non-elect is one of those distinctions. Just let it be noted that the “broad sense” should not be read as the “not really sense.” What is lacking is efficacy, sealing, assurance, and security. Connection to Christ is not lacking.
The next issue is an important one. Speaking of the place where I said he was out of accord with the Westminster Confession, Lane says this.
“The second point that needs to be addressed is the refreshing honesty of Wilson on the Confession here. He is right in this: the FV interpretation and the critics’ interpretation of the Confession CANNOT both be right and allowable. Wilson is of course specifically applying this idea to the issue of baptismal efficacy, which is the topic under discussion. However, Wilson’s statement seems to have a broader application. In other words the FV should drop the facade that the Reformed world is just one big umbrella that can house many different views, and that the Confession allows both FV views and TR’s to exist simultaneously. No, it cannot. The FV interpretation and the TR interpretation contradict one another. That is what the TR’s have been saying all along. It is refreshing to see an FV guy say so.”
I want to respond to this with a series of short responses so we can get on to the question of baptismal efficacy. First, Lane is right that I believe our interpretations of the section on baptismal efficacy contradict one another. But it was not my point to extend that point to the entire Confession. Second, this can only be done if it is assumed that the Confession is infallible and inspired. A uninspired consensus document (as Westminster was) most certainly can make room for different views in a way that, say, the book of Romans doesn’t. Now I believe that what we call the TR view of things has had an honored place in the Reformed mainstream since the Reformation. But so has the position that we are now calling FV. Simple question: did any of the delegates to the Assembly affirm baptismal regeneration (in the traditional sense) and did any deny it? And did they all vote?
Now, leaving aside baptismal regeneration in the classic sense, let us rather talk about the nuanced Westminsterian take on baptismal efficacy. Here Lane is simply wrong about the Confession and needs to take an exception. He says:
“But the grace promised in 28.6 is the efficacy of baptism as a sign and seal. This must be distinguished . . . from the thing signified”
What Lane is saying here is that the grace that is exhibited and conferred is not the grace itself, but rather the grace of a promise of grace. But his point is tautological. Baptism exhibits and confers baptism.
“I would say that in the case of the baptized regenerate soul, the sacrament of water baptism really exhibits and confers the grace of baptism as sign and seal at the appointed time”
Compare this to the statements of Westminster itself.
“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 (WCF 28.6).
But if the efficacy of baptism refers to the impartation of the sign and seal of baptism, then the “efficacy” of it is tied to the moment of administration. That is when the sign and seal is applied, right? The grace promised is not the same thing as the grace inherent in the act of promising. God shows His gracious nature in making this promise, true enough. But the grace promised is clearly the grace signified. Now grace signified only belongs to worthy receivers, it only belongs to those to whom it properly belongs (the elect). But for those elect, the Westminster divines taught, explicitly, that the grace promised in baptism is really exhibited and conferred on the elect at the moment of their regeneration. Lane doesn’t have to like it, but this is what the words say. It cannot be what Lane is arguing for here. If it were, then the efficacy of baptism is anchored to the moment of adminstration. The only reason for detaching the sign and thing signified in time is because the thing signified often comes at a different time in a person’s life than the moment of their baptism.
And just a quick comment on Lane’s reasoning about this.
“If baptism confers regeneration upon the elect only, and not on the non-elect, then it does not confer regeneration for the elect either, since such a position requires that regeneration be located within baptism itself. And if it is located within baptism itself, then regeneration would also be conferred on the non-elect, as indded some say”
Here’s the problem with Lane’s reasoning. Just substitute the word Word for baptism, and his reasoning applies just as well (or as poorly). The Word cannot regenerate because two men sat under the same sermon, and one was converted and the other not. If the Word regenerated in itself, then all who heard it would have to be born again. If the reasoning doesn’t apply to the Word as a means of grace, then it doesn’t apply to baptism either.