Lane and I continue our discussion.
First, on baptism. Lane wonders what “formally” means when we say that baptism formally unites a person to Christ. He then says that if this means that baptism “puts one into the visible community of the people of God.” Well, that is what it means, with this one proviso. We believe that the visible Church is genuinely connected to Christ. I would ask Lane if he believes the visible Church to have a connection to Christ. The Vine has true branches that are removed because they are untrue. We agree with Lane that baptism obligates the one baptized to repent and believe.
Lane then discusses the details of the word regeneration in Matthew 19, which I think is neither here nor there, because he is arguing that baptism is not in that text. Correct, but it is in the Westminster Confession. Something that is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, and all that it represents, is surely involved in the regeneration of the world (28.1). How could it not be, when the nations were to be baptized into the triune name, and taught to obey all that Christ taught? Since all that happens in the Regeneraion, how can it not be related?
But Lane comes down to the point when he says this: “In other words, according to this statement, baptism initiates one into the historia salutis, but not into the ordo salutis, according to the Joint Statement.” Right. Perfect. What is what we are saying. Lane represents this as a problem, but why should it be? In the historia salutis, the world is reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:19). What should an individual person therefore do? He should get his personal ordo baggage onto the historia train, that’s what he should do (2 Cor. 5:20). The world is reconciled; be ye therefore reconciled. The discrepancy only exists for those who are in the process of missing the train, and we shouldn’t do theology based on their neglect.
When we deny that trusting God’s promises concerning baptism does not “elevate” baptism to a human work, this only means “elevate” in the fevered imaginations of those who would do such a thing. And yes, FVers are routinely accused of trusting in the sacraments in some kind of popery-jiggery way.
Lane unfortunately misrepresents my views when he says:
“That FV interpretation says that when the WCF says that the efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered, it means not a “delayed reaction” type of thing, but rather a “continuous effect” type of action.”
I have made very clear that my view is that, for worthy receivers who are converted sometime after their baptism in water, the grace of baptism is a “delayed reaction” kind of thing. It is a “continuous effect” kind of thing only for those already converted, because the grace of baptism is, in addition to everything else, a sanctifying grace.
But I was heartened to see Lane move closer to the Westminsterian position on baptism than other FV critics have been thus far willing to do. He repeats some of the qualifiers that the Confession gives (those to whom the grace belongs, in His appointed time), but he does appear to acknowledge that this baptismal grace is saving grace, and not just sanctifying grace. It is hard to do otherwise when the Confession says that the grace promised in the sign and seal of baptism (covenant of grace, ingrafting, regeneration, remission of sins, and commitment to walk in newness of life) is really exhibited and conferred on that group of people demarked by all the qualifiers. And for the record, I agree with all those qualifiers. I also agree with exhibited and conferred. Me and the Westminster divines, we’re like that.
Lane then discusses our previous interaction, saying, “If one means faith as an instrument of laying hold of the righteousness of another, then Adam did not have faith.” But nobody ever said that the object of Adam’s faith would be the same that ours has to be. All we are saying is that the demeanor of trust in God has to be present at all times for all faithful creatures. The verb is not the direct object. Adam had to have preserving faith in God; we had to have saving faith in Christ. Nobody is saying that Adam had to have saving faith, or justifying faith. Just faith faith. You know, believe what God said faith. The verb is not the direct object. If God tells one man to hop on his right foot and another man to hop on his left foot, they both obey when they believe Him and do what He says. Same faith, different feet.
I honestly cannot comprehend what is so difficult about this. We are not trying to get our direct object back into Adam’s Garden. What would possess us to want that? All we are saying is that if Adam’s obedience was the ground of his continued acceptance with God, then the ground of his acceptance was faithful obedience. And that obedience was the probationary requirement. If Adam had fulfilled it, that too would have been the gift of God. We are Calvinists, remember.
But Lane said, “Faith isn’t the ground. Adam’s obedience was.” This obedience of Adam’s, was God just looking at the outside of it, not caring what was going on in Adam’s heart? How can you evaluate an action before God without evaluating the motive force of it? That motive force would have to have been faith.
Lane and I appear to agree on the organic development of notitia, and maybe we are getting somewhere.