I believe that this next interaction with Greenbaggins promises to be pretty helpful. He is still critiquing the tenth chapter of RINE.
“In other words, for Wilson, the objective nature of baptism means that all people who are baptized come into the same relationship to the covenant, in this sense: that they are all under the same sanctions of the covenant, either for cursing, or for blessing. In fact, he identifies the sacrament with the blessings and curses of the covenant (p. 90). What I would ask is this: what kind of union does he mean? Saving union? Unsaving union? The union of a branch, or the union of a parasite?”
The short answer first. The kind of union I mean is covenantal union. And when the tree in the scriptural metaphor is the covenant, then I mean the union of a branch. When wheat and tares in the scriptural metaphor are distinguishing true faith from false, then I mean the union of proximity, as with a parasite. Scripture speaks to this issue both ways, and so should we. Wheat and tares are always ontologically different. When you wash a pig you have a clean pig. When a dog vomits, you have a hungry dog. At the same time, when Jesus cuts the fruitless branches out of the Vine, He is removing them from a position which they share entirely with the fruitful branches (John 15). Same thing in Romans 11, when Paul talks about the olive tree. We need to layer our illustrations, and not treat them as discrete billiard balls that cannot occupy the same space at the same time.
And I looked at page 90 of my book, and the closest thing I could find to Lane’s summary was this. “There is no power in the sacrament itself; there is power in that which the sacrament is identified with — the blessings and curses of the covenant itself.” I can see that my phrasing here could have been more, um, as the present writer would say, were the present writer a Victorian, felicitious. I did not mean that the sacrament should be identified with sanctions, as though I was talking about the essence of the sacrament, or as triangles are to be identified with three-sided figures. I meant that the sacrament was closely identified with sanctions, as I (the present writer) am identifed with Moscow. I was not saying that there is a definitional identity between the sacrament and sanctions.
I think that this helps address the next question as well.
“But if that is the case, then I have this question: how can the thing signified in the sacrament (which I do not believe is the sanctions, but rather the promise of benefit) be said to be given to the non-elect?”
I don’t believe that the sacrament signifies sanctions, but rather than it signifies Christ. When this Christ is seen in faith, the necessary result is blessing. When Christ is rejected through unbelief, the result is a curse.
“And I realize the danger of inappropriate partaking of the Lord’s Supper (see 1 Corinthians 11:27). But does this constitute part of the essence of the Sacrament? Or is it a distortion of the Sacrament?”
“The thing signified is a positive thing, not a negative one”
So we are not talking “things,” or “essences,” but rather Christ. In the personal encounter between Christ and the covenant member, there is either love or enmity. Love is the characteristic of the regenerate heart, and this love sees Christ (accurately) as Savior. Enmity is characteristic of the unregenerate heart, and this enmity sees Christ (accurately) as Judge. Christ viewed rightly is of course a blessed Savior. But when the sinful heart rejects Him, and that sinful heart belongs to a covenant member, the result is covenantal sanctions.
So I agree with Lane that the sacrament is given to us in a positive way, expecting the best. The cup is described as the cup of blessing, not the cup of blessings and curses. But, because certain Corinthians despised that blessing, many were sick and some had died. Uzzah died because he got too close to the mercy seat.