You are currently browsing the monthly archive for January, 2008.
“Let them know that a spark from heaven, though kindled under greenwood that sobs and smokes, yet it will consume all at last. Love once kindled is strong as death. Many waters cannot quench it, and therefore it is called a vehement flame, or flame of God, kindled in the heart by the Holy Ghost. That little that is in us is fed with an everlasting spring. As the fire that came down from heaven in Elijah’s time licked up all the water, to show that it came from God, so will this fire consume all our corruption. No affliction without or corruption within shall quench it. In the morning, we often see clouds gather about the sun, as if they would hide it, but the sun overcomes them little by little, till it comes to its full strength. At first, fears and doubts hinder the breaking out of this fire, until at length it gets above them all, and Christ prevails. And then he upholds his own graces in us. Grace conquers us first, and we, by it, conquer all else; whether corruptions within us, or temptations from outside us.”
-Richard Sibbes, The Bruised Reed (p.99)
Well, I’m about finished with the Bruised Reed, and must conclude that it is probably one of the most spiritually comforting treatises I have ever read. Since being diagnosed with a chronic disease in my high school years, I’ve travelled through times of spiritual darkness, times when I couldn’t see the smiling face of God behind the frowning providences of ill health. Through these times, I’ve come to observe how many unbiblical substitutes are being offerered by certain leaders within the evangelical community. These cheap and un-satisfying substitues present themselves as spiritually powerful remedies for all of life’s troubes. What’s devastating is that many downcast souls are enticed by these substitutes, never suspecting that God in His infiinite mercy has given his children simple means for the comfort and satisfaction of their weary souls. Sibbes, in this passage, discusses the beauty of the sacraments. Through the sacraments, the Holy Spirit works to comfort, strenthen, enliven, and confirm our faith. They are God’s covenant mercies presented to our senses, truly offering the grace which they so wonderfully signify. Let us never embrace the allurements of this world, which promise joy, but give none. Let us cling firmly to the ministries of Word and Sacrament, trusting God to strenghten us through the means which He so wisely has ordained for our good.
“It yields us comfort also in desolate conditions, such as contagious sicknesses and the like, in which we are more immediately under God’s hand, that then Christ has a throne of mercy at our bedside and numbers our tears and our groans. And, to come to the matter we are now about, the Sacrament, it was ordained not for angels, but for men; and not for perfect men, but for weak men; and not for Christ, who is truth itself, to bind him, but because we are ready, by reason of our guilty and unbelieving hearts, to call truth itself into quesstion. Therefore it was not enough for his goodness to leave us many precious promises, but he gives us confirming tokens to strengthen us.”
-The Bruised Reed, Richard Sibbes (p. 55)
“It will prove a special help to know distinctly the difference between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, between Moses and Christ. Moses, without any mercy, breaks all bruised reeds, and quenches all smoking flax. For the law requires personal, perpetual, and perfect obedience from the heart, and that under a most terrible curse, but gives no strength. It is a severe task-master, like Pharaoh’s, requiring the whole tale of bricks and yet giving no straw. Christ comes with blessing after blessing, even upon those whom Moses had cursed, and with healing balm for those wounds which Moses had made. The same duties are required in both covenants, such as to love the Lord with all our hearts and with all our souls. In the covenant of works, this must be fulfilled absolutely, but under the covenant of grace it must have an evangelical mitigation. A sincere endeavor proportionable to grace received is accepted. Under this gracious covenant, sincerity is perfection. This is the death in the pot of the Roman religion, that they confound the two covenants, and it deadens the comfort of drooping ones that they cannot distinguish them. And thus they suffer themselves to be held under bondage when Christ has set them free, and stay in the prison when Christ has set the doors open before them.”
Richard Sibbes, The Bruised Reed
In my personal study, I keep coming across some excellent thoughts concerning baptism. My reason for posting them is to communicate the fact that both the Reformers and 17th century Puritans held to a robust baptismal theology which understood the sacrament, along with the Word and Spirit, as salvifically efficacious. Here are a few quotes I came across written by Calvin and Bucer. As you read them, ask yourself these questions: As Reformed Christians have we drifted so far from the sacramentology of the Reformers, that we’ve essentially re-defined the historic Reformed position on baptism in more theologically Baptisitc ways? Were you to read these thoughts without knowing who wrote them, would you suspect that they were penned by a Roman Catholic theologian, perhaps maybe even an article from the Council of Trent? Have we forgotten what the Reformers taught and believed concerning baptism? Are many Presbyterians no more than mere Baptists when considering the nature of this sacrament? Are some Presbyterians heirs of the radical Anabaptist’s when it comes to their theology of baptism?
“We assert that the whole guilt of sin is taken away in baptism, so that the remains of sin still existing are not imputed. That this may be more clear, let my readers call to mind that there is a twofold grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made, but that regeneration is only begun and goes on making progress during the whole of life. Accordingly, sin truly remains in us, and is not instantly in one day extinguished by baptism, but as the guilt is effaced it is null in regard to imputation. Nothing is plainer than this doctrine”. -John Calvin, Reply to the First Decree of the Fifth Session
“We confess and teach that holy baptism, when given and received according to the Lord’s command, is in the case of adults and of children truly a baptism of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, whereby those who are baptized have all their sins washed away, are buried into the death of our Lord Jesus Christ, are incorporated into him and put him on for the death of their sins, for a new and godly life and the blessed resurrection, and through him become children and heirs of God.”
-Martin Bucer
Here is an excellent quote by Caspar van der Heyden (1536-1580) which strikingly resembles the baptismal theology of Puritan Cornelius Burgess. He was a Moderator of the great Dutch Reformed Synods of Emden in 1571 and Dordrecht in 1574. Yes, that’s right, a moderator of the Synod of Dordt, the synod which systematized the doctrines of grace against the Arminian Remonstrants.
“Seed rests for a time in the earth, and takes root before one sees from its fruit that it has germinated … The root of understanding and of reason has been poured into all children, as soon as they receive life … God has planted a seed and a root of regeneration in the children of the covenant … In time, the fruits of the Spirit germinate from it. For he who has been baptized with Christ in His death, also grows from Him, like a tender shoot on a vine …” (Short and Clear Proofs of Holy Baptism).
If I were to tell you that a prominent Puritan theologian within the Westminster Assembly of Divines believed in the spiritually regenerating efficacy of baptism, would you believe me? In the contemporary Reformed world, while pastors and theologians are at each other’s necks with regard to the Federal Vision controversy, a general sense of “Romophobia” seems to hold a strong influence over many low-church Presbyterians who are genuinely frightened by any notion of baptismal regeneration. While this fear is in many cases valid, the question must be asked “Is baptismal regeneration within the bounds of historic Presbyterianism?” Now I know that unless “baptismal regeneration” is defined, this whole discussion can turn into a battle over unhelpful semantics and misunderstandings. By “baptismal regeneration” I’m referring to a view which states that the sacrament of baptism is used by the Holy Spirit to confer the spiritual blessings of regeneration, justification, union with Christ, and eternal salvation. Is this view, which regards baptism as a spiritually regenerating sacrament, within the bounds of confessional Presbyterianism? Further, does this view have a rich tradition of its own within the Reformed community? To my initial surprise a few months ago, the answer is yes! A little while back, I was introduced to a book written by the Westminster Divine Cornelius Burgess entitled “The Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants.” Burgess argues that the sacrament of baptism confers the blessings of regeneration and new life in Christ in its seed form. Burgess describes this process as “initial regeneration.” The blessings of regeneration are conferred upon elect infants in seed form through the instrumentality of baptism. This regeneration is limited in scope to elect infants alone, all others being in some sense ecclesiastically regenerated through their inclusion into the covenant of grace and their status as covenant members. This enabled Burgess to maintain his staunch Calvinism (one might argue that his sacramentology is closer to Calvin’s than many Puritan divines of his day) while regarding the sacrament of baptism as spiritually regenerative. Burgess regarded Calvin’s sacramentology on this issue as the very same view he was espousing, and his work is filled with citations from both Calvin and the early church Fathers. So the question remains “Is Burgess’s view consistent with the Westminster Confession?” Seeing that he helped write the confession, I would have to answer in the affirmative. It’s time for Presbyterians to re-examine their historical and theological roots. What makes us more than mere Baptist’s whose low view of the sacraments leads them to regard these precious gifts from God as empty symbols devoid of spiritually efficacy? Burgess might argue that his view rightly distinguishes Reformed Christians from their misled Baptist brothers. After looking through Burgess’s book, I came to realize that a pastor in the PCA by the name of Preston Graham holds to a very similar view. Graham is not a Federal Vision advocate, nor is he a paedocommunionist. His book “A Baptism That Saves” presents arguments very similar to Burgess’s. In conclusion, I’d like to quote from both Preston Graham and Cornelius Burgess on this point. Before that, let me add a note of personal experience. I began studying Lutheranism back in September. I read Luther on baptism, examined the Augsburg Conession, discussed the issue of baptism with LCMS pastors, and really wanted to believe as Luther believed. His exegesis on key baptismal texts seemed to be right on, and only a few minor objections were raised. Notwithstanding, I couldn’t come to embrace the extent to which Luther applied the efficacy of baptism. Luther extended the spiritually regenerating efficacy of baptism to all infants who were baptized. In a sense, I was disappointed. I couldn’t find a view similar to Luther’s within the Presbyterian community, until I came across Burgess. Through my discovery of Burgess, I came to realize that he was a Presbyterian theologian who brought two things together without any possibility of contradiction. In one hand, Burgess held to a robust baptismal theology which enabled him to regard this precious sacrament as a means through which God saves his people. In the other hand, Burgess embraced the doctrines of grace, arguing for the Biblical doctrine of the Christian’s perseverance. Here he was a confessional Presbyterian, a Westminster Divine, an English Puritan, a staunch Calvinist who rightly believed that baptism offers what it signfifies: new life in Christ for God’s elect. Personally, I’m very attracted to Burgess’s view. I can’t bring myself to disregard what the Bible says regarding the efficacy of baptism. I’m not theologically willing to throw out key texts like Romans 6:3-4 by regarding them as merely symbolic. I’ve come to the conclusion that Presbyterian sacramentology not only allows a view such as the one Burgess presented. This doctrine of baptismal regeneration is also consistent with the teaching of our confession, and to say otherwise borders on historical revision and blatant ignorance. I haven’t come down 100% on Burgess’s view of baptism. I’m still a learning student, and I’m thinking through the issues. At the same time, Burgess’s view is both consistent with Scripture, the confession, and historic Reformed orthodoxy. To say that such a view is outside the bounds of Reformed theology seems preposterous to me.
“The principal point … is that all elect infant do ordinarily receive from Christ the Spirit of regeneration as the first principle of spiritual life. This they receive, or their solemn initiation into Christ, and for their future actual renovation in God’s good time—if they live to years of discretion” -Cornelius Burgess, The Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants
“The sacramental view [of baptism] most accords with the idea of God’s initiating a covenant by his sovereign decree in election–effecting this through effectual calling. This is because, instead of God “watching/witnessing” the transaction represented by baptism, He is present as mediated through the sacrament to initiate and effect the covenant. He is God the covenant Actor, not merely God the covenant witness, and this is related to the whole order of salvation held by the Reformed tradition. Therefore, we don’t think of baptism as something we do, but rather as something God does–at least in the ultimate sense. While the recipient physically gets wet, God washes the elect to with the Holy Spirit unto regeneration in effectual calling. (But keep in mind the WCF qualifications according to the principle of God’s sovereign grace.)
Consider then the following passages of Scripture that, by a plain reading, will clearly depict baptism effecting salvation rather than merely signifying salvation–although it certainly does this as well–and ask yourself, Why impose a meaning that is not most natural and obvious from the language itself?
-Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, by baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and by teaching them… (Matthew 28.19)
-He saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we have done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3.5)
-And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you–not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (First Peter 3.1)
-For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have been clothed with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave nor free, there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3.27-28).
-For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit (First Corinthians 12.13).
-The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned (Mark 16.16).
-And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2.38).
-And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on is name (Acts 22.16).
-Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore, we were buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life (Romans 6.3-4).
-But by refusing to be baptized by him, the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves (Luke 7.20).
If you read these passages as if you have never even thought about the issue before, try telling yourself that each passage does not seem on the surface at least to treat baptism as somehow effecting something–namely salvation from sin in its various dynamics. So what is the most simple and honest reading of “be baptized … so that your sins may be forgiven and our sins washed away” except that baptism is in some sense effecting the washing away of sins? And again, if this were the only passage that seemed to imply this, we may then see if there is a less natural, albeit grammatically possible, way of reading it. But then we read Peter’s exhortation to “be baptized… so that your sins may be forgiven and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” What does the contingent and future language most naturally say except that baptism is in some sense viewed as transacting the gift of the Holy Spirit to the person being baptized? Or, we read that God “saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we have done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal of the Holy Spirit.” What “water” is this except the waters of baptism? And what does it do except “effect,” in some sense at least, ‘rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit?’” -Preston Graham, A Baptism That Saves
Well I’ve been away from blogger for a while, and intend to keep posting soon. My break provided me with some great reading time, all food for thought which I intend to write about within the next few months. Some of these topics include the Federal Vision, Eastern Orthodoxy, the covenant theology of the Roman Catholic Church, etc. etc. My friend Mike Dewalt recently posted some information on his blog about a “puritan reading challenge” which helps to bring you through 12 Puritan works in a year (1 book for each month). Since I have many of the books on the list already, I’ve decided to give it a try, and am currently making my way through The Bruised Reed by Richard Sibbes. I’ve read some of the book before, and am enjoying it immensely. Here’s the list if you haven’t been informed already.
January: The Bruised Reed by Richard Sibbes (128 pp)
February: The Mystery of Providence by John Flavel (221 pp)
March: The Godly Man’s Picture by Thomas Watson (252 pp)
April: Precious Remedies Against Satan’s Devices by Thomas Brooks (253 pp)
May: Come and Welcome to Jesus Christ by John Bunyan (225 pp)
June: The Mortification of Sin by John Owen (130 pp)
July: A Lifting Up for the Downcast by William Bridge (287 pp)
August: The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment by Jeremiah Burroughs (228 pp)
September: The True Bounds of Christian Freedom by Samuel Bolton (224 pp)
October: The Christian’s Great Interest by William Guthrie (207 pp)
November: The Reformed Pastor by Richard Baxter (256 pp)
December: A Sure Guide to Heaven by Joseph Alleine (148 pp)
