Archive

Archive for the ‘baptism’ Category

Chrysostom on 1 Cor. 7:14

January 1, 2018 3 comments

Chrysostom held to the legitimacy interpretation of 1 Cor. 7:14.

Ver. 12. “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord. If any brother have a wife that believeth not, and she is content to dwell with him, let him not leave her. And if any woman hath an husband that believeth not, and he is content to dwell with her, let her not leave him.”

For as when discoursing about separating from fornicators, he made the matter easy by the correction which he applied to his words, saying, “Howbeit, not altogether with the fornicators of this world;” so also in this case he provideth for the abundant easiness of the duty, saying, “If any wife have a husband, or husband a wife, that believeth not, let him not leave her.” What sayest thou? “If he be an unbeliever, let him remain with the wife, but not if he be a fornicator? And yet fornication is a less sin than unbelief.” I grant, fornication is a less sin: but God spares thine infirmities extremely. And this is what He doth about the sacrifice, saying, (S. Matt. v. 24.) “Leave the sacrifice, and be reconciled to thy brother.” This also in the case of the man who owed ten thousand talents. For him too He did not punish for owing him ten thousand talents, but for demanding back a hundred pence from his fellow-servant He took vengeance on him.

Then lest the woman might fear, as though she became unclean because of intercourse with her husband, he says, “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband.” And yet, if “he that is joined to an harlot is one body,” it is quite clear that the woman also who is joined to an idolater is one body. Well: it is one body; nevertheless she becomes not unclean, but the cleanness of the wife overcomes the uncleanness of the husband; and again, the cleanness of the believing husband overcomes the uncleanness of the unbelieving wife.

How then in this case is the uncleanness overcome, and therefore the intercourse allowed; while in the woman who prostitutes herself, the husband is not condemned in casting her out? Because here there is hope that the lost member may be saved through the marriage; but in the other case the marriage has already been dissolved; and there again both are corrupted; but here the fault is in one only of the two. I mean something like this: she that has been guilty of fornication is utterly abominable: if then “he that is joined to an harlot is one body,” he also becomes abominable by having connection with an harlot; wherefore all the purity flits away. But in the case before us it is not so. But how? The idolater is unclean but the woman is not unclean. For if indeed she were a partner with him in that wherein he is unclean, I mean his impiety, she herself would also become unclean. But now the idolater is unclean in one way, and the wife holds communion with him in another wherein he is not unclean. For marriage and mixture of bodies is that wherein the communion consists.

Again, there is a hope that this man may be reclaimed by his wife for she is made completely his own: but for the other it is not very easy. For how will she who dishonored him in former times and became another’s and destroyed the rights of marriage, have power to reclaim him whom she had wronged; him, moreover, who still remains to her as an alien?

Again in that case, after the fornication the husband is not a husband: but here, although the wife be an idolatress, the husband’s rights are not destroyed.

However, he doth not simply recommend cohabitation with the unbeliever, but with the qualification that he wills it. Wherefore he said, “And he himself be content to dwell with her.” For, tell me, what harm is there when the duties of piety remain unimpaired and there are good hopes about the unbeliever, that those already joined should so abide and not bring in occasions of unnecessary warfare? For the question now is not about those who have never yet come together, but about those who are already joined. He did not say, If any one wish to take an unbelieving wife, but, “If any one hath an unbelieving wife.” Which means, If any after marrying or being married have received the word of godliness, and then the other party which had continued in unbelief still yearn for them to dwell together, let not the marriage be broken off. “For,” saith he, “the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife.” So great is the superabundance of thy purity.

What then, is the Greek holy? Certainly not: for he said not, He is holy; but, “He is sanctified in his wife.” And this he said, not to signify that he is holy, but to deliver the woman as completely as possible from her fear and lead the man to desire the truth. For the uncleanness is not in the bodies wherein there is communion, but in the mind and the thoughts. And here follows the proof; namely, that if thou continuing unclean have offspring, the child, not being of thee alone, is of course unclean or half clean. But now it is not unclean. To which effect he adds, “else were your children unclean; but now are they holy;” that is, not unclean. But the Apostle calls them, “holy,” by the intensity of the expression again casting out the dread arising from that sort of suspicion.

Homily XIX on Corinthians

Advertisements

Presbyterian vs Congregationalist vs Baptist Sacramentology

December 7, 2017 Leave a comment

Visible Saints and Notorious Sinners: Presbyterian Sacramental Doctrine and Practice and the Vicissitudes of the Baptist Movement in New England and the Middle Colonies is an interesting essay from OPC pastor Peter J. Wallace. He argues that after the Great Awakening, baptist convinctions grew in Congretationalist New England but not in the Presbyterian Middle Colonies because of a difference in sacramentology. Both baptized infants, but they had different views of the visible church.

Congregationalists held to the “English Puritan” belief in “visible saints.” The visible church is for those who have been saved. The Scots and Scotch-Irish Presbyterians rejected that idea. The visible church is for those who want to be saved. Wallace traces some of the history involving Isaac Backus, showing how the baptists convincingly pointed out that if the church is for those who have been saved, then there is no reason left for baptizing infants.

In Congregationalism, in order to partake of the Lord’s Supper (become a “communicant member”), one had to become a visible saint by professing that they were saved.

While the early Puritans, such as William Perkins, still insisted on baptizing all children within the parish [i.e. every English-born child], the increasing emphasis on inward subjectivity and the “disciplined and communal character of the Christian life” in English Puritanism led to a growing emphasis on baptizing only the children of visible saints.[14]  The original New England Puritans attempted to combine the ideal of the pure church with the holy commonwealth [i.e. state church], holding purity and inclusiveness in tension.[15]

They began to recognize this tension and adopted the Half-Way Covenant solution: rather than becoming a visible saint, one merely had to “assent” to Christian doctrine and the desire to be saved in order to have their children baptized (they had to have “historical faith”). They still could not take the Lord’s Supper. According to Wallace, this was a half-step back towards Presbyterianism (rooted in the parish model). “Hereafter the sacraments took on new functions in New England culture:  baptism was the symbol of inclusion in the holy commonwealth, while the Lord’s Supper became the test of purity within the commonwealth.”

Stoddard

Many years later, New England Congregationalist pastor Solomon Stoddard recognized that tension still remained. He took another half-step back towards presbyterianism.

[T]he inclusive policies of the Halfway Covenant received an extra push from the presbyterianizing Solomon Stoddard… Stoddard argued that the church should indeed consist of visible saints, and that those who did not exhibit such signs should be excluded altogether and banished from the church.  But those who qualified for baptism also thereby qualified for the Lord’s Supper.  The Halfway Covenant erred in retaining too strict a definition of visible saints:  “There is not the least foundation in Scripture, for two sort of adult members, one that might, an other that might not come to the Lords Supper; unless they were under offense, or wanted sufficient knowledge for that Ordinance.”[26] Instead, he declared that the Table was for all who made a “solemn Profession of Faith, & Repentance, & are of Godly Conversation, having Knowledge to Examine themselves, & discern the Lords Body.”  This profession was not “an Affirmation that they have Saving Faith and Repentance” but only “an Assent unto, & Acknowledgement of the Doctrine of Faith & Repentance (as the onely Doctrine according to which they hope for Salvation) together with a Promise of Obedience to all the Commandments of God.”[27]

When Stoddard replied in 1690 that the Lord’s Supper was a converting ordinance, he did so on the grounds that the means of grace were intended for all those in the visible church, not only for those who were regenerate, but for all members of the covenant–thereby including only those unregenerate who were already within the covenant.[30]

Edwards & the Baptists

On February 15, 1727, Edwards was ordained minister at Northampton and assistant to his grandfather Solomon Stoddard. Stoddard died 2 years later, leaving Edwards to fill the pulpit. Eventually, Edwards came to disagree with Stoddard’s sacramentology and returned to the Half-Way Covenant, requiring a profession of saving faith for admission to the Lord’s Table. The Northhampton congregation kicked Edwards out of the pulpit, but his views took root elsewhere.

Insisting that only those who were admitted to the Lord’s Supper could have their children baptized (and requiring transfers from “impure” churches to make a full profession of faith), the New Divinity pastors were often indistinguishable from the Separatists, and frequently cooperated willingly with Isaac Backus and the growing Baptist movement.[37]

Moses Mather and the Old Calvinist establishment responded with alarm.  If gracious affections are “the Band of Union to the visible Church; it will follow, that no Person in an unrenewed State can be a Member of it.”[38]  In Mather’s mind, it was only a small step from such a position to denying infant baptism…

Pushing the visible saints criterion to the next step, Backus argued that only the Baptists could faithfully continue the New England tradition, since even Edwards and the New Lights compromised their principles by allowing non-professing infants into church membership.  Claiming that only the New Testament was a sufficient guide to understand who the church should admit to the sacraments, the Baptists relied heavily on the argumentation of the New Lights to show that the only way to guarantee a church full of visible saints was to stop baptizing babies.[43]

The Great Awakening alone (to say nothing of later developments) produced almost 100 separatist churches–many of which became Baptist.  C. C. Goen’s survey of these churches suggests that “the logic of the pure church ideal” drove New Englanders to affirm believers’ baptism as the only way to guarantee a pure church.[44]  Denying entirely that the “ordinances” of baptism and the Lord’s Supper were converting ordinances, Backus claimed that in them the “work of sanctification in believers is carried on,” but no salvific power.  Hence he denied access to all but visible saints.[45] He rejected infant baptism for several reasons:  1) it falsely supposed that there is no distinction between the old covenant, which was based on the family and the nation, and the new covenant, which was made purely with elect individuals; 2) it permitted the baptism of those who were neither regenerate nor even disciples, since they had not been taught; 3) historically, it was an innovation from the second or third century without warrant in the New Testament; 4) it violated the heart of the Puritan doctrine of visible saints, creating a territorial church that gets mingled with the world; 5) it is harmful to children by making them think that they are inside the covenant of grace, when actually even paedobaptists only believe that they are inside the external covenant; 6) if its advocates were truly consistent, they would give the Lord’s Supper to infants as well.[46]  His arguments resonated with his audience.  Within a span of only fifty years, nearly 300 Baptist churches were founded in New England.

Scottish and Scotch-Irish Presbyterianism in America

Presbyterian sacramental doctrine and practice was rooted in its Scottish and Scotch-Irish background.  Puritan sacramental practices had developed through their attempt to purify the Church of England, resulting in an emphasis on the gathered congregation of visible saints, called out of the world.  Presbyterian sacramental practices had developed through the resistance of local communities against external pressure from England (not to mention a century of struggle with Scottish episcopacy), resulting in a strong emphasis on the sacraments as bonds which held together the whole community… Since Presbyterians emphasized the church “as the means of organising and disciplining the whole society” they only required “external [i.e. non-saving] profession and decent conduct” for church membership.[53] … This Scottish and Ulster Presbyterian community was transplanted to the new world, where it developed in slightly different directions from the parent communities, but still within a similar trajectory.

Wallace argues that Baptist principles did not experience the same growth in the Middle Colonies as it did in New England because Presbyterian sacramentology was not as susceptible to baptist critique of Congregationalism. Presbyterianism did not require a profession of saving faith – only an assent to the truth of Christian doctrine (“historical faith”).

The Presbyterian practice was that virtually everyone should be baptized (even those who were born of scandalous parents could be sponsored by godly folk, who would thereby promise to give them a Christian education).  But some profession was required for admission to the Lord’s Table.  Not indeed the Puritan requirement of a conversion narrative, nor an Edwardsean profession of the will; they simply required that each communicant have an adequate knowledge of Christian doctrine and an outwardly godly life.  Only the scandalous and profane were to be excluded from the Table…

The practice of American Presbyterians in determining the subjects of baptism prior to the Great Awakening was set forth in the Minutes of Synod in 1735:

“And [we] do also exhort all the ministers within our bounds, to take due care in the examination of all candidates for baptism, or that offer their children to God in that sacred ordinance, that they are persons of a regular life, and have suitable acquaintance with the principles of the Christian religion; that that seal be not set to a blank, and that such be not admitted to visible church relation that are manifestly unfit for it.” [68]

Here there is neither a requirement for an account of a conversion experience, nor is there any mention of a “profession of faith,” per se.  Insisting that ministers could not judge the heart, they did not require positive proof of godliness, merely an understanding of the gospel and a life that was consistent with such an understanding [i.e. not scandalous]…

[W]hile some New Side Presbyterians were drawn towards a practice that echoed certain features of the halfway covenant, others appear to have retained the traditional Presbyterian understanding that Christ called all who were “labouring and heavy laden” to the Table.  The key difference from the Congregational practice is that Presbyterianism had no strong tradition of the “visible saints” doctrine.  Rather, colonial Presbyterians had inherited from Ulster and southwestern Scotland a tendency to develop regional communities organized around their presbyteries…

This also helps to explain why Baptists never took root among the Scots and Scotch-Irish.  Baptists affirmed an extreme version of the Puritan visible saints criterion, insisting that the church should be composed only of the hopefully converted.  Presbyterians had little interest in starting with visible saints; they gathered all but the profane and scandalous into the church and through preaching, catechizing, and communing, sought to transform the community into visible saints.

John Green & Modern Presbyterianism

In 1764, under the influence of Edwards, John Green sought to change Presbyterian sacramentology.

At first he had followed his mentors, Jonathan Dickinson and Aaron Burr in “admitting to the sacraments all who seemed desirous of leading a godly life,”[79] but now after reading Watts and Edwards he had decided that only those who could manifest a “relish for religion” would be permitted to have their children baptized (9)… Green concluded by asserting that membership in the visible church consisted of three things for an adult:  profession, life and baptism; but four for an infant:  being a child of believing parents, baptism, and then profession and life when he reached years of understanding.  Here he clearly followed the trend in New England to dissociate church membership from baptism.  Insisting that the church should discipline her youth, he argued that if by age eighteen or so they neither love Christ nor walk in his ways, churches should “drop them out of their number” (71).

Note that Green’s view matches the practice of modern American Presbyterianism. When a baptized infant becomes an adult, they must become a visible saint by professing saving faith, or else be dropped from membership entirely. But in the 18th century, Green’s views were rejected. “Faced with resolute opposition from even the New England-born ministers in the New York Presbytery, Green finally led a four minister secession in 1780, founding the independent Morris Presbytery on Edwardsean principles.”

Presbyterianism responded by the pen of John Blair. “Blair had previously established himself as one of the leading Edwardseans in the Presbyterian church” but came to reconsider his position. He argued since there is no promise of salvation outside the church, all those who want to be saved should be included.

Blair bluntly asserts that baptism alone makes one a church member:  “Membership in the Church of Christ admits not of Degrees” (9).  There are no grounds, he claimed, for distinguishing between the church and the congregation–as though one were gathered out of the other.  Rather, all who are baptized are commanded by Christ to come to the Table as soon as they have sufficient knowledge to examine themselves and discern the Lord’s body (11).

Rejecting Green’s insistence on trying to discern a work of grace, Blair argued that the “visible church consists of all those, who by an external Profession of the Doctrines of the Gospel, and subjection to the Laws and Ordinances of Christ, appear as a Society separate from the World, and dedicated to God and his Service” (13-14)…

Blair argued that if we view baptism as the seal of the covenant which truly makes us members of the visible church, then we should treat all baptized children as fully obligated to the covenant.  Those who do not live according to Christ should be cut off (20-21).  Yet the very means by which Christ has chosen to build faith within his people is through the sacraments.  Baptism and the Supper “exhibit Jesus Christ and him crucified” and by the Holy Spirit “quicken and raise the Affections, and enliven every grace” (21).  But if we truly believe that baptism brings our infants into the covenant, then we should believe that infants are “reputed the Professors of it untill they disavow it” (24).

But Blair went a step further and challenged the very notion of a profession of faith arguing that requiring a public profession of baptized infants denies their membership:  “Are not the signs which our Lord Jesus Christ has appointed and the Manner of Covenanting which he has prescribed sufficient, without the Addition of our own Inventions to supply the Defect?” (26).  Those who have been baptized should be welcomed to the Table as soon as they have sufficient knowledge to examine themselves.  No public profession is necessary…

[R]egeneration is not accomplished apart from the means of grace; hence we ought to welcome all who desire salvation into the church (74)…

In this argument Blair returns to the Scottish and Scots-Irish practice of viewing the sacraments as the bonds which hold the community together… [H]is description of the sacraments as converting ordinances … echoes the Stoddardean approach.  As odd as it may sound, Blair utilized an Edwardsean understanding of regeneration to undergird his Stoddardean (or more precisely, Presbyterian) view of the sacraments.

Conclusion

Wallace concludes

Scots and Scotch-Irish Presbyterians had never developed the “visible saints” criterion that had arisen among the English Puritans, but had welcomed all who desired salvation into the church.  While both camps may have sounded similar when insisting upon faithful participation in the Lord’s Supper, the actual practice of communion differed drastically, due to the fundamentally different conceptions of the nature of the visible church.

Below is attempt to categorize these differing views.

Baptism
Lord’s Supper
Non-Communicant Adults
Examples
Scottish Presbyterianism
all in external covenant:
regenerate & unregenerate
all in external covenant:
regenerate & unregenerate
only the scandalous; barred from communion but continue as members
John Blair, Solomon Stoddard
Half-Way Covenant
all in external covenant:
regenerate & unregenerate
visible saints
(profession of saving faith)
all baptized members who do not profess saving faith; continue as members & may baptize their children
Increase Mather*
Modern Presbyterian**
only the children of visible saints
visible saints
(profession of saving faith)
if fail to profess saving faith when an adult, then dropped from membership (no non-communicant adult members)
John Green, Increase Mather*, OPC, PCA
Baptist
visible saints
(profession of saving faith)
visible saints
(profession of saving faith)
none
2LBCF adherents, Benjamin Keach, Isaac Backus

*At first, Increase Mather opposed the Half-Way Covenant, but when challenged, he could not reconcile his opposition with the practice of infant baptism, so he embraced and began to defend the Half-Way Covenant. He later argued against Stoddard’s practice.

**I am not sure how best to label this position

Further Reading:

Baptism to a Thousand Generations?

October 8, 2017 2 comments

SummaryUpon the basis of how circumcision was administered, historically, the reformed practiced that the distant offspring of a believer were entitled to baptism, even if their immediate parents were unbelievers, apostates or excommunicates. Modern paedobaptists have rejected this practice, resulting in an inconsistency in their appeal to circumcision.


Joe Anady of the Confessing the Faith podcast interviewed former URC member and WSC graduate Mark Hogan about his change in beliefs from paedobaptism to credobaptism. In Part 3, Hogan mentions one of the inconsistencies that contributed to his change of mind. During seminary he read William Perkins arguing (from the basis of Israel) that the baptism of the believer’s offspring was not limited to the first generation, but extended down the line to include even offspring whose immediate parents were wicked. Hogan found no consistent answer for modern Presbyterianism’s rejection of this logic and practice. Gavin Ortlund explained this point was part of his change of mind regarding the baptism of infants as well.

Circumcision is given in Genesis 17:9 to “you and your seed [offspring, descendants; Hebrew zerah] after you, for the generations to come.” The individuals in view here are the intergenerational descendants of Abraham. The faith of an Israelite child’s parents was not what determined the child’s right to circumcision; it was the child’s association with the nation of Israel. In other words, the lines of covenant throughout the Old Testament weren’t drawn around individual believing families, but around the national family of Abraham. It wasn’t the “children of believers” who had the right to the sacrament of initiation, but the “children of Abraham.” So, given paedobaptist presuppositions, why not baptize the grandchildren of believers, too? If we’re really building off continuity with the Old Testament precedent, why stop at one generation?

Why I Changed My Mind About Baptism

Nehemiah Coxe made the same point in 1681.

The promises previously given to Abraham for his natural offspring involve those in remote generations as much as those immediately descended from him. And in some respects they were made good more fully to them than to the others… It was not Abraham’s immediate seed, but his mediate, that became as numerous as the dust of the earth and took possession of the land flowing with milk and honey…

The right of the remotest generation was as much derived from Abraham and the covenant made with him, as was that of his immediate seed, and did not at all depend on the faithfulness of their immediate parents. Thus, the immediate seed of those Israelites that fell in the wilderness under the displeasure of God were made to inherit the land of Canaan by virtue of this covenant with Abraham. They never could have enjoyed it by virtue of their immediate parent’s steadfastness in the covenant…

[I]f I may conclude my concern in this covenant is such that by one of its promises I am assured that God has taken my immediate seed into covenant with himself, I must on the same ground conclude also that my seed in remote generations will be no less in covenant with him, since the promise extends to the seed in their generations.

Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ, p. 90, 97, 106

Perkins

The reformed generally were in agreement with this point and put it into practice as part of their national understanding of the church. The quote that initially gave Hogan pause is from Perkins’ 1604 commentary on Galatians 3:26-28.

Thirdly, it may be demanded, whether the children of wicked Christians, that is, of such as hold in judgment true religion and deny it in their lives, may be baptized? Answer. They may. For all without exception that were born of circumcised Jews (whereof many were wicked) were circumcised. And we must not only regard the next parents, but also the ancestors of whom it is said, “If the root be holy, the branches are holy” (Rom. 11). Upon this ground children born in fornication may be baptized, so be it, there be some to answer for them besides the parents. And there is no reason that the wickedness of the parent should prejudice the child in things pertaining to life eternal.

Lastly, it may be demanded, whether the children of parents excommunicate, may be baptized? Answ. Yea, if there be any beside the parents to answer for the child. For the parents after excommunication remain still (for right) members of the Church, having still a right to the kingdome of heavens out of which they are not cast absolutely, but with condition, unless they repent: and in part, that is in respect of communion, or use of their liberty, but not in respect of right or title: even as a freeman of a corporation imprisoned, remaines a freeman, though for the time he hath no use of his liberty.

The Works of William Perkins, v. ii, 232

(Note the erroneous reading of Romans 11 that is necessarily required. Perkins must interpret the root not as Abraham, but as every believer. Every believer thus has their own tree of which they are the root down to a thousand generations.)

Calvin

Perkins was just repeating what previous reformers concluded. In 1559, Scottish Presbyterian John Knox wrote to Calvin asking “whether it be lawful to admit to the sacrament of baptism the children of idolaters and excommunicated persons before their parents have testified their repentance.” Calvin replied

Respecting the questions of which you ask for a solution, after I had laid them before my colleagues, here is the answer which we unanimously resolved to send

[I]n the proper use of baptism the authority of God is to be considered, and his institution ought to derive its authority from certain conditions, one of the first things to be considered is who are the persons that God by his own voice invites to be baptized.

Now God’s promise comprehends not only the offspring of every believer in the first line of descent, but extends to thousands of generations. Whence it has happened that the interruption of piety which has prevailed in Popery has not taken away from baptism its force and efficacy. For we must look to its origin, and the very reason and nature of baptism is to be esteemed as arising from the promise of God. To us then it is by no means doubtful that an offspring descended from holy and pious ancestors, belong to the body of the church, though their fathers and grandfathers may have been apostates. For just as in Popery it was a pernicious and insane superstition, to steal or forcibly abduct their children from Jews or Turks, and forthwith to have them baptized; so likewise, wherever the profession of Christianity has not been altogether interrupted or destroyed, children are defrauded of their privileges if they are excluded from the common symbol; because it is unjust when God, three hundred years ago or more, has thought them worthy of his adoption, that the subsequent impiety of some of their progenitors should interrupt the course of heavenly grace. In fine, as each person is not admitted to baptism from respect or regard to one of his parents alone, but on account of the perpetual covenant of God; so in like manner, no just reason suffers children to be debarred from their initiation into the church in consequence of the bad conduct of only one parent.

Calvin’s Lat. Corresp., Opera, ix. P. 201; Calvin, John. Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters vol. 7; edited by Henry Beveridge. Edmonton, Canada: pp. 73-76. via BaylyBlog

Rutherford

In the 17th century, this practice was challenged by Congregationalists who argued “we do professedly judge the Calvinian Reformed Churches of the first reformation from out of Popery, to stand in need of a further reformation themselves.” They argued that excommunicants are not members of the church and that only the immediate offspring of communicant members may be baptized. In response to this pressure, and to defend the national church model, Scottish Prebyterian and leading member of the Westminster Assembly Samuel Rutherford again argued from Abraham and Israel.

Therefore there was no more required of the circumcised but that they were Abraham’s seed according to the flesh, and by that same reason, there is no more required of infants that they may be baptized but that they be born in the Christian church… Now if God be the God of Abraham’s seed far off and near down, to many generations, the wickedness of the nearest parents cannot break the covenant, as is clear… These are to receive the seal of the covenant whose forefathers are in external profession within the covenant.  For God commands not Abraham only to circumcise his sons, but all parents descended of Abraham to circumcise their seed: the seed of Abraham carnally descended to all generations… We desire to know whom God forbade to be circumcised that were carnally descended of Abraham?  Or show us example or precept thereof in the Word.

But, say they: drunkards, murderers, sorcerers, swearers, and ignorant atheists, both fathers and mothers, whose children you baptize, do not profess the faith, for in works they deny and bely their profession.

Answer: 1. Then you will have the children of none to be baptized but those whose parents are sound and sincere professors in the judgment of charity. But so Joshua failed who circumcised the children of all professing themselves to be Abraham’s sons carnally, though Joshua knew and was an eye witness that their fathers did deny and bely their profession.

On The Baptism of the Children of Adherents

New England Congregationalists

In 1662, the New England Synod stated

Partic. 5. It is requisite unto the membership of children, that the next parents, one or both, being in a covenant. For altho’ after-generations have no small benefit by their pious ancestors, who derive federal holiness to their succeeding generations in case they keep their standing in the covenant, and be not apostates from it; yet the piety of ancestors sufficeth not, unless the next parent continue in covenant, Rom. 11.22…

If we stop not at the next parent, but grant that ancestors may, notwithstanding the apostacy of the next parents convey membership unto children, then we should want a ground where to stop, and then all the children on earth should have right to membership and baptism.

Modern Presbyterians

Modern presbyterian denomoinations that have rejected the unbiblical national ecclessiology of their forefathers have also rejected this unbiblical practice of the baptism of infants down to the thousandth generation.

For a child to be presented for baptism, at least one parent must be a communicant member of the Church… Only parents who are communicant members of the Church may be permitted to take parental vows.

OPC DPW 3.1.a

 

One of the few modern defenders of this practice, Gordon Clark, explains the logical implications of this modern abandonment of reformed tradition.

Does the Bible require or prohibit baptisms to the thousandth generation? If it does, and if a generation is roughly thirty years, a thousand generation from the time of Christ would include just about everybody in the western world. Then the church should have baptized the child of an intensely Talmudic Jew whose ancestor in 50 B.C. was piously looking for the Messiah. Or, George Whitefield should have baptized Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Tom Paine, as children, because one of their ancestors played a small role in the Reformation. Strange as this may seem to many, it ought to have been done if the Bible so teaches.

Some very eminent theologians have so held. The strictest view has not been universal; it is more American than European. The view that only the children of professing parents should be baptized seems to have been the result of colonial revivalism [and/or the rejection of a national church model]… as it… tended to view the ideal church as consisting entirely of regenerate persons… The logical result is the Baptist position; but in Presbyterianism it stopped short at requiring faith of the parents who wanted their children baptized. But if it did not result in Baptist practices, it involved a change in the theology of baptism.

-Gordon H. Clark. What Is The Christian Life? (Kindle Locations 1192-1194). The Trinity Foundation. Kindle Edition.

The problem with the modern pratice (as Perkins, Calvin, Rutherford, and the reformed argued in the past) is that circumcision was not administered in this way. This great inconsistency led Hogan and Ortlund to change their minds regarding the proper recipients of baptism.

I encourage you to prayerfully consider this matter.

See also:

Does 1689 Federalism require “Regeneration Goggles”?

August 17, 2017 4 comments

Critics of 1689 Federalism often caricature baptists as claiming to know who the elect are. This does not follow from any 1689 Federalism belief. We agree with the reformed “judgment of charity.” Based upon a credible profession of faith, we judge (with charity) a person to be saved. The only difference is that we do not believe that being born to a professing parent is sufficient warrant to charitably judge a person to be saved.

The following is a rather revealing Twitter conversation demonstrating 1) that there is nothing radical about baptists on this point, and 2) that some (many?) paedobaptists haven’t really thought through this issue.


AKA: Why I am not a baptist.

Notice in the final row where Denault explains the need to discern who is in the invis church to identify the visible. This isn’t a strawman

Aug 10

 Discern = judgment of charity based on a credible profession of faith. No different from paedo for those “of age.”

The chart says that the visible church is identified by a credible profession of faith, that’s not how reformed identify the visible church.

Aug 10

 I’m sorry, you’re really confusing me. Can you please clarify?

Maybe you can tell me what you aren’t getting.

Everything you’ve said in the above replies. How do you think the reformed identify the visible church?

Aug 10

via baptism, WCF 28.1 “Baptism is …not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church”

Aug 10

How do you understand WCF 25.2?

I’d have to look at what they intended by it, but I assume “professing christian” would include baptised.

Aug 10

However, what a thing is, and how you identify a thing are not the same thing.

What role does a credible profession of faith play, in your understanding?

Aug 10

It’s a means to determine if someone outside the covenant is serious about entering into it.

It wouldn’t make sense to baptize someone into the church who has no real interest in joining.

So credible profession just means “Wants to join the church”?

Aug 10

 with all that entails, yes.

“just means” sounds like it’s trying to make church membership into a small thing.

Aug 10

What is required for someone to be a communicant member?

For someone to be made a communicant member they have to publicly profess their faith and be baptized.

OPC DPW IV.B.1 says they must “give evidence of conscious saving faith in Christ.” Do you agree?

Ah, you’re talking about someone who is already a member. Yes, but this wouldn’t make them any less a church member.

It’s a protection against judgement for misusing the supper.

How does it protect? What would be misuse?

Eating or drinking without discerning the body, because of sin.

Sin in this instance would be lack of saving faith?

that could be an example, though I don’t think it’s the only one.

Does the public reception into full communion entail a judgment of charity that the person has “conscious saving faith in Christ”?

I think that’s fair, otherwise, what’s the point of fencing the table

Does making said judgment of charity require “regeneration goggles”?

non communicant members are still church members, the assumption is still that they are church members…

…but that they have some sin that requires repentance. The Q isn’t about regeneration. The only time it /might/ be is excommunication.

Does judging a person to have saving faith mean judging that they are regenerate?

It seems to me this is exactly the problem I was pointing out, you really want this to be about something invisible, and behind the scenes.

I’m saying that it isn’t, and a judgment of charity is exactly the kind of thing you use when you *don’t* know.

Ben, I honestly think you’re unnecessarily pushing yourself into a weird corner in this thread, becoming a polar opposite without good cause

Maybe so, my original point was, and remains that trying to ‘see’ the invisible church to identify the visible isn’t helpful.

I guess I’d just say I find that argument (baps try to see invis church) a straw man, realizing you wouldn’t agree.

Reconstructing the vis kirk w/ infant inclusion as primary deconstructs the system & is source of unnecessary polarizing to ur own hurt.

Aug 10

Aug 10

He says visible = ppl we have “reason to believe” are in invis. It’s not speculation or stating absolutes to connect prof of faith to regen

Would you say that Ref/Pres do the same thing, but just with different standards for ‘reason to believe’?

What do you think the different standards are?
For instance, a person might say that being born in a christian home *is* reason to believe they are in the invisible church.
In that case, you’d say baptists and ref’d are baptizing for the same reason.
This gets hairy because of disagreement about presumptive regeneration. But in that case, yes (see Utrecht 1905 Synod for example)
Yeah, personally, I’m not a fan of answering the regeneration question at all, as you could probably tell from my answers.
WCF 28.1 says baptism is a sign and seal of regeneration. OPC DPW IV.B.1 says public profession = “you have accepted God’s covenant…
promise that was signified and sealed unto you in your infancy by holy baptism.” To receive prof of saving faith = to judge regenerate.
Ben, can you acknowledge 1689 Fed view does not require “regeneration goggles”?
I don’t think I used those words in this convo, I think there is an over-emphasis on the invisible, but only use that phrase in jest.
Nor do I think baptists think they know who the elect are.
To clarify your view: how can you judge someone to have saving faith without judging them to be regenerate?

I received no reply to the last question, so I asked it again 2 days later.

To clarify your view: how can you judge someone to have saving faith without judging them to be regenerate?

I received no reply, so I asked again 2 days later. And again 2 days after that. I asked 4 times over the course of a week and was never given a reply.

Note this statement from an 1857 issue of the Princeton Review

And this statement from Hodge in an 1858 Princeton Review.

In sum, there is nothing radical about 1689 Federalism’s view of church membership.

For more on this, see

 

 

The Evolution of Reformed Paedobaptism

August 8, 2017 10 comments

The following stages of reformed paedobaptism can be discerned in history.

  1. Baptism presumes inherent holiness in adults and infants.
  2. Baptism is based on external holiness and therefore does not presume inherent holiness in adults nor infants.
  3. Infant baptism is based on external holiness, but inherent holiness is required to remain in the church as an adult.

1. Baptism presumes inherent holiness

Early in the reformation, Luther taught that conversion, faith, and salvation occurs at baptism. The reformed rejected this and argued that baptism was only a means of grace to those who had faith, not to all who received it. Lutherans were right that baptism signified conversion, faith, union with Christ, but not all who receive the sign have the thing signified. We cannot know which is which, so we presume that those who receive the sign have the thing signified. In the case of adults, this presumption is based upon their profession of faith. In the case of infants, this presumption is based upon God’s covenant promise. Ursinus said

[S]ay our [Anabaptist] opponents, the church ought to be satisfied with a profession of faith. This we admit, and would add, that to be born in the church, is, to infants, the same thing as a profession of faith. Faith is, indeed, necessary to the use of baptism with this distinction. Actual faith is required in adults, and an inclination to faith in infants… [I]nfants have the Holy Ghost, and are regenerated by him… In as much now as infants are fit subjects for baptism, they do not profane it as the Anabaptists wickedly affirm.

Baptism, which requires faith, is not profaned because the Holy Spirit can and does work faith (or the inclination of it) in infants.

2. Baptism is based on external holiness

Fast forward a hundred years to the Westminster Assembly where “The Grand Debate” between Congregationalists and Presbyterians took place. The Assembly was filled with Puritans who wanted to “purify” the Church of England from corruption – including corruption of the Lord’s Supper. Some have called these men “disciplinarians” because they advocated barring unworthy participants from the Lord’s Supper.

Within this context, Congregationlists argued against the national church, saying the reformed had not reformed enough. They said the national church was filled with adult “known unbelievers” who should not be considered members of the church – and therefore their children had no right to be baptized. This would nullify the national church model, wherein birth in the country granted one a right to baptism (their baptism was used as a birth certificate).

Presbyterians, continuing in line with the “magisterial reformation” sought to defend the national church, but this required a shift in belief about baptism and the church. The only way “known unbelievers” could remain members of the church and have their children baptized is if faith (actual or an inclination) was not a prerequisite for baptism and church membership. They argued that the covenant promise only referred to “external,” “federal” holiness, not to “inherent” holiness and faith. Thus there was no basis to presume infants or adults in the church had saving faith, and therefore no reason to exclude them. “Known unbelievers” were not allowed to partake of the Lord’s Supper (they were not “communicant members”), but they were still members of the church.

Debate on the floor of the Assembly is recorded in the Minutes. Thomas Goodwin (Congregationalist) argued

I do not know what distinction you will make betwixt federal and real holiness. It is such a holiness as if they die they should be saved. Whether a holiness of election or regeneration I know not but I think it is they have the Holy Ghost… I do not affirm that they are actually saved, but we are to judge them so.

Stephen Marshall, a Presbyterian, responded

I conceive we are not bound to judge that they are saved, for if so, that I must judge of them all singly that they are saved, I have no warrant. It is sufficient to believe in the general, that the infants of believing parents are federally holy.

Goodwin responded that “I am thy God and the God of thy seed” refers to inherent holiness. In one of his books, Rutherford argued that it did not.

If the root be holy, so also are the branches (Rom. 11:16).  Now this holiness cannot be meant of personal and inherent holiness, for it is not true in that sense.  If the fathers and forefathers be truly sanctified and are believers, then [it would follow] are the branches and children sanctified and believers.  But the contrary we see in wicked Absalom born of holy David, and many others.  Therefore, this holiness must be the holiness of the nation, not of persons…

[If the Congregationalist view is correct] it will follow that God speaks (Gen. 17) only to Abraham and his sons by faith (according to the promise) and only to believers.
But God speaks to all Abraham’s sons according to the flesh:
Because [otherwise] God should speak an untruth: that He were a God by real union of faith to all that are commanded to be circumcised.  For He commanded thousands to be circumcised to whom He was not a God by real union of faith…

But I fear that these who will have none baptized but the children of believing parents aim at this: that the faith of the father is imputed to the children (which indeed reverend Beza does maintain).  Or something worse: that infants are not to be baptized at all, seeing they oppose the places that we cite for the lawfulness of baptizing infants.

He concludes

We are against Separatists who will have the number of aged persons that are members of the church and the number of those who are to be admitted to the sacrament [of the Lord’s Table] equal.  We think multitudes are members of the visible church, and must be hearers as known unbelievers, who are not to be admitted to the sacrament [of the Lord’s Table].

This became the standard Presbyterian view. The visible and invisible church were formally separated and corresponded to an external covenant and an internal covenant. Bannerman summarized it thus:

As the Church invisible, it consists of the whole number of the elect, who are vitally united to Christ the Head, and of none other. As the Church visible, it consists of all those who profess the faith of Christ, together with their children…

This external relationship, in which the members of the visible Church stand to Christ, as having been brought into a Church state from out of the world, has been often spoken of by theologians under the name of an external covenant or federal relationship…

[T]he principles in regard to the visible and invisible Church already indicated have a very important bearing on the question of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of Infant Baptism… [T]he doctrine of the visible Church and its external covenant relationship to Christ, lays the foundation for those views of Church membership which justify us in regarding the infants of professing Christians as entitled to share the communion and privileges of the Church.

3. Infant baptism is based on external holiness, but adult membership presumes inherent holiness

In time, most Presbyterians (especially in America) came to reject historic Presbyterian ecclessiology (the national church). They followed the Congregationalists and held that a presumption of inherent holiness was required for membership in the church. But, with regards to infants, they still maintained that they should be baptized on the basis of an external, not inherent, holiness. Therefore infants should not be presumed to have inherent holiness, like adult members are. As R. Scott Clark explains “A baptized member is a sort of provisional membership. They are members but they are so with the expectation that they will make profession of faith [when they grow up].” The PCA Book of Church Order added a provision (56-4.j) not included in the original Directory of Public Worship.

By virtue of being children of believing parents they are, because of God’s covenant ordinance, made members of the Church, but this is not sufficient to make them continue members of the Church. When they have reached the age of discretion, they become subject to obligations of the covenant: faith, repentance and obedience. They then make public confession of their faith in Christ, or become covenant breakers, and subject to the discipline of the Church.

Thus modern reformed paedobaptism is a hybrid of the two above views. It rests upon a dichotomy between infant and adult membership. They are not members on the same basis. William Cunningham candidly admitted

It has always been a fundamental principle in the theology of Protestants, that the sacraments were instituted and intended for believers, and produce their appropriate beneficial effects only through the faith which must have previously existed, and which is expressed and exercised in the act of partaking in them…

[I]t is quite plain to any one who is capable of reflecting upon the subject, that it is adult baptism alone which embodies and brings out the full idea of the ordinance, and should be regarded as the primary type of it…

We have no doubt that the lawfulness and the obligation of infant baptism can be conclusively established from Scripture; but it is manifest that the general doctrine or theory just stated, with respect to the import and effect of the sacraments, and of baptism as a sacrament, cannot be applied fully in all its extent to the baptism of infants… [I]nfant baptism is to be regarded as a peculiar, subordinate, supplemental, exceptional thing, which stands indeed firmly based on its own distinct and special grounds…

Some men seem to shrink from laying down the position, either that the sacraments, or that baptism, should be held to be intended for believers, and of course to require or presuppose faith and regeneration, because this leaves out and seems to exclude the case of infant baptism… The giving undue prominence to the special case of infant baptism, is very apt to blind men’s eyes to the strength of the evidence, that baptism in its general import and object – that is, adult baptism in its legitimate use – implies a profession of faith in Christ, and can therefore be rightly received and improved only by believers…

[T]he full and adequate idea of a sacrament, as exhibited in adult baptism and the Lord’s Supper, does not directly and thoroughly apply to the cast of infant baptism.

In this way modern Presbyterians oppose the idea that infants are presumed regenerate. Cunningham notes “neither parents nor children, when the children come to be proper subjects of instruction, should regard the fact that they have been baptized, as affording of itself even the slightest presumption that they have been regenerated.” Of course, the problem with this view is obvious: it teaches two baptisms, not one.

4. A Return to 1.

More recently, some paedobaptists have recognized how divergent this modern view is from the original and how much ground is has conceded to baptists. They see the modern view of infant baptism as little more than a “wet dedication.” The Federal Vision movement is in large part a reaction to this. They consider modern Presbyterians to be much more in line with Baptists. The FV is contrary to the Westminster Confession and is not strong on historical theology, but others have likewise recognized the divergence and have pushed for a return to the original (#1) view outlined above. For example, in a Reformation 21 article, Mark Jones argued for Thomas Goodwin’s view. These men are ruffling the feathers of modern Presbyterians who hold to #3. Of course, as Rutherford and other Presbyterians argued, #1 ultimately forfeits the grounds for infant baptism at all.

5. Meredith Kline

We can also throw Meredith Kline’s new formulation of infant baptism into the mix (see here and here). He said the reformed have been wrong to base infant baptism on God’s promise (what he calls “a confusion”) because that promise is only to the elect. Infant baptism is not based on God’s promise. Rather, it is just simply a result parental authority over children. As long as our children live “under our roof” they are Christians and should be baptized. He said “One on this approach doesn’t face all of the awkwardness and embarassment that we make the basis of their being baptized because they are holy in Christ.” He said “The baptists are right there. Their criticism of the traditional Presbyterian argument is correct.”

Conclusion

So when you are talking to a paedobaptist, make sure to find out which one of these views they hold (they are probably unaware of the distinctions). There is quite a variety out there today and disagreements become much more convoluted & intricate than the above. Obviously this just provides some categories and contours for analyzing the issue. It’s not exhaustive. Hopefully this brief sketch will help make sense of some of the claims and the views you may encounter. It also illustrates how infant baptism has always been a practice in search of a theology.

For further reading:

Keach on Inconsistent Congregationalists

June 24, 2017 6 comments

In the 17th century, three main reformed camps were the Presbyterians, the Congregationalists, and the Baptists. The Presbyterians believed in a national church. Congregationalists believed the church consists of people who had been saved out of the world (the nation) who then gather together in congregations. No one was considered a member of the church until they had made a credible profession of saving faith and was thus admitted to the Lord’s Table. Baptists were Congregationalists who rejected infant baptism.

Keach recognized a great inconsistency in the Congregationalists. In fact, it was specifically this inconsistency that led to a controvery in New England, resulting in the Synod of 1662. The Congregationalists were faced very practically with Keach’s dilemma. They could not answer it, so they abandoned a key Congregationalist tenet and turned back towards a Presbyterian view, which did not restrict membership to those who had been called out of the world. This is known as the Half-Way Covenant.

As for our Brethren, called Congregational, I cannot tell what they mean by contending for the Practice of Pædo-Baptism, nor do I well know what their Sentiments are about it: they agree (as I do understand) with us (and other Christians,) that Baptism is an initiating Rite or Ordinance; now if their Infants are in Covenant with themselves, and are made visible Church-Members by Baptism in Infancy, and until by actual Sins they violate their Right and Privilege, abide Members thereof.

(1.) Then I would know whether they have their Names in their Church-Book, or Register, as Members? And

(2dly,) Whether they ever Excommunicate (or bring under any Church Censure) such of their Children who fall into scandalous Sins, or actual Transgressions, or not?

(3dly,) If not, what kind of polluted Churches must thir’s be, who have not purged out such corrupt Members?

The truth is, I see not how Infant Baptism is consistent with any Church State, unless it be National; and no doubt, the first Contrivers or Founders of it, devised that way for the Progress of that they call the Christian Religion, and so opened a Door, that Christ shut, when he put an end to the National Church of the Jews.—Therefore I wonder at our strict Independants, considering their Notions, (knowing how their Principles differ from; and their Understanding or Knowledge of Gospel-Church Constitution exceeds others) for Baptism does not initiate into their Churches, it seems by their Practice; unless their Children, when baptized, were thereby made Members with them.

Keach, B. (1693). Sermon III. In The Ax Laid to the Root, Parts I & II (Vol. 2, p. 34). London: John Harris.

(Note that modern Presbyterians, in abandoning the national church model, have followed largely in the path of Congregationalism)

1 Cor. 10:1-5 – Paedobaptist False Inferences

April 23, 2017 2 comments

The previous post provided an exposition of 1 Corinthians 10:1-5. Here we will address various false inferences that paedobaptists make from the passage. The basic argument is expressed succinctly by Berkhof.

E. The Old and New Testament Sacraments Compared.
  1. Their Essential Unity… [T]here is no essential difference between the sacraments of the Old, and those of the New Testament. This is proved by the following considerations: (a) in 1 Cor. 10:1-4 Paul ascribes to the Old Testament Church that which is essential in the New Testament Sacraments.

This idea found expression in the Westminster Confession.

27.5. The sacraments of the Old Testament in regard to the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new.*

*1 Cor. 10:1-4

It is also found as a reference for 7.5 (“which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah”) and WLC 174 & 175 (instructions about the Lord’s Supper).

The OPC also added the passage as a reference text for WCF 7.6 (“There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.”); 8.6; 20.1 (“All which were common also to believers under the law”); 29.7; WLC 61, (“Q. 61. Are all they saved who hear the gospel, and live in the church? A. All that hear the gospel, and live in the visible church, are not saved; but they only who are true members of the church invisible”).

 

Calvin’s Interpretation

 

The basic thrust is that Israel and the Church are one and the same. Their situation was identical to ours. In his commentary, Calvin argues

As, however, on examples being adduced, any point of difference destroys the force of the comparison, Paul premises, that there is no such dissimilarity between us and the Israelites, as to make our condition different from theirs… For they were favored with the same benefits as we at this day enjoy; there was a Church of God among them, as there is at this day among us; they had the same sacraments, to be tokens to them of the grace of God; but, on their abusing their privileges, they did not escape the judgment of God. Be afraid, therefore; for the same thing is impending over you…

[There is] both in the spiritual substance and in the visible sign a most striking correspondence between the baptism of the Jews, and ours…

“The manna,” says he, “and the water that flowed forth from the rock, served not merely for the food of the body, but also for the spiritual nourishment of souls.”…

Calvin’s argument (and those who followed him) hinges upon what Paul means by “the same.”

Farther, when he says that the fathers ate the same spiritual meat, he shows, first, what is the virtue and efficacy of the Sacraments, and, secondly, he declares, that the ancient Sacraments of the Law had the same virtue as ours have at this day. For, if the manna was spiritual food, it follows, that it is not bare emblems that are presented to us in the Sacraments, but that the thing represented is at the same time truly imparted, for God is not a deceiver to feed us with empty fancies.

As we saw in the exposition, that is not Paul’s point. Nowhere does Paul make a direct connection between the manna and the Lord’s Supper being “the same.” Paul’s point is that all the Israelites experienced the same benefits, yet only some lived. Calvin attempts to address this point.

Some explain it to mean, that they ate the same meat together among themselves, and do not wish us to understand that there is a comparison between us and them; but these do not consider Paul’s object. For what does he mean to say here, but that the ancient people of God were honored with the same benefits with us, and were partakers of the same sacraments, that we might not, from confiding in any peculiar privilege, imagine that we would be exempted from the punishment which they endured? At the same time, I should not be prepared to contest the point with any one; I merely state my own opinion.

Recall what Lange said

[W]e cannot admit the referring of the το αὐτό to the believers of the N. T, as if it meant, ‘the same with ourselves,’ nor allow the identification of these objects with the elements in the Lord’s Supper, as Calvin does. The expression ‘the same’ is rather to be joined with the word ‘all,’ which accordingly holds the emphatic place, and is five times repeated.

The text does not say the manna was the same as the Lord’s Supper. But if that is the case, then Calvin’s (and Westminster’s) entire premise fails. Paul’s point is not that the Israelites were “favored with the same benefits as we.” Perhaps that is why Calvin stubbornly refused to accept this interpretation (though he didn’t want to argue it). Calvin’s misreading of “the same” is directly tied to his misreading of “that rock was Christ.”

Some absurdly pervert these words of Paul, as if he had said, that Christ was the spiritual rock, and as if he were not speaking of that rock which was a visible sign, for we see that he is expressly treating of outward signs. The objection that they make — that the rock is spoken of as spiritual, is a frivolous one, inasmuch as that epithet is applied to it simply that we may know that it was a token of a spiritual mystery. In the mean time, there is no doubt, that he compares our sacraments with the ancient ones…

It is abundantly manifest, that something is here expressed that was peculiar to the fathers. Away, then, with that foolish fancy by which contentious men choose rather to show their impudence, than admit that they are sacramental forms of expression!

I have, however, already stated, that the reality of the things signified was exhibited in connection with the ancient sacraments. As, therefore, they were emblems of Christ, it follows, that Christ was connected with them, not locally, nor by a natural or substantial union, but sacramentally. On this principle the Apostle says, that the rock was Christ, for nothing is more common than metonymy in speaking of sacraments.

Because they ate the same spiritual food as the Lord’s Supper, Christ was the rock sacramentally. If Paul did not say they ate the same spiritual food as us, then Christ was not the rock sacramentally. Paul did not say they ate the same spiritual food as us, therefore Christ was not the rock sacramentally. Therefore Westminster’s appeal to this passage is mistaken. It does not prove that members of the Old Covenant participated in the same sacraments as the New Covenant. It does not prove that the Old Covenant is the New Covenant (contrary to Calvin’s argument in Institutes 2.10.5). It does not prove that Israel was the Church. Very simple.

Others give the word here its very common sense, pertaining to the spirit; as, in the preceding chapter, “carnal things” are things pertaining to the body, and “spiritual things” are things pertaining to the soul. The manna, according to this interpretation, was designed not only for the body, but for the soul. It was spiritual food; food intended for the spirit, because attended by the Holy Spirit and made the means of spiritual nourishment. This is a very commonly received interpretation. Calvin assumes it to be the only possible meaning of the passage, and founds on it an argument for his favorite doctrine, that the sacraments of the Old Testament had the same efficacy as those of the New. But this exalts the manna into a sacrament, which it was not. It was designed for ordinary food; as Nehemiah (9:15) says, “Thou gavest them bread from heaven for their hunger, and broughtest forth for them water out of the rock for their thirst.” And our Lord represents it in the same light, when he said, “Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness and are dead.” John 6:49. He contrasts himself, as the true bread from heaven which gives life to the soul, with the manna which had no spiritual efficacy.
Hodge

To understand what the passage does mean, make sure to read the previous post.

 

Inconsistencies

Let’s take a look at the inconsistencies involved in applying Calvin’s mistaken interpretation.

Paedocommunion

 

Modern reformed denominations have been arguing over the practice of paedocommunion. One of the arguments brought forward by proponents of the practice is 1 Corinthians 10:1-5. They point out that all the Israelites, children and adults, partook of the manna and water sacrament. Since it was the same sacrament as the Lord’s Supper, why are children now excluded? Matthew W. Mason argues

[F]or our purposes, it is important to note who was baptised and ate spiritual food and drank spiritual drink. Five times, Paul emphasises that it was all the Israelites. Although Daunton-Fear rightly observes that Paul’s primary intention at this point is not to discuss whether or not children are included in the Supper, the repeated ‘all’ does, by implication, including the infants and children of Israel. They too passed through the sea and were baptised into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. As we noted above, manna was to be gathered according to the number of mouths to be fed, including children. It was the only food available, just as the only drink available was water from the Rock, which was Christ. Thus, it seems fair to conclude that the children of Israel also fed spiritually on the manna, and drank spiritually of Christ. Paul certianly makes no move to exclude them at this point, and this in a letter where he stresses that the children of believers are holy (7:14). Moreover, we should note the contrast in verse 5, where Paul says that ‘with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.’ Who was excepted from God’s wrath? Joshua, Caleb, and anyone under the age of 20 at the time of the rebellion. The children of Israel are not entirely absent from these verses. Therefore, given the parallel between the manna and Rock and the Lord’s Supper, it seems fair to infer that children can still eat and drink spiritually of Christ, when they receive bread and wine…

The Old Testament evidence thus points strongly to the fact that covenant children had access to all of the Old Covenant meals to which their parents had access, including the Passover meal, the peace offering, and the wilderness manna. These meals are all typologically related to the Lord’s Supper, such that, under the New Covenant, the Supper fulfills and replaces them. Therefore, given that the covenant status of children is the same under both Old Covenant and New Covenant, the evidence that covenant children should have access to the Lord’s Supper is overhwelming.

Covenant Children and Covenant Meals: Biblical Evidence for Infant Communion, 134, 136

What is the response?

Since such eating [the manna] was not sacramental and since the purpose of the passage is to teach the need for persevering in faith and obedience toward Christ, we reject this…

Brian Schwertley, Paedocommunion: A Biblical Examination fn. 12

The response is to reject Calvin and Westminster’s interpretation of the passage. The water and manna were not sacramental and that was not Paul’s point. Paedocommunion proponent Mark Horne summarizes a response from an appendix on manna in Rev. Richard Bacon’s “What Mean Ye by This Service.”

Rev. Bacon makes it quite clear he believes not only that manna was not a sacrament, but that paedocommunionists are desperately grasping at straws to claim that manna was a sacrament. He says, “the paedocommunionist has an uphill battle to prove that eating manna and drinking water (not wine) points to the New Testament sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. . .” Indeed, he asks rhetorically of manna and water from the Rock: “Why then do paedocommunionists want to bring it into the debate?” Furthermore, he claims the argument from manna is evidence of paedocommunionist desperation: “The fact that the argument has shifted from a sacramental meal to a non-sacramental meal gives the impression that it is the practice of the paedocommunion that is being defended rather than a covenantal hermeneutic.”

That last claim is made near the end of the paper and I repeat it because I want readers to remember it as they read my response: “The fact that the argument has shifted from a sacramental meal to a non-sacramental meal gives the impression that it is the practice of the paedocommunion that is being defended rather than a covenantal hermeneutic.”

Rev. Bacon claims that 1 Corinthians 10.1-4 does not correspond to Baptism or the Lord’s Supper. He claims that the baptism in this passage and in 1 Corinthians 12.13 corresponds to Pentecost. Furthermore, he asserts that John 6.49, 54 prove that manna was not a sacrament. My plan is simply to show that Rev. Bacon is making up things that are at odds with the entire history of Reformed Theology, while pretending that paedocommunionists are the ones breaking with the tradition.

A Response to Rev. Bacon’s Argument that Manna was not a Sacrament

The PCA report on paedocommunion avoids explicitly rejecting the idea that the manna was a sacrament, but instead argues that there is a great difference between it and the Lord’s Supper, which is “a new sacrament.”

Since children ate of manna (there was nothing else to eat), and drank the water from the rock (there was nothing else to drink), and since their food and drink symbolized the life that Christ gives, they may now come to the table where the bread and the cup offer the same symbolism.

The symbolism of the manna and of the water from the rock cannot be denied or minimized. Indeed, Israel should have received both with thanksgiving and faith; they should have perceived the symbolism. There is a sense in which we in the New
Covenant should find the symbols of life in Christ in our daily bread. Yet the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is not simply an aspect of our family meals, or a simple community meal together. It is specifically instituted by Christ, and given a meaning by him that is repeated by the Apostle Paul in charging the Corinthians. Jesus did not simply give new meaning to the Passover. The new wine of the kingdom required fresh wineskins. Jesus instituted a new sacrament.

Thus the Israelites did not eat “the same spiritual food.” Recall Calvin “any point of difference destroys the force of the comparison… they had the same sacraments.”

The OPC study committee said “it became readily apparent that these questions would not produce a unanimous consensus” and that “a majority of the Committee favors the admission of weaned covenant children to the Lord’s table… [and has a] desire to develop a full length defense of paedocommunion.” A minority report authored by Leonard J. Coppes argued

The main thesis of the committee’s position is not established by Scripture. The New Testament (NT) does not equate the Passover and the LS, nor does it teach the Passover as determinative for the LS. The committee’s position argues that the terms of admission to the Passover decide the question of who should be admitted to the LS: since children were admitted to the Passover, they should be admitted to the LS… Therefore, since the nature of the Passover and LS are different, so are their designs—they do not admit the same candidates… The LS is distinct in nature [from all OT meals]… Conclusion: since what the LS depicts and seals (its nature) is distinct from all OT meals, how it is to be observed and who it is to admit (its design) is distinct from all the OT meals… The nature of the LS requires that which a child must, but cannot, provide: personal appropriation of Christ, personal examination (active sanctification), and personal understanding of the word of God.

What the Lord’s Supper signs and seals (its nature) is different from the water and manna in the wilderness. Thus it was not “the same spiritual food.”

Dr. Peter A. Lillback wrote a second minority report that tries to be more nuanced, but still winds up rejecting Calvin’s view.

II. Theological and Biblical Arguments Against Paedocommunion…

D. The Continuity and Discontinuity of the Covenant…

2. It is clear from Jer. 31 that the New Covenant has a far more inward and spiritual character than that of the Old…

3. It is argued that I Cor. 10:1ff. shows that Christ was eaten and drunk by the Old Testament fathers and their families, so why should now the covenantal children be excluded? The answer to this is found in a careful comparison of Jesus’ teaching upon the manna in John 6 and Paul’s discussion of it in I Cor. 10. Paul elevates the experience, while Christ diminishes it. Why so? This is because Paul’s point is to establish that the Corinthians were liable for judgment just as the Israelites were when there is spiritual rebellion. Both groups had a true fellowship in Christ. So if the first could be judged, so could the second. Jesus’ purpose is to show that the bare external eating of manna did not, however, produce life. The fathers ate and died. Jesus’ food of his body will give life. This life is for his elect and called people who eat with faith in his Word produced by the Holy Spirit (Jn. 6:37, 44, 63–65). Now it is nearly impossible to evade the sacramental implications of John 6. Should this be granted, it is clear from Jesus’ exposition of the fathers’ eating that those who eat the new manna are to be believers, even though many in the wilderness congregation ate as unbelievers.

In other words, the Israelites did not eat the “same spiritual food” because the Lord’s Supper is a “new manna” that is “more inward and spiritual” than the manna, and therefore only for believers. The question of believers vs unbelievers is an interesting argument because it is not directly about children. Rather, what he is arguing is that in order for someone to partake of the Lord’s Supper, a credible profession of saving faith is required (which not all children have done). The only way this is relevant to the question of children eating manna is if no profession of saving faith was required in order to eat the manna. He is trying to argue there is a difference in the administration of the sacrament in the New Covenant, thus he must mean it was administered to those who had made no profession of saving faith in the Old Covenant.

But why must those who partake of the Supper be “worthy” (WLC 168, 170)? Because they are partaking of the body of Christ, which is really, truly spiritually present in the Supper. Thus it may not be given to anyone without a credible profession of faith, less the body of Christ be profaned. But Calvin’s entire argument was that Christ’s body was just as spiritually present in the manna as it is in the Supper. Thus there is no reason why the qualifications for “worthy” participation would be different between the two. To partake of the manna in an unworthy manner would profane the body of Christ just as much as to partake of the Supper in an unworthy manner.

Fencing the Table

 

This leads us directly to the next inconsistency. Why didn’t Moses fence the table? WLC 173 says “Such as are found to be ignorant or scandalous, notwithstanding their profession of the faith, and desire to come to the Lord’s supper, may and ought to be kept from that sacrament, by the power which Christ hath left in his church, until they receive instruction, and manifest their reformation.”

This was a matter of great controversy in the 16th and 17th centuries. Those with a more “Erastian” view of church and state (the idea that the civil magistrate is the head of the visible church and may govern it) argued for open communion to all members of the commonwealth/church. Presbyterians tended to argue that ministers must “fence the table” by prohibiting unworthy participation in the Supper by those who were immoral.

In 1657, a member of English Parliament named William Morice wrote The Common Right to the Lord’s Supper Asserted in response to Humphrey Saunders’ An Anti-Diatribe or the Apologie of Some Ministers and godly people asserting the lawfulnesse of their administering the Lord’s Supper in a select company. Various citizens had been brought before the magistrate for refusal to pay their tithes. In their defense, they said they were withholding their tithe because their parish pastors were not being pastors to them. They were not allowing them to take the Lord’s Supper. Morice said that made perfect sense to him, so he told them he would remedy the situation. Hence the book.

Morice argues that closed or select communion was influenced by the Anabaptists (which he calls wolves in sheeps clothing). In one section, he argues from 1 Corinthians 10:1-5, quoting from all the Protestant arguments following Calvin that manna and the Lord’s Supper are the same sacrament, therefore we cannot place greater restrictions on partaking of the Lord’s Supper than Israelites did of the manna.

Lastly, I may not deny that (though an accidental abuse which may not prejudice things good in themselves) wicked men may be facil to flatter and indulge themselves with a good conceit of their condition, though sinful, or an hope of their impunity in their evils, because of their participation of the Sacraments. It seems by what St. Paul delivers (1 Cor. 10), the Corinthians are an exemplary instance hereof, being guilty of the like presumption and security, But what way of cure doth the Apostle use to prevent or remedy the malady? Truly not Empyrick-like, straight way to take the knife in hand and fall to cutting off, (for he doth not tell them that therefore all ought to be suspended beside manifest saints) but he proceeds dogmatically, and to expel and correct the roar of the Corinthians (which also lets out the vital blood and spirits of this Paradox of the Apologists) he better doth instruct and principle them, shewing that the Sacraments which were common to good and evil men, could give no privilege to sin, nor protection from punishment. For “Even as thou dost hate the body of Christ, so did they Manna, and after what manner thou drinkest his blood so did they water out of the rock,” saith Chrysostom (Chrysostom. Homie. 18. in 2 Cor. August. expos. in Evangel. Johan. tract, 26 c. 6. tom. 9. p. 74. Calvin Instit I.2.C10.Sect. 5. p. 148. Dutch Annot.) The Fathers did eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink; the same “In signification of spiritual virtual not in the visible species,” saith Augustine “not in the symbols or figures, but in signification or the thing signified,” as Piscatory and the Dutch Annotations “by the same signed and tokens he made his grace well known amongst them,” the same with us, not only the same among themselves inter se, as the Papists would have it, for that would take off the energy of the Apostles argument, whose scope being “To shew, that as it profited not them to have obtained so great a gift, so neither would it those that they were partakers of baptism, and had received other spiritual mysteries, unless they shewed a life worthy of that grace,” in the words of S. Chrysostom, wherein not only all Protestants concur but even many Pontificians themselves, therefore “that the comparison might be apt, it behoved them to show there was not inequality between us and them, in those good things herein he forbad them falsely to glory, and therefore he makes us equal in Sacraments, and leaves us no prerogative above them,” saith Calvin “and therefore in that comparison the same thing signified is the ground of comparing – and there had been no consequence therein, if things unequal an unlike had been compared – for if the things had differed, the exception would have been ready at hand that the Israelites perished as not being partakers of those benefits whereof we have the Sacraments or signs” adds Chamier: and the drift of the Apostle here is to compare those Sacramental Types in the old Law with the two Sacraments in the new, and that in two respects:

First, for the same nature or substance of mysteries in both; and secondly for the same condition of the receivers, if either they abuse them, or walk unworthy of them, saith a late judicious Writer. They were therefore the same spiritual meat and drink, “in the thing not the manner thereof, their Sacraments prefigurative, ours rememorative, and ours having more abundant grace through the ampler revelation,” as Calvin “not in the visible species, but spiritual virtue – the same faith under divers signed,” as Augustine, and out of him Anselm, there being “a difference or disparity in the signes, an agreement in the thing signified,” as Paraus, theirs being antitypes of ours, signed of the same things… “in as much as they were Sacraments” adds Piscator, “and the manna an extraordinary signe of the flesh of Christ,” as the Dutch Annotations. So then however these were “extraordinary, transitory and temporary Sacraments,” yet being the same with ours (or else Christ is not ours, for that Rock was Christ, as the bread and win in the Lord’s Supper are called the body and blood of Christ, as the Dutch Annotations) the same with ours in use, end, and effect, and operating, saith Ames, “in the same kind, not same degree of efficacy,” and agreeing with ours “in all principal points which are of the essence of a Sacrament,” as Chamier; and therefore the Fathers receiving the Sacramental Communication of the body and blood of Christ indeed (as not only Fulk and Willet, but the whole Protestant Host of the living God do contend) yet many of them God was not well pleased with, some whereof were idolaters, fornicators, murmurers, did lust, did tempt Christ, yet the same spiritual meat and drink was received by all Sacramentally, though effectually only by believers, the spiritual thing by the good alone, the Elements which were spiritual in their signification, by evil men also. And thereupon likewise I hope it will seem evident to unprejudiced and unbiased men, that the Sacraments are not only communicable to such as have given positive signs and demonstrations of Holiness.

There are such answers given to the Argument drawn from this Scripture, as smack of some willingness to correct the Text, rather than their Models, and to set their spurs in the Apostles side, rather than to loose the reins in their hands,

Some tell us; First, “that those were extraordinary Sacraments”; but what then? “Extraordinary Sacraments have whatsoever is of the nature of the ordinary, except only the circumstance of order which is the same with that of time,” saith Chamier. Secondly, “But these had no special promise annexed”: But if so, then they had nothing beyond the corporal use, and the Apostle was mistaken when he calls them spiritual meat and drink, and saith the Rock was Christ, in signification; though yet being extraordinary Sacraments; Ames thinks that “Therefore it was not requisite they should have a spiritual promise distinct from the ordinary, but it was enough that they represented in a singular manner the benefits of those promises.” Thirdly, “that those might be common to all persons that were also common to beasts, which passed through the red Sea, drank of the waters of the rocks, and eat of the Manna.”

…Fourthly, “That upon the score of this Argument, both infants, and all flagitious persons, such as were these idolaters, fornicators, etc, may be also admitted to the Lord’s Supper”: But one knot is not untwisted by trying on another, incommodum non solvit argumentum, neither can they make their own way the more smooth and easy, only by casting galtrops in ours, which will as much also incumber their walk…

[Discussing church history and concludes there is nothing wrong with paedocommunion]

But waving all this, and granting the postulatum; that infants are not to communicate the Eucharist, yet the argument collected from thence will lay no other rub in our way, then such as we may easily remove or stride over, for we do here from this place of 1 Cor. 10 only argue that Sacraments formally as such are not proper privileges of real saints or absolutely incommunicable to any but such as have given satisfaction of their holiness (which is their hypothesis, against which we are here disputing) and so much I think is fully and clearly evinced by this instance;

(page 61ff)

Morice says the most common reply to his argument is that it would necessarily include infants as well. To which Morice says, “Yeah, so what?”

Rutherford responded to the same argument from Erastus.

Erastus his Arg. 13. 1 Cor. 10. God spared not idolaters and murmurers; yet they eat, we, and they of the same spirituall meat, and drinke the same spirituall drinke, and so had the same Sacraments (otherwise the Argument of the Apostle were nothing; if ours and their Sacraments were not all one) if then, those that were idolators, fornicators, were admitted to their Sacraments; then also to ours under the New Testament.

Ans. Beza answereth well to that. Manna and the water ouf of the Rock, as they had a spirituall Relation to Christ, were holy things and types of Christ, just as our Sacraments are signes of Christ already come in the flesh, and so agreed in the kinde of holy signes with our Sacraments: yet Manna, and the water out of the Rock, were also ordained to be bodily food, for the famishing and thirsty people, good or bad, holy or unholy, these two, Manna and water out of the Rock were given by the Commandment of God and the Priests, to the people, both as Gods people in Covenant with God, and to them, as men starving in the wildernesse, and dying for thirst; for they had not plowing, earing, harvest, bread, vineyards, wine, fountains in the wildernesse, and therefore no marvell then such holy things being; also beside that they were holy things, such as were necessary to keep them from starving and bodily death, as the shewbread, which was also a type of the word of life revealed to the Ministers of God, was given to keep David and his men from starving: No marvell (I say) then these bodily helps (though in another higher signification they were Sacramentalls) were by Gods command bestowed on many wicked men, who often partake both of outward Ordinances and temporall deliverance from death and famishing, because they are mixt with the people of God. But Erastus, if he would prove any thing against us, should have proved that circumcision, the Passover, and other holy things of God, ordained for the visible Saints to shew forth our spirituall Communion with Christ, and which were never ordained for necessary helps to sustain the naturall life, were to be administred to those that were openly prophane and wicked; and therefore we deny this connexion: Manna signified the very same thing; to wit, Christ our food of life, which bread and wine signifies; Ergo, As Manna was given both as a holy signe to figure out Christ our life, and to feed the bodies of openly holy, or openly prophane, to sustain their bodily life, so also baptisme and the Lords Supper, which serve for no bodily use, should be administred to those that are openly prophane.

Erastus is put to a poor shift with this solid Answer of that Reverend, Learned, and holy Divine, Theod. Beza, he saith, “Vis dicam quod sentio? Tui ubique similises: The sea and the cloud, saith he, were not necessary to feed the body.”

…Erastus may know the dividing of the Sea, was necessary to preserve the life of the most wicked and unclean (God being pleased for his Churches cause, to bestow Temporall deliverances on wicked men, mingled with the godly) from being drowned with the Egyptians, and that God, who will have mercy, and not sacrifice, may well by a positive Law appoint that holy and unholy, clean and unclean, shall have the use of such holy things, as are not meerly holy, but mixt, being both means of Divine institution, and also necessary Subsidies for mans life, but it followeth not therefore holy things, that are purely holy, should be prostitute to holy and unholy, the clean and unclean.

The divine right of church-government and excommunication, p. 276

In other words, the nature of manna and the Lord’s Supper are different. They are not the same sacrament. The manna was a common holy meal – that is, it was a contradiction. The very idea of the Lord’s Supper is that not every supper is the Lord’s Supper. Recall Morice’s quote from Chamier “and therefore in that comparison the same thing signified is the ground of comparing – and there had been no consequence therein, if things unequal an unlike had been compared” and our original quote from Calvin “any point of difference destroys the force of the comparison… they had the same sacraments.” And again, if one must be worthy to participate in the Lord’s Supper because it is the body of Christ, then the same applies to the manna, regardless of whether or not it also served for physical sustenance.

 

Conclusion

 

It should be quite clear by now that half of Beza/Rutherford’s defense is true: the manna and water were provided by God for Israel’s physical sustenance. It was a common meal they ate three times a day. Crossing the Red Sea was a miraculous act of God “necessary to preserve the life of the most wicked and unclean.” The manna and water were miraculous provisions from God “for the famishing and thirsty people, good or bad, holy or unholy” for “men starving in the wildernesse, and dying for thirst.” Paul’s point is simply that Christ, the pre-existent second person of the Trinity, was the source of that provision – not that Christ crucified was spiritually present in the meal as a sacrament. God miraculously provided for them and bestowed his favor upon them, yet they still perished. Paul does not say the manna and water was a sacrament of Christ’s spiritual presence equivalent to the Lord’s Supper. (See the Exposition for more explanation)

 

See also: Calvin v 1689 Federalism on Old v New