Pelegian in practice?
The Lord's Supper/Communion/Eucharist, The Sacraments, Baptism, Theology and Doctrine January 11th, 2008I want to throw out a question. I have been following the debate concerning the sacraments for sometime now. The impression I get from time to time is that when it comes to the administration of the sacraments we become almost pelegian in practice? What I mean is this, it seems that we tend to think of the participation in the sacraments as a mere human act of the will that may or may not have any real benefit, but the secret work of the Spirit in the heart is seen as that which is truly sovereign. Its as if we have without meaning to compartmentalized the two experiences in the church. But what if we really begin to view even the external things in the church as just as much sovereign acts of God as we do the internal regeneration that the Spirit works in the heart of those who have true faith? How would this impact our thinking and our theological development? Just thinking out loud.
Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West
January 17th, 2008 at 11:06 am
I would not call the position you wish to challenge pelagian. What normally characterizes pelagianism is the idea that we are essentially born without sin, but that we individually sin like Adam.
The focus is not so much on the autonomy of the will, but on the quality or state of the will in its free choices.
I think I can see what you are getting at. Many today act as if the efficacy of the sacrament is dependent upon the receptivity, alone, of the communicant. When we speak of conversion, we do not think like this but think that the Spirit makes the will willing. You are getting at the point that when it comes to the sacraments, we become closet Arminian, somehow ignoring the fact that the Spirit also makes the spirit willing in the act of communion?
Wouldnt a better descriptor be something like rationalism?
David
January 18th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Oh I think if we compare Augustine’s defense of infant baptism with Pelagius’s then the resemblance will become clearer.
I also don’t like this whole “Church membership on the basis of birth” rhetoric that some folks use. Baptism needs to be the moment of “joining” the Church lest we make the Church a natural institution.
January 19th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Hey Steven,
Thats interesting. So would you say that in the Abrahamic Covenant, the circumcision made the child a son of Abraham?
David
January 19th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
David,
A few thoughts come to mind. First things, the Church is not exactly the same thing as the Abrahamic Covenant. I think that’s part of our problem and a place where our Baptist brothers usually get at something. The death and resurrection of Christ changes the planet, and Pentecost is the real birth of the Church. The waters of baptism often separate one from his kin.
Of course, the Abrahamic Covenant was always “really” founded on God’s promise. It was never strictly genetic. Circumcision was the point when the child fully entered into covenant. In one respect he had a right to the covenant. But he wasn’t “in” until he went through the rite of circumcision. Moses’ son is a good example of this distinction. The bloodshedding was efficacious.
January 19th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Hey Steven
Firstly my assumption in some of this: I have always taken it more like this: two parties make an agreement, the agreed “sign” confirms, seals and ratifies the ‘covenant.’
If we take my assumption there, we cant really reduce “entering in” into a puncticular event, a single mathematical-like point. The ’seal’ closes off a process.
For me, it seems quite natural that part of the agreement can include children born to one or both parties. The agreement says such and such child is an extension of your party and must also be confirmed by the sign, else he–and you by extension–breaks the covenant.
So why would one say that only when the child is given the sign does he enter the covenant? You had said:
“Baptism needs to be the moment of “joining” the Church lest we make the Church a natural institution”
[Aside: I am thinking about why the church cant be considered a natural institution.]
To me it seems more natural that he is given the sign because he has already been initiated into the covenant? Why is not the natural reading that natural birth makes the child a party of the covenant?
I am just thinking aloud here.
You had said: …The waters of baptism often separate one from his kin.
David: If we take this back and form a analogical comparison, I would say it was never circumcision that separated the true from the false, but the actions inward circumciser (the Spirit) effecting the heart of the child. And so in the NC, the waters don’t distinguish one child from another, but the operation upon the heart by the Spirit. As you know, Calvin and the first Reformers would say that in the outward action, an inward operation simultaneously occurs in the case of the elect infants.
Steven: Of course, the Abrahamic Covenant was always “really” founded on God’s promise. It was never strictly genetic.
David: Sure, tho natural generation was necessary (proselytes not considered here).
Steven: Circumcision was the point when the child fully entered into covenant.
[bold mine]
David: So the child is part of the church by birth? Birth does not make him fully a covenant member. Before, tho, seemed to want to call this rhetoric?
And as to point and moment, I would rather step back from seeing it like that myself.
Steven: In one respect he had a right to the covenant. But he wasn’t “in” until he went through the rite of circumcision.
David: Then how could one who was not circumcised be called a covenant breaker if he was not “in” the covenant until he was circumcised?
Steven: Moses’ son is a good example of this distinction. The bloodshedding was efficacious.
David: Thats the point is it not? His son was on the verge of being a covenant breaker because he was being denied the covenant sign? As to blood-shedding, I would want to know more on what you mean there before I comment further.
David: So then to sum up, your opening remark actually implied something like this to me: in the NC, only when the sacrament is applied are they part of the Church?
Take care,
David
January 20th, 2008 at 7:39 am
David and Steven,
Thanks guys for the comments. I think this sentence from your last comment, David, may get to the heart of the matter.
David, you said:
“As you know, Calvin and the first Reformers would say that in the outward action, an inward operation simultaneously occurs in the case of the elect infants.”
Since we can’t actually see the internal work of the Spirit, then baptism functions as the external sign and seal of this event. I think this may be part of Steven’s point. (Steven, correct me if I am missing your point.) Because baptism is the ordained means by which God declares to all that an individual belongs to Him, then baptism cannot be reduced to a mere act of human will, but rather a sovereign act of God that shows externally the inward work of God upon the heart. So, those who believe the promise of God receive the blessing of the covenant because God was truly present in the application of the sacrament.
Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West
January 21st, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Hey Terry,
We are potentially heading into the idea of covenant within the covenant.
As an aside, I think we all need to be careful what descriptors we use of our opponents. Calling them pelagian is not going to endear you to them.
You say:
Since we can’t actually see the internal work of the Spirit, then baptism functions as the external sign and seal of this event. I think this may be part of Steven’s point. (Steven, correct me if I am missing your point.) Because baptism is the ordained means by which God declares to all that an individual belongs to Him,
David: I am with you here. However, I am not sure why an opponent would have a problem either.
Terry: then baptism cannot be reduced to a mere act of human will, but rather a sovereign act of God that shows externally the inward work of God upon the heart.
David: Who exactly says this? I dont read the FV literature pro or con, but that aside, even in the classic literature on this, I dont recall any making that sort of claim.
Terry: So, those who believe the promise of God receive the blessing of the covenant because God was truly present in the application of the sacrament.
David: “Those who believe…” Sure. I am still not sure that in the sacrament God makes believers (in other words, regenerates etc).
I am still undecided exegetically on that.
I would just be careful with throwing out the P word. We’ve seen way to much labeling, which, more often than not, is done with the view of straw-manning the opponent.
Take care,
David
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:13 pm
David,
Considering the Church as a natural institution, as opposed to a grace or supernatural/spiritual institution, is Pelagian at bottom, which is why I mentioned it in the first place.
If a member has already been initiated into the covenant prior to baptism, then it seems that we ought to refer to birth as the initiation ritual, but that again is natural/familial and not ecclesial. It strikes me as analogous to the Jewish problem in the New Testament as well.
Baptism is the point of initiation because of the Great Commission. It is the anointing- making the recipient a priest. The same principle that I mentioned earlier applies too. A person has a right to be a priest due to birth order, but he is not actually a priest until the anointing occurs. Contemning the sacrament (as opposed to being prevented from applying it) counts as a rejection of the promise and thus a form of apostasy.
In fact, I’d emphasize the priestly role in terms of holiness access, not mere morality, piety, or “spirituality” (as we commonly speak of). That’s the deal with Moses’ son after all. He was entering into holy space as he got close to the people of Israel. That’s why the angel was going to kill him then and there. As long as he was with the uncircumcized Midianites, he was ok. Not so when he enters the holy people.
An unbaptized person in the New Covenant should not be entering into holy space for much the same reason. Some of this has changed, it isn’t physical space, but we still see it in the Lord’s Table. No unbaptized party should be there.
You can’t enter the temple without first passing the water-chariots. This also plays into the Israel narrative as 1 Cor. 10 shows us. The Red Sea was their water experience, just as baptism is ours. So an unbaptized person has yet to move out of Egypt and into the pilgrimage, at least not liturgically.
And as I think back to your first question about children of Abraham, I have to say no, not all of his kids were children of Abraham (in the covenant sense). Ishmael was not. The children he had with Kiturah also were not. Now had they been circumcized, they would have put themselves under the obligations. If done later in covenant history, they would have put themselves under the law.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:29 am
Hey Steve,
You say:
Considering the Church as a natural institution, as opposed to a grace or supernatural/spiritual institution, is Pelagian at bottom, which is why I mentioned it in the first place.
David: If I was going to affirm that it is a natural institution, I would not do so “as opposed” to its spirituality/
Steve says”
If a member has already been initiated into the covenant prior to baptism, then it seems that we ought to refer to birth as the initiation ritual, but that again is natural/familial and not ecclesial. It strikes me as analogous to the Jewish problem in the New Testament as well.
David: I guess that depends on what one means by “already initiated into covenant prior to baptism”? I think I mean that by virtue of one’s birth, one is in the covenant. I would not say that until a child is baptized, only then can we say they are in the covenant. So with that, I don’t see why I should then say birth should be the initial ritual? That does not seem credible to me as an argument.
Steven says:
Baptism is the point of initiation because of the Great Commission. It is the anointing- making the recipient a priest. The same principle that I mentioned earlier applies too. A person has a right to be a priest due to birth order, but he is not actually a priest until the anointing occurs. Contemning the sacrament (as opposed to being prevented from applying it) counts as a rejection of the promise and thus a form of apostasy.
David: I like the connection between baptism and priestly anointing. I will have to think about that some more. My first response would be that the Spirit’s anointing is what makes one a priest, not baptism. I am thinking aloud but is baptism used that way in the NT? Did the OT ceremonial washing relative to the sacrifice refer to priestly anointing? I’ve always made the connection between priestly anointing and *oil* not water, and so the Spirit’s anointing is the analogue, not water baptism. But I will think about it some more.
Steven:
In fact, I’d emphasize the priestly role in terms of holiness access, not mere morality, piety, or “spirituality” (as we commonly speak of). That’s the deal with Moses’ son after all. He was entering into holy space as he got close to the people of Israel. That’s why the angel was going to kill him then and there. As long as he was with the uncircumcized Midianites, he was ok. Not so when he enters the holy people.
David: Sure, I can see that. I think my point tho still stands, that circumcision was part of process.
Steven: An unbaptized person in the New Covenant should not be entering into holy space for much the same reason. Some of this has changed, it isn’t physical space, but we still see it in the Lord’s Table. No unbaptized party should be there.
David: Ah, that reminds me of the Strict and Particular Baptists who preclude any non-baptist baptized from communion.
I guess I am more libertarian on this than what you are saying here.
Steven: You can’t enter the temple without first passing the water-chariots. This also plays into the Israel narrative as 1 Cor. 10 shows us. The Red Sea was their water experience, just as baptism is ours. So an unbaptized person has yet to move out of Egypt and into the pilgrimage, at least not liturgically.
David: Okay… I am not comfortable with that language. But I will think about it.
Steven: And as I think back to your first question about children of Abraham, I have to say no, not all of his kids were children of Abraham (in the covenant sense). Ishmael was not. The children he had with Kiturah also were not. Now had they been circumcised, they would have put themselves under the obligations. If done later in covenant history, they would have put themselves under the law.
David: Ah yes, that’s a good point. But I would say, from the perspective of Abraham, his children were his covenant heirs. It was God who excluded Ishmael by mandate and physical exclusion. So I could refine my initial question and locate the arena in the phenomenological realm, and all that… but I don’t really need to. I think my point was clear, those children of Abraham who are legitimately sons of Abraham were sons even before circumcision. I come back to Paul’s point that circumcision did not make him righteous, it was a marker of something he already had. I am not sure if this can be pressed into my argument or if so, how far.
I think my concept of NT freedom from OT forms shapes my controlling assumptions very differently here. I am not yet persuaded that something like the early church’s high liturgical sacramentalism is actually exegetically sustainable. I respect it as an historian, I am just not yet persuaded exegetically. (I admit that I have done a lot of personal study in this are tho.) And so, so far I am not comfortable with basing the sorts of assumptions you assert here in the way you have done. I am not saying your wrong in some a priori manner, but that I am not there yet and so feel uneasy with some of your constructions here. Thanks for the thought-provoking conversation.
Thanks
David
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Yeah I thought I might lose you with all my interpretive maximalism. =)
Steven W
January 24th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Hey Steve,
Yeah I figured I was seeing shades of Jordan there. I don’t want to give the impression that I reject it out of hand. I just don’t operate by his hermeneutic, and I have doubts the claims are warranted, but until I can review a solid exegetical case for and against, I step back from sweeping statements one way or the other.
David