Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (16)

The report insists that the FV folk “teach that all recipients of baptism are savingly incorporated into Christ” (p.33; emphasis mine, BDJ). This is a repeated claim made throughout the report, as the sample of citations below indicates.

• FV authors resist any distinctions between some within the covenant community who are only “externally” or “apparently” in union with Christ and others who are truly and savingly in union with Christ (p.22; emphasis mine, BDJ).

• To ascribe to the sacrament by itself the power to effect a saving union with Christ, which imparts all of the benefits of His work as Mediator, including justification, is contrary to the biblical and confessional understanding of the sacrament (p.44; emphasis mine, BDJ).
  
• Some authors even use the language of ‘baptismal regeneration’ to underscore the constitutive significance of baptism, not only as a sign and seal of the covenant promise in Christ, but as the instrument that actually effects saving union with Christ and all His benefits (p.55; emphasis mine, BDJ).
  
• The sacrament of baptism does not effect the believer’s union with Christ and justification, but is a confirmation of the gospel promise to those who respond to the sacrament in the way of faith. (Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Days 25, 27) (p.61).
  

Compare these statements with the language of:

1. The Joint FV Statement: "We affirm that God formally unites a person to Christ and to His covenant people through baptism into the triune Name, and that this baptism obligates such a one to lifelong covenant loyalty to the triune God" (bold emphasis mine, BDJ).
   
2. The Summary Statement of the AAPC's Position on Covenant, Baptism and Salvation: "By baptism, one enters into covenantal union with Christ and is offered all his benefits (Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:1ff; 2 Cor. 1:20). As Westminster Shorter Catechism #94 states, baptism signifies and seals 'our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace.' Baptism in itself does not, however, guarantee final salvation. What is offered in baptism may not be received because of unbelief. Or, it may only be embraced for a season and later rejected (Matt. 13:20-22; Luke 8:13-14)" (pt.7; emphasis mine, BDJ).

What the URCNA Report repeatedly describes as a "saving" union, the FV Statements describe as "formal" or "covenantal." The authors of the report clearly know that these statements exist; the Joint FV Statement is footnoted on pp.12 and 14, and the Summary Statement of the AAPC's Position is quoted on p.22.

More about baptism in terms of union with Christ to follow

Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (15)

The FV position on baptism is evaluated in section 3.D.4 where the report states, “Contrary to the FV conception of sacramental efficacy, the Three Forms of Unity do not countenance any view of the sacrament of baptism, for example, that would ascribe to the sacrament the power to ‘regenerate’ its recipient” (p.33). The problem here is that nowhere in the report’s own summary of FV teaching on baptism is there anything about its purported power to regenerate. The report does mention that some FV writers have defended the language of “baptismal regeneration” (p.55) and that Wilkins, in particular, believes that “all the baptized” are “the recipients of all the blessings . . . . including justification” (p.18; Wilkins is not quoted). I searched the entire report in vain to locate any discussion about a supposed FV view regarding the “power” of baptism to “regenerate” its recipient.

Moreover, the use of quotations marks around the word ‘regenerate’ in the statement on p.33. is intriguing. Do the quotation marks mean: (a) that FV writers use the verb regenerate in connection with the function of baptism or (b) that FV writers use the verb regenerate, but not in the way the word is typically used?

It is interesting that the Joint Federal Vision Statement, signed by all the important FV players, addresses this issue head on: “We deny that baptism automatically guarantees that the baptized will share in the eschatological Church. We deny the common misunderstanding of baptismal regeneration—i.e., that an ‘effectual call’ rebirth is automatically wrought in the one baptized” (emphasis original, BDJ).

Why was this clear FV statement about baptismal regeneration ignored in the report?

Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (14)

Much time has lapsed since my last installment in this series of posts critiquing the URCNA Report on FV. The demands of pastoring a congregation are so great I don’t often have time to venture beyond them. On the other hand, I know there is therapeutic value in diverting from one’s typical responsibilities periodically to refresh the mind. In this post I would like to reflect on what the FV report says about baptism in particular.

In summarizing the FV position on baptism (section III.B.2), the report cites Rich Lusk and Steve Wilkins in particular. Why the writings of Peter Leithart were excluded from this section is puzzling (inexcusable??), given the fact that Leithart wrote a Ph.D. dissertation on baptism at Cambridge University and subsequently published a book on baptism in light of the FV controversy. One would think that FV critics would begin with the FV individual who has given the most thought and attention to the sacrament of baptism.

I will not comment on what the report says about Rich Lusk other than pointing out that Lusk’s exegetical comments are critiqued with confessional data. One would have wished that the report had begun with interaction with Lusk on the exegetical level first --- unless, of course, the assumption is that interpretations of Sacred Scripture which conflict with those of Sacred Tradition are necessarily wrong.

The bulk of this section in the report is a summary of Wilkins’ position on baptism as presented in “Covenant, Baptism and Salvation” in The Auburn Avenue Theology: Pros. & Cons. Here it is alleged that Wilkins “maintains that baptism is the means of incorporation into Christ and places its beneficiaries in possession of all the benefits of His saving work” (p.18). What’s striking here is that there’s only one citation from Wilkins—one citation which says a lot of about Wilkins’ view of the covenant, but nothing of Wilkins’ view of baptism. This part of report, however, purports to address the sacraments (3.B), and specifically baptism (3.B.2) and not the covenant (3.A). Surely the authors of the report could have included at least one citation from Wilkins on baptism!

Interestingly, this section does reach an apparently guarded conclusion: “Since membership in the covenant community is tantamount to saving union with Christ, and since baptism is the means to effect such a membership, it seems to follow that baptism saves by uniting covenant members to Christ so that they are flesh of His flesh, bone of His bone” (p.19). The report betrays some unusual caution here through the use of words like “tantamount” and “seems.”