External/Internal Distinction in terms of Romans 2:28-29

Reformed folk typically resort to Romans 2:28-29 to defend an external/internal distinction in relation to the covenant. In these verses a prooftext is located for alleging that whereas all the baptized are externally in the covenant, only the elect are internally in the covenant. But is this what Paul is saying in Romans 2?

It is my thesis that Paul is talking about Jews and Gentiles in terms of the newly constituted Israel and that the distinction he introduces here is not timeless, but redemptive-historical.

In the wider context Paul is addressing a Jewish interlocutor (see vv.1-3,17) who is eager to judge others and hopes to escape God’s judgment by passing judgment on others. In verse 25 he writes (ESV is used throughout this post),

For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision.

The Jewish interlocutor would have agreed with the first statement but would have been shocked and possibly offended by the second, especially if he were familiar with the practice of epispasm, by which hellenizing Jews somehow disguised the mark of circumcision (cf. 1 Macc.1:15). Then in verse 26, Paul writes,

So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

The question is rhetorical. God will reckon (logizesthai) uncircumcision as circumcision if the uncircumcised keep the Torah. The non-Jew who keeps the law can be reckoned as a member of God’s covenant community.

Verse 27: Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision, but break the law.

“Physically uncircumcised” is better translated “uncircumcised by nature (phuseos),” an expression which recalls 2:14, “the nations who have not the law by nature (phusei).” These phrases denote those who are “naturally” Gentiles, Gentiles by birth. So, God will reckon those who are “by nature” outside the covenant as being “inside” the covenant if they keep (telousa) the Torah.

Sidenote: I agree with Andrew Das who argues, against a number of scholars, “It would hardly carry any persuasive value to say that only a hypothetical Gentile judges the Jew. Why bother? On the other hand, actual Gentile obedience and actual Gentile judges would shame the Jew.” (Paul, the Law and the Covenant [Peabody: Hendrickson, 2001] 185, n. 48).

The “naturally” Gentiles who keep the law will condemn “you who have the written code and circumcision”—literally, “you the-through-letter-and-circumcision (dia grammatos kai peritomes)-transgressor of Torah.” This has been rendered as “though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor” (NASB) but the Greek preposition (dia) is more naturally instrumental than concessive. It is through the possession of Torah and circumcision that he becomes a transgressor. Torah, far from solving the problem of sin, exacerbates it (cf. Rom.3:20, 5:20 and 7).

Those who judge others, but fail to keep Torah themselves will be “judged” (v.27) by the Gentiles who keep Torah through the Spirit. Paul turns the tables on the Jews! The “righteous” who judge are not the “naturally” circumcised, but those who, though “naturally” uncircumcised, do the things written in Torah.

This passage envisions the reconstitution of God’s people in the new covenant. As in Galatians 2 Paul is concerned with the question, who is a Jew? With his disagreement with Peter in mind, he says to the Galatians (2:14), “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how you can force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” Peter had assumed that uncircumcised believers, in order to belong to God’s people, would have to assume the identity of ethnic Jews by getting physically circumcised. But “the Israel of God” (Gal.6:16) is now redefined as the people of the Messiah. Those who believe in Messiah Jesus, and are baptized into him, form the new family, redefined around and by the Messiah in fulfillment of the promises to Abraham (Gal.3:29).

It is in this context that we must understand Romans 2:28-29:

For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

The Hebrew word for ‘praise’ is jehuda (Judah), so that the very name ‘Jew’ (Ioudaios in Greek), ought to mean ‘praise.’ But this word Ioudaios is to be predicated of a group no longer defined ethnically or by possession of Torah and no longer marked by things which are “in the open” (en to phanero). Rather, “the-in-secret-Jew” (ho en to krypto Ioudaios) is circumcised in the heart and gains ‘praise’ not from humans, but from God.

Herman Ridderbos (Paul: An Outline of His Theology [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975]) writes (334-335),

The last pronouncement in Romans 2 is also of importance for the reason that without directly mentioning the name of Christ it signifies a radicalizing of the concept Jew, and thereby of the definition of the essence of the people of God . . . For Paul, even when speaks of being a Jew in the heart and the Spirit, faith in Christ and his gift of grace are all-important, and therefore natural descent from Abraham is no longer a determinative factor for belonging to the people of God.

See also Thomas Schreiner, Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 2001) 81.

Jews who don’t keep the law are not (true) Jews and their circumcision is uncircumcision (v.25). On the other hand God can reckon “uncircumcision” as “circumcision”; he can reckon those “naturally” outside the covenant as being inside the covenant if they, by the power of the Spirit, keep the law (v.26). The Messiah and the Spirit reconstitute the people of God, transforming the heart to enable it to keep the commandments of God (cf. Rom.7:4-6; 8:4-8; 2 Cor.3).

Conclusion: Paul’s manifest/secret distinction in Romans 2 is not timeless, but has specific import at this juncture in redemptive history when the people of Israel had only recently been reconstituted by the arrival of the Messiah and the outpouring of His Spirit on Pentecost. It was a time period when “manifest” circumcision, for example, still had a lot of spiritual capital in the minds of people and therefore Paul has to explain that, because it is no longer the marker of God’s people, “manifest” circumcision has been relativised. The new marker of God’s people is “secret” faith (see the contrast between circumcision and faith in Romans 4).

Paul would never claim, in other words, that those who were circumcised but not believers were not truly in the covenant. Precisely because they were in the covenant, they had to be “broken off” (Romans 11) that the Gentiles might be grafted in. It is therefore going beyond Paul to say that only the elect are members of the covenant community. Even once one has been grafted in, the possibility of falling away remains (Rom.11). Paul’s language about election largely needs to be understood in the context of covenant and not vice versa. This does mean that Paul’s use of “elect” often unsettles those of us who grew up with the pleasant aroma of TULIP. We must remember, however, that Paul’s teaching does not explicitly contradict TULIP; it simply operates more in the historical sphere than in the eternal.

Excursus on Internal/External Distinction (a)

Peter Leithart addresses the external/internal distinction with characteristic clarity and faithfulness here. Here's what he writes:

"At the same time, I acknowledge that the Bible regularly teaches that human beings have an internal and an external dimension. The tabernacle is, among other things, an architectural human being, and it has an “inner” and “outer” sanctuary. Paul uses an “inner man/outer man” distinction in various places (Romans 7:22; 2 Corinthians 4:16; Ephesians 3:16). So, the issue is not whether this distinction is a biblical one; it is. The question is what the Bible means by this distinction and how it functions. It’s very easy for us to read the Biblical inner/outer distinction through our own cultural lenses, where the Cartesian subject/object, mind/body dualism is still instinctive (emphasis mine, BDJ).

Let me briefly analyze one important use of this sort of distinction, Romans 2:27-29. In the context (I believe) of a discussion of Jews and Gentiles, Paul introduces a distinction between different sorts of circumcision. There is the manifest circumcision in the flesh, and the “secret” (kruptos) circumcision of the Spirit. Jews who don’t keep the law are not Jews, and their circumcision is uncircumcision (v. 25). Only those who keep the law by the power of the Spirit are Jews and the true circumcision. Within Israel, then, there are some who are circumcised only in the manifest, fleshly sense, and others who are circumcised also in the secret, Spiritual sense.

For Paul, however, this does not mean that fleshly circumcision is meaningless or useless, or that those who received fleshly circumcision received nothing. As Paul’s argument continues into chapter 3, he asks “What advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?” (v. 1). Clearly, he is speaking of what he has just described as Jews and circumcision according to flesh; the advantage of those who are circumcised by the Spirit is obvious. Given Paul’s distinction between fleshly and Spiritual circumcision, we might expect him to answer his question with “Fleshly circumcision gives no advantage.” That is not what Paul says, however. “Great in every respect” (v. 2). Here, he lists only one of the great advantages of fleshly Israel – “they were entrusted with the oracles of God” (v. 2).

When Paul picks up the argument later in Romans, however, he expands on the advantage of fleshly Israel: “For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.” (9:3-5).

Fleshly Israel – the “visible church” of the Old Testament – received great blessings. They were the son(s) of Yahweh, had the glory of Yahweh dwelling in their midst, received the covenants and promises, had a law that was the envy of the nations, was privileged with the temple service and the great heritage of the patriarchs. Above all, they were the people of Jesus, the Christ, the king of all things. When God blessed forever became flesh, He became Jewish flesh. These are blessings enjoyed by the “manifest” or “external” Jew, and they are considerable.

I don’t think I am imagining things to conclude that Paul’s is not the view of many in the PCA. Do we tell baptized children, “Yours is the adoption; yours the glory and the covenants and promises and commandments; you have a great heritage, and are privileged to have a place in the temple of the living God”? If Reformed theologians and pastors had so robust an understanding of the gifts conferred in baptism, I would not have devoted so much time to the subject of baptismal efficacy."

Questions for the CanRC (11) -- Part Deux

Scott's eleventh question, again: Schilder was known to say that everyone is in “the covenant” “head for head” and that “the covenant” is “all or nothing.” The effect of such formulations seems to deny the historic and confessional Reformed distinction between the two ways of being in the one covenant of grace, i.e., the distinction between the internal relation and the external relation to the covenant of grace. How widespread is the “head for head” and “all or nothing” view in the CanRCs?"

Answer: My recent foray into ritual studies led me to Bryan Spinks, the Professor of Liturgical Studies at Yale University. Dr. Spinks has written some fabulous material, not least a book entitled, Reformation and Modern Rituals and Theologies of Baptism (Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2006).

Herein Spinks writes (pp.42ff.), "The influence of Farel in Geneva may account for the fact that Calvin's writings between 1537 and 1539 show an increased tendency to distinguish between the outward and the inward. The 1539 Institute added a very lengthy discussion on circumcision, baptism and infant baptism. Gone is any reference to Luther's idea of child faith. Instead we have an approach similar to Zwingli's, justifying infant baptism on analogy with circumcision.

. . . Once in Strasbourg, however, it seems that Calvin came under Bucer's influence, and adopted or extended Bucer's terminology of instrument and exhibit. . . .The sacraments are instruments through which God works as he pleases and through which he gives us the reality he promises."

Spinks goes on to quote Christopher Elwood who writes, "In the notion that the sacraments are instruments of God's grace we have the read hallmark of the Calvinist doctrine. Calvin invokes instrumentality as a way of distinguishing sacramental signs from the communicative power that proceeds from and is the exclusive prerogative of God. The signs are efficacious not because of an inherent capacity but in the sense that they are instruments God has chosen to attest to the genuine operation of the Spirit's power to unite believers with the body of Christ."

Dr. Spinks has also written a very enlightening essay entitled, "Calvin's Baptismal Theology and the Making of the Strasbourg and Genevan Baptismal Liturgies 1540 and 1542" (Scottish Journal of Theology 48 [1995], 55-78). What follows is a very lengthy, but instructive quotation:

"The first and most striking change that Calvin has made is that he has abandoned Farel's Declaration on baptism, and has replaced it by his own lengthy explication within the service itself (70).

. . . In [Farel's Declaration of baptism] he denies that grace is bestowed through the outward ceremony, noting that good and bad receive baptism, citing Paul and Simon Magus. He then draws a sharp distinction between the outward ceremony and the inward baptism of grace by the Holy Spirit. This latter is not bound by time, place or ceremony. The outward ceremony is entry into the Church, and it is hoped that at some stage the candidate will receive the baptism of the Spirit. This teaching reflects very much the early years of the Reformation when for both Zwingli, with his neoplatonic stoic anthropology and its division between flesh and spirit, and for Bucer, there was concern to make a distinction between outward and inward baptism (71; my emphasis, BDJ).

. . . But the later Bucer moved away from this position, insisting that baptism is a signification and exhibition of the reality of grace. Farel, however, does not seem to have moved as far as Bucer had, and there is still a hint of the earlier Zurich division between inward and outward, spirit and flesh. Calvin had expounded some similar ideas in the 1539 Institute, but the fact that he dispenses with this suggests that he did not feel this theology particularly helpful. It was the Anabaptist threat which helped change Bucer's mind, and it may be the case that Calvin's experience with the Anabaptists persuaded him also that this was an unfruitful theology (71).

. . . Whereas Farel is concerned to explain the limitations of the human rite, Calvin is more concerned to stress the positive nature of a sacrament instituted by God. For Calvin, baptism is an objective sign which God gives us, and it may mediate grace, because the initiative is God's. Calvin is concerned to emphasize that God does not give empty signs" (73).

One more quote, unrelated to this post, but sweet nevertheless: "Last, Calvin has reversed Farel's order of commandments and then creed. This may be because Calvin believed that faith through grace leads to the keeping of the law as a response, while Farel's sequence, like the scheme of Beza and the later Heidelberg theologians, suggested that the demands of the law are prior to grace and faith. In Calvin's sequence of creed and then commandments the priority of grace is maintained" (73).

I wrote an essay about this here which I just discovered is footnoted in this interesting book.

Questions for the CanRC (11)

Scott's eleventh question: Schilder was known to say that everyone is in “the covenant” “head for head” and that “the covenant” is “all or nothing.” The effect of such formulations seems to deny the historic and confessional Reformed distinction between the two ways of being in the one covenant of grace, i.e., the distinction between the internal relation and the external relation to the covenant of grace. How widespread is the “head for head” and “all or nothing” view in the CanRCs?"

Answer: It would have been helpful here if Scott had provided some documentation for Schilder's use of these expressions. The language of "all or nothing" recalls the title of Sybrand Strauss' Th.D dissertation on Schilder, but leaves us wondering where and in what sense Schilder used this expression.

Dr. Nelson Kloosterman wrote an article for Christian Renewal (vol.25. no.15) offering a corrective to Scott's published remarks about Schilderian theology. Kloosterman writes, "Rather than distinguish between an internal aspect and an external aspect of the covenant of grace, Schilder preferred to speak of the legal aspect and the vital aspect of this covenant. Using this latter distinction, he taught that all baptized children are legally in the covenant of grace, and therefore all children are genuinely addressed by its promises, demands, and threats."

Since then numerous people have latched on to this quote, alleging that Schilder's view of the covenant was no different from that of Louis Berkhof or Geerhardus Vos, both of whom distinguished between the covenant as a purely legal relationship and the covenant as a communion of life.

This much is sure: Berkhof's and Vos's views of the covenant were not embraced by the late Dr. Jelle Faber. Dr. Faber questions, first, whether Berkhof's position on the dual aspect of the covenant doesn't present "a confusing ambiguity"? (American Secession Theologians, p.43). The ambiguity Faber detects lies in Berkhof insisting, on the one hand, that the promises of the covenant are extended collectively and not individually and, on the other hand, that each covenant child has the responsibility to lay hold of God's promises. In the words of Faber, "Berkhof does not answer the question how one may lay claim to promises that are not given individually" (p.42).

For Vos (see, Dogmatiek), the distinction between legal relationship (rechtsverbintenis) and fellowship of life (levensgemeenschap) can be rephrased as a distinction between being "under the covenant" and being "in the covenant." Vos restricts being "in" the covenant only to the elect, and this, according to Faber, does not do justice to Lord's Day 27 of the Heidelberg Catechism.

Berkhof's and Vos's positions don't seem to be Schilder's either. Schilder nowhere distinguishes between the covenant as purely legal relationship and the covenant as communion of life. Kloosterman's detection of a legal/vital distinction in Schilder may be accurate, but Schilder himself never phrased it exactly that way (and certainly not in the way Berkhof or Vos did).

In the section of Schilder's writings (his monograph, Looze Kalk) Kloosterman has in mind, Schilder writes (p.44), "To be sanctified in Christ means that by our participation in the covenant we are entitled (recht hebben) to the promises of justification by Christ's blood. When by faith the baptized person accepts the promise of being washed in Christ's blood, and thereby in fact receives justification, then this implies his being washed by Christ's Spirit --- his sanctification not 'in Christ' but 'through the Spirit.' And what we have 'in Christ' (by covenantal right, as promise; Dutch: naar verbondsrecht, in belofte) is therefore the washing away of our sins and the daily renewing of our lives (what our elders called regeneration, the resurrection of the new man, etc.), which must be seen as including our conversion in principle (principieele omzetting)."

Schilder makes an interesting distinction between "washing through Christ's blood" ("IN Christ") and the "washing through Christ's Spirit" (THROUGH the Spirit). In Schilder's mind, these two phrases from the Form for the Baptism of Infants mean different things, though his opponents alleged they were synonymous. The former, for Schilder, refers to the promise which belongs by right to every baptized child and the latter to the appropriation by faith of that which is promised, which only some enjoy.

In De Reformatie (18 [March 22, 1947] p.185) Schilder writes, "Participation in a promise is a right (Deelen in een belofte is een recht). He who bases himself on it . . . has a legally valid ground (een rechts-grondslag) for his 'assuming' and 'acting.' But participation in an active grace, a grace that is already active, is a fact (Maar deelen in een werkzame genade, een reeds werkende genade, dat is een feit). He who bases himself on it has a factual basis (een feitelijken grondslag) for his 'assuming' and 'acting.' The Synodicals jump from a sure and certain statement (stellige uitspraak) which creates a legally valid ground (een rechts-grondslag) to a presumptive fiction (onderstellende fictie), which only fantasizes a valid ground (een feitelijken grondslag)."

Whereas the Kuyperians alleged that "sanctified in Christ" means all covenant children are presumed to be regenerate (and on that basis baptized), Schilder argued that this phrase means that the promises of the covenant are legally (not fictitiously) the possession of all covenant children. On the other hand, those who embrace the promises of the covenant are not simply the legal recipients of the promises of justification, but are factually justified.

In his article, therefore, Dr. Kloosterman used the term "legal" to denote Schilder's rechts-grondslag and "vital" to denote Schilder's feitelijk grondslag. That strikes me as an appropriate description of the distinction so long as readers do not equate Schilder's views with those of Vos or Berkhof.

Questions for the CanRC (7) -- REVISITED

There's second quotation from Calvin about the inseparability of faith and works I should have included in my earlier post. This too is from his commentary on 1 John (4:7): "But two things in the Apostle's words ought to be noticed, -- that the true knowledge of God is that which regenerates and renews us, so that we become new creatures; and that hence it cannot be but that it must conform us to the image of God. Away, then, with that foolish gloss respecting unformed faith. For when any one separates faith from love, it is the same as though he attempted to take away heat from the sun."

Faith and works are as inseparable as the sun's light and the sun's heat. But just as the sun's heat does nothing to help us see, so the works we do do not avail for justification.

Questions for the CanRC (10-B)

Scott's 10th question (again): In the Nine Points, the URCs said, “we reject the errors of those…who teach that all baptized persons are in the covenant of grace in precisely the same way such that there is no distinction between those who have only an outward relation to the covenant of grace by baptism and those who are united to Christ by grace alone through faith.” At least one current CanRC minister has, in the past, preached publicly a sermon teaching that, at baptism, every baptized person is united “head for head” with Christ. What is the range of teaching in the CanRCs regarding “baptismal union with Christ”?

I think at some level Can Ref folk can agree with this. We all affirm that not every baptized covenant child is finally saved. Moreover, we agree with the Belgic Confession, article 29 which speaks of "hypocrites, who are mixed in the church along with the good and yet are not part of the church, although they are outwardly in it." Jelle Faber explained this with the memorable analogy of kidney stones. Kidney stones are in your body, but they are not of your body (see Lectures on the Church [Kelmscott: Pro Ecclesia, 1990]). The church is an assembly of "true Christian believers" and it is by faith that we partake of Christ and all his benefits (LD 25). Those who persist in unbelief don't belong in the church any more than kidney stones belong in the body; they should be excommunicated.

Scott would like us to say that baptized members of a church are not all in the covenant in exactly the same way, but that some are in the covenant outwardly by baptism and others are united to Christ inwardly by faith. At some level, this is a theologically precise formula and it can be reconciled with the Belgic Confession's teaching with little difficulty. Hypocrites are in the covenant outwardly by baptism and are not united to Christ inwardly by faith.

Why then do some Can Ref object to this formulation? Just because a theological statement can be defended, doesn't mean it should be used. After Dr. Faber notes that the Westminster Standards use expressions which reflect Calvin's concern about visible and invisible aspects to the church, he says, "It doesn't mean that you should say, 'I am happy with those expressions or I will take over those expressions.'" Dr. Faber goes on to say that behind these expressions was a legitimate "fight against a monolythic, 'positivistic' concept of the church." (Lectures on the Church, p.20).

Similarly, I can agree with the legitimate rationale behind Scott's distinction without utilizing the distinction. The church should not tolerate unbelievers. Unbelievers have no place in the church. We should preach, warn and exhort against spiritual apathy and presumption. We must stress the necessity of faith and conversion and repentance. We should not assume every member in our congregations will be finally saved.

What's so problematic then about utilizing the distinction between those outwardly in the covenant by baptism and those inwardly united to Christ by faith? Several things.

1. This distinction diminishes the value of baptism, seemingly making baptism dispensable. The sense you get from this distinction is: "Baptism is not what counts; faith is. Being in the covenant is not what counts; being united to Christ is." This seemingly reduces baptism and covenant inclusion to something merely external, if not superfluous. But baptism is God's sacrament and the covenant is His bond of love with us. Moreover, at baptism God sincerely promises us to wash away our sins and to present us, without spot or wrinkle, among the assembly of God's elect in life eternal and formally includes us in the body of His Son, the church (cf. Lord's Day 27; Belgic Confession, article 34). How dare we diminish those promises or denigrate that inclusion? Are covenant children insignificant little rugrats until they make public profession of faith? No, all covenant children---head for head---enjoy the saving promises of their Father and inclusion in the body of His Son. And if they die without spurning those promises they will be saved.

2. The distinction ignores ways in which all covenant children are members of Christ. The Reformed formulary for baptism says that the Holy Spirit assures baptismal candidates by the sacrament of baptism that He will make them living members of Christ, imparting to them what they HAVE in Christ---namely, the washing away of sins, etc. That promise, as I've indicated in previous posts, is not a prediction awaiting fulfillment, but a declaration summoning faith. Covenant children---head for head---are members of Christ by covenant promise and must grow up to embrace it or else be excluded from the church. Those who are excluded from membership in Christ and covenant with God are the unfruitful branches of John 15 which are cut off the vine of Christ. For this reason, I love the baptismal hymn in the Augment to Hymnary of the Book of Praise (Can Ref Hymnal) which has: "We praise you, Lord, that this dear child is grafted to the vine, and as a member of your house, now bears the cross as sign." That's a profound baptismal hymn!!

3. The distinction betrays a gnostic influence. This is something I learned from Sinclair Ferguson. Descriptions of authentic Christianity as inner or inward or internal represent a deviation from the holistic anthropology of Scripture. In a conversation we had a number of years ago, Dr. Ferguson said to me, "There is no such thing as faith; there are only believers." His point is that faith is not a commodity to be housed, but a gift to be lived. It is given to us to believe, much like it is given to us to suffer. Ever since that conversation I recoil when I hear "internally in the covenant" as if external means evil.

4. The distinction lacks pastoral sensitivity by shifting the focus from the objective promises of God to the subjectivity of one's spiritual health. If I begin to press the distinction in my preaching between those outwardly in the covenant by baptism and those inwardly members of Christ by faith, I suspect most parishioners of mine would conclude they are not inwardly members of Christ by faith. This is what lay at the heart of the Liberation of 1944. The issue was assurance of faith and the trustworthiness of God's covenant promises. Similarly, it would lack pastoral sensitivity for me to press the distinction between those externally called to ministry and those internally called to ministry. At some level this distinction is useful, but when pressed leads people only to doubt whether their minister is internally called to ministry.

5. This distinction can easily be employed with more biblical and therefore suitable terminology. Why not say: "some live in terms of the covenant; others break the covenant" or "some embrace the covenant promises with faith and others reject them in unbelief." Instead of talking about "those only outwardly in the covenant by baptism" I would prefer to use the language of "unbeliever" or "covenant-breaker." Instead of talking about "those inwardly united to Christ by faith" I would prefer to use the language of "believer" or "covenant-keeper."

Questions for the CanRC (10-A)

Scott's tenth question is: "In the Nine Points, the URCs said, “we reject the errors of those…who teach that all baptized persons are in the covenant of grace in precisely the same way such that there is no distinction between those who have only an outward relation to the covenant of grace by baptism and those who are united to Christ by grace alone through faith.” At least one current CanRC minister has, in the past, preached publicly a sermon teaching that, at baptism, every baptized person is united “head for head” with Christ. What is the range of teaching in the CanRCs regarding “baptismal union with Christ”?"

I'm quite sure that Scott is referring to me in this question. When I pastored in Kansas City, I preached a sermon on baptism in which I said, "God joins us to Christ through water baptism." Scott and his wife happened to be in attendance that evening. After the service my wife and I hosted them in our house and we had a lovely time. Months later I discovered from friends of mine who were students at Westminster Seminary that Scott had been publicly badmouthing me at the seminary. I was hurt by this and I immediately contacted him and what followed was a wave of email exchanges, involving several others, not least my own consistory in Kansas City.

To make a long story short, I retracted some things I said in the sermon and indicated regret for my lack of clarity and Scott promised not to bring up the sermon again. Though I found that Scott was often less than charitable in his assessment of my theology and though we never did come to complete agreement, I did appreciate some of his insights and tried, as best I could, to learn from him.

I now wish I had just stuck with Paul's own language in Romans 6, such as: "We are buried with Christ through baptism" though I'm not sure that would have helped either. The problem, as I see it today, was not so much the language of my thematic statement, but the way in which I worked it out. After all, the language I used has been used by countless Reformed notables, including Cornelis Trimp who writes, "It is baptism that grafts us into fellowship with Christ" (in Preaching and the History of Salvation, p.107). Hughes Oliphant Old begins a chapter on baptism by saying, "The saints enter into union with Christ through baptism" (in The Communion with Saints, ed. Phil Ryken). The Scots Confession (1560) says, "We assuredly believe that by Baptism we are engrafted into Christ." In the baptismal service followed by John Knox the question was posed, "Do you present this child to be baptized, earnestly desiring that it may be ingrafted in the mystical body of Jesus Christ?"

John Calvin, commenting on Matthew 3:13, tells us that Christ "received baptism with us in order to assure believers that they are ingrafted into His body, and that they are buried with Him in baptism." In his sermon on Galatians, he writes, "You see then that the way for us to get out of the dungeon of death wherein we were drowned is to be united to our Lord Jesus Christ by the bond of faith. Now Saint Paul saith, that that is done in Baptism" Sadly, Calvin continues, "many that are baptized do wipe away the grace of God" (Sermons on Galatians, 484-485).

Then there's the Reformed formulary for baptism which says, "When we are baptized into the Name of the Holy Spirit, God the Holy Spirit assures us by this sacrament that He will dwell in us and make us living members of Christ, imparting to us what we have in Christ."

In my sermon then I made much of John 15, arguing that Jesus underscores a union with Him in which all covenant members, head for head, partake. There is, after all, a whole host of Reformed theologians in the Afscheiding tradition who emphasize that all covenant member enjoy a union with Christ, head for head, in terms of John 15. Faber writes of William Heyns, for example, in American Secession Theologians (pp.40ff), "In John 15 the unfruitful branches --- covenant members--- are branches 'in Christ,' organically united to him. Romans 11 designates the covenant members as branches which had become partakers of the root and the fatness of the olive tree . . . Already in his earlier articles, Heyns said that a 'certain measure of life' in ALL covenant members cannot be denied" (emphasis mine). Even Herman Hoeksema, Faber points out, argued that the branches of the vine which were cut off (John 15) "drew their life-sap out of that vine."

Schilder was quite critical of Heyns, but Faber faults him for this: "Schilder did not sufficiently acknowledge Heyn's intention in his Catechiek and therefore did not do full justice to this American Secession theologian . . . Schilder should and could have more strongly defended his seceded brother Heyns over against Hoeksema's supralapsarianism."

Questions for the CanRC (9)

Scott's ninth question is: "How do CanRC pastors and theologians relate their biblical or covenant theology to their confessional theology? Are they integrated or are they seen as separate disciplines?"

In the words of Jelle Faber, "Although we stress that dogmatics takes its starting point in the dogmas of the church and is related to the study of church history, we do not forget that Holy Scripture is the only rule of faith. Therefore, we have to go back from the dogmas of the church to the revelation of God. The demonstrative task of the dogmatician is to prove the doctrine of the church is in agreement with Holy Writ. Scriptural proof occupies an important place in Reformed dogmatics. The Word of God is also the norm for the critical task of dogmatics. We must try to develop the dogmas of the church and to improve them where improvement may be necessary. K. Schilder called this the "sympathetic-critical" character of Reformed dogmatics: "sympathetic" with regard to the confessions of the church, and "critical" because Holy Scripture is and remains the only rule of faith. Councils, decrees, or statues are not of equal value with the truth of God, since the truth is above all (cf. Art.7, Belgic Confession)." From Essays in Reformed Doctrine (Neerlandia: Inheritance, 1990).

Questions for the CanRC (8)

Scott's eighth question: "Does sanctification have a role in the act of justification and if so, what is that role?"

Answer: No, sanctification does not have a role in the act of justification.

Questions for the CanRC (7)

Scott's seventh question:

Norman Shepherd has taught that, in the act of justification, faith is not simply “a certain knowledge and a hearty trust” or “resting” or “receiving” but it involves more than that. In light of the endorsement by two CanRC theologians of Shepherd’s theology, how to CanRC theologians and pastors speak about the nature of faith in the act of justification? In other words, do the CanRCs agree with the URC declaration that “we reject the errors of those…who define faith, in the act of justification, as being anything more than “leaning and resting on the sole obedience of Christ crucified” or “a certain knowledge” of and “a hearty trust” in Christ and His obedience and death for the elect”?

From my reading, Shepherd's burden is to reconcile the seeming contradiction between Paul and James by underscoring the vitality of justifying faith. In this connection, Shepherd has talked about justification by an "obedient faith." Understandably, this occasions alarm in the minds of many and the question is posed: How obedient must faith be in order to justify? But this misses Shepherd's point, which is: "A faith without obedience does not justify." Put still differently, a faith which does not obey is not justifying faith. Because of the confusion occasioned by Shepherd's formulation I much prefer the language of "living faith" or "true faith."

[Incidentally, the same problem could be posed of Scott's language (borrowed, I realize, from the Belgic Confession, article 23): How much must one lean and rest on Christ's work?]

I've been helped tremendously in my own understanding of justification sola fide by the Reformers, not least John Calvin, who in his commentary on Galatians 5:6 writes: "There would be no difficulty in this passage, were it not for the dishonest manner in which it has been tortured by the Papists to uphold the righteousness of works. When they attempt to refute our doctrine, that we are justified by faith alone, they take this line of argument. If the faith which justifies us be that “which worketh by love,” then faith alone does not justify. I answer, they do not comprehend their own silly talk; still less do they comprehend our statements. It is not our doctrine that the faith which justifies is alone; we maintain that it is invariably accompanied by good works; only we contend that faith alone is sufficient for justification."

Similarly, in his commentary on 1 John 3:22, Calvin writes, "By saying, because we keep his commandments, he means not that confidence in prayer is founded on our works; but he teaches this only, that true religion and the sincere worship of God cannot be separated from faith. Nor ought it to appear strange that he uses a causal particle, though he does not speak of a cause; for an inseparable addition is sometimes mentioned as a cause as when one says, Because the sun shines over us at midday, there is more heat; but it does not follow that heat comes from light."

An inseparable addition is sometimes mentioned as a cause. The heat of the sun always accompanies its light, but it does not follow that we see by the sun's heat. Works always accompany faith, but it does not follow that we are justified by works. Put in Shepherd's words: we are justified by obedient faith, but it does not follow that we are justified by obedience.

In answer to the question whether faith alone justifies, Francis Turretin writes: “The question is not whether solitary faith [fides solitaria], that is, separated from the other virtues, justifies, which we grant could not easily be the case since it is not even true and living faith; but whether it alone concurs to the act of justification, which we assert: as the eye alone sees, but not when torn out of the body. Thus the particle alone does not modify the subject but the predicate, that is, faith alone does not justify, but only faith justifies; the coexistence of love with faith in him who is justified is not denied, but its coefficiency or co-operation in justification [Ita particula sola non determinat subjectum, sed praedicatum, id est, sola fides non justficat, sed fides justificat sola: non negatur coextistentia charitatis in eo qui justificatur, sed coefficientia vel cooperatio in justificatione].

Mark Horne explains: "Turretin is saying that “alone” must not be understood as an adjective modifying “faith” so that justifying faith would have to be viewed as “solitary,” or in isolation from its working or from its manifestation in obedience to Christ. Rather, “alone” is to be understood adverbially as pointing to the distinctive role played by faith in relation to the other gifts and graces with which it is invariably associated. Only faith justifies. Only faith to receive, accept, and rest upon Christ for justification and salvation from eternal condemnation. This is what Turretin means when he says that faith alone concurs to the act of justification."

Lastly, this is what the Belgic Confession itself teaches us in article 24: "It is therefore impossible for this holy faith to be inactive in man . . . This faith induces man to apply himself to those works which God has commanded in His Word . . . Nevertheless, they do not count toward our justification."

So in short, I suspect all Canadian Reformed folk warmly embrace what the confessions teach about justification sola fide.