The Craw

What happened to the Sacraments

I have recently been teaching both our men's and women's groups by using John Piper's "Desiring God." Its a pretty good book but I am reminded again and again why Reformed Baptists need to re-appraise themselves in regard to the Reformed tradition. In fact, though I believe they are "Calvinistic" they are not strictly "Calvinists." Why do I say this (and I really am not trying to offend my Baptist brethren whom I love dearly)? Because Calvin placed great emphasis, GREAT EMPHASIS, on the sacraments and Baptists (no matter how hard they try) do not.

Take John Piper as an example. He writes in "Desiring God" that worship is a feast. I want to say up-front that I do appreciate his emphasis on "reception" in worship as opposed to the typical Kantean idea of us giving something to God in worship, as though receiving from God is selfish and sub-Christian. On page 109 he says:

I thank God that again and again He has awakened my heart to desire Him, to see Him, and to sit down to the feast of Christian Hedonism and worship the King of Glory. The banquet hall is very large.

What does this feast consist of? He writes on page 104, "Good sermons and hymns and prayers express and inspire worship." Try as hard as I might, I found no mention whatsoever of the sacraments. Look, I'm not trying to be a rump but Piper uses the language of worship as a feast...a feast. And so the element in worship that is commanded by our Lord which is actually a feast, the Lord's Supper, is nowhere to be found in Piper's section on worship. I find this strange and telling and the implications are interesting for Presbyterians who believe the same.

Ironic...Yet Again

Some time ago, while I was still in the PCA and in seminary, the White Horse Inn broadcast a segment from old home church. At the conclusion of the show, one my former elders supposedly had a conversation with Michael Horton wherein my views on the sacraments and baptism, in particular, were presented.  This was apparently done because I had claimed that my sacramental theology was partially formed through reading some of Michael's material. Supposedly Horton replied (I have no idea how my views were presented as I was living in St. Louis at the time) that my views and his were not compatible. This is extremely odd as Modern Reformation has recently re-published this very helpful essay on the sacraments by Michael Horton. In fact, it was this very article (Michael wrote it in 1997) that was seminal in my thinking on the subject. Here are some interesting selections from that essay:

Regarding Berkhof and "Presumption of Regeneration" Michael Horton quotes him without any objections:

Berkhof appeals to the Conclusions of Utrecht in 1908: "...Synod declares that, according to the confession of our Churches, the seed of the covenant must, in virtue of the promise of God, be presumed to be regenerated and sanctified in Christ, until, as they grow up, the contrary appears from their life or doctrine....

He also writes:

In drawing the parallel with Circumcision, Calvin emphasized the covenantal status of children of believers. They receive Baptism not in order to be made worthy of the kingdom, but because they are already the seed of the Lord. In other words, as Isaac was a child of promise at birth, Baptism does not make children Christians, but seals them in the covenant to which they are already entitled by Christ's mediatorial work.

This is really great stuff and I have benefited greatly from Michaels' essay. But honestly, I am hard-pressed to find any difference between his views and mine. I admit I also draw out the conclusion that baptized children should be admitted to the other sacrament, The Lord's Supper, and Michael does not. I wish I had been there myself to talk with him, maybe over some cognac and cigars. I doubt we would be very far apart theologically.

Yeah, I didn't think so

You may notice that several posts ago, Doug Wilson challenged Guy Water's or any anti-FVer to debate him on the subject of the FV. To date there have been no takers. I think an excellent candidate would be R. Scott Clark. He has lots of time to juggle his duties as professor at Westminster Seminary (not to be confused with Westminster Theological Seminary), California, and as a pastor. He has even come on this blog (here and here) casting forth polemics while I was mere seminary student. Here you can find a whole thread (with many Scott Clark comments) on why he can't possibly debate Wilson. He even writes, "They take a lot of prep time. I would rather spend my time writing and teaching." but I see him all over the blogoshere, typically pouring Greek Fire on the likes of Doug Wilson. He uses derision (oh my!) here when he calls FV-types (Wilson must be included) "FV/PC boys (and girls)." Surely he's not afraid to debate a little "boy" like Wilson is he?

How about it Dr. Clark? How 'bout steppin' up?