Yep, sacraments are for “stupid” people. No matter that Jesus commanded His church to “Go…make disciples…baptizing them…” and “Do this in remembrance of Me.” Super-spiritual, elitist mystics like “ctrace” – who alone are privileged to have special insight by the Spirit – understand that Jesus didn’t “really” mean that, and should you disagree with him you are either devoid of the Spirit or just plain “stupid.” Them “seminary educated,” angry clerics are too unspiritual to really “understand” the deep theology and papal-like pronouncements of “ctrace.” (By the way, readers should understand that “ctrace” has admitted that he has never felt “led” to join a visible church. He decries “sola ecclesia,” but it appears he stands for “no ecclesia.”)

How do we know ctrace’s historical interpretations and pronouncements are true? Because he/she says so. Thus saith “ctrace.”

That’s the unspoken thing in this subject. Some guy writes a book called Young, Restless, and Reformed and numerous people wake up the next morning getting called ‘young, restless, and reformed.’ Oh, really? I.e. the label is used because it is self-serving by the people who decide to repeat it and use it. How better to belittle people you disagree with than to call them young and restless. How about if I call Calvinists I disagree with Old, Romanist Reformed? “I believe James Cassidy, you know, the guy at Reformed Forum that’s part of the Old Romanist Reformed movement, is off-the-mark when he says…” blah, blah, blah… Or, “Old Romanist Reformed movement leader R. Scott Clark has written a new article touting…”

People are either on-the-mark or off-the-mark with biblical doctrine. They’re either watering it down and negotiating it down to the demands of their fallen nature or they’re not. And they’ve either got partial understanding which really isn’t understanding at all, or they’ve got whole understanding (a good definition of understanding of anything is seeing the parts in relation to the whole). Some want to focus on church and sacraments, but does someone have understanding of the Plan of Redemption from before the foundation of the world to the consummation and beyond? That is Covenant – Federal – Theology and it is not the servant of infant baptism or Presbyterian or Reformed church polity.

The positions of three of the most biblical theologians who ever lived – John Calvin, John Bunyan, John Owen – on church polity and sacraments being different shows that the Bible is not clear on issues of ecclesiology and sacramentology, and when the Bible is not clear on something it is *intentionally* not clear on something. It’s because different things are called for in different eras of God’s plan of redemption. Regarding sacraments when Zwingli said the sacraments are for stupid people (those that need them, or need the visual, he probably meant) he meant it. He changed later for other reasons, but he said it and meant it. There is a depth of meaning to sacraments that will be seen and practiced by different Christians in different ways. At different levels. That’s the way it is. The Bible speaks of level of being regarding people in heaven itself. This is not a subject seminary educated, church leading Christians want to speak of because frankly they don’t understand it, and when confronted with it they instinctively are angered at it. This is the problem with confessions in the area of ecclesiology and sacramentology.

Other than historicism, of course. 🙂

See Belgic Confession, Article 36 (original); Irish Articles of Religion, Article 80; Canons of Dordt, Introduction (in Thomas Scott’s “Articles of the Synod of Dort); Westminster Confession of Faith, 25.6 (original); Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order, 26.4; Second London Baptist Confession, 26.4.

Okay. That is certainly an interpretation of history. So just out of curiosity, would you say that by the third generation, the Protestants finally got their ecclesiology right? And to which creed or confession should one go to find this correct understanding conveyed?

“Protestantism is an actual historical phenomenon”

Calvin believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Old Calvinists became Universalists/Unitarians. A little less a-historical pride in your ‘old’ Calvinism.

The first and second generation Reformers left a lot of the grease and fat of Romanist dogma on their plates either because they used to be Romanists or for practical decisions of war (Zwingli). They had entire populations of cities that use to be Romanist and that only knew sacraments and prayer beads, thus a too radical disconnect was not in order with Romanist armies surrounding those very cities. This is called history.

When a Christian is uneasy about a verse, i.e. knows they are reading too much into it, they are reluctant to cite the verse but will just allude to it. This is what you’ve done regarding Gal. 4:26.

What you are really going on is quotes from early church fathers, the word of man, not the word of God.

Mark, I agree. Though do believe Calvin DID present covenant theology in his institutes. His ideas are inchoate at the time, and later generations flesh them out, but they are definitely present in the institutes. Of course, Calvin is not the first time we see those ideas, they are already resident in the early church in theologians like Ireneaus. And so covenant theology as a method of hermeneutics is behind all 5 of my concerns. In other words, the reason I have those concerns is because so many in the NC do not have a self-conscience covenantal hermeneutic.

“We believe that since this holy assembly and congregation is the gathering of those who are saved and there is no salvation apart from it, no one ought to withdraw from it, content to be by himself, regardless of his status or condition. But all people are obliged to join and unite with it, keeping the unity of the church by submitting to its instruction and discipline, by bending their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ, and by serving to build up one another, according to the gifts God has given them as members of each other in the same body. And to preserve this unity more effectively, it is the duty of all believers, according to God’s Word, to separate themselves from those who do not belong to the church, in order to join this assembly wherever God has established it, even if civil authorities and royal decrees forbid and death and physical punishment result. And so, all who withdraw from the church or do not join it act contrary to God’s ordinance.”

–Belgic Confession, article 28

That’s a shame, ctrace, that Romanist apparently was not acquainted with Paul and Revelation.

Its more than OK, its excellent! Thou dost almost persuade me you are a paleo-Calvinist!

“But as it is now our purpose to discourse of the visible Church, let us learn, from her single title of Mother, how useful, nay, how necessary the knowledge of her is, since there is no other means of entering into life unless she conceive us in the womb and give us birth, unless she nourish us at her breasts, and, in short, keep us under her charge and government, until, divested of mortal flesh, we become like the angels, (Matth. 22: 30.) For our weakness does not permit us to leave the school until we have spent our whole lives as scholars. Moreover, beyond the pale of the Church no forgiveness of sins, no salvation, can be hoped for, as Isaiah and Joel testify, (Isa. 37: 32; Joel 2: 32.)”

If you define ‘church’ as a Roman Catholic and not as a Protestant you are right. If you understand that with regeneration by the word and the Spirit you are in the invisible Church of which Christ is King, and that communion with other Christians in that Church happens naturally and in ways not defined by cleric guilds with worldly self-interests then you are wrong.

Thanks for point about coming or going. I agree with you. In fact, here is a section of the piece I cut:

“To be sure, I rejoice any time a believer moves from an Arminian soteriology or open theism doctrine of God to a Calvinistic one. And it may be that that is a necessary initial move on the way to something more Reformed. In which case I wonder if the new Calvinism isn’t so much new as it is just underage. If so, then I for one am not content with it. Rather, I would urge my fellow pilgrims to press on to full theological – and with that ecclesiological – adulthood. I too have a long way to go and need to grow, but if I am a member of the old Calvinism and if that old Reformed faith is a better way, then I am thankful to the grace of God alone. I certainly couldn’t get there on my own fleshly, fallen abilities. Soli Deo Gloria!”

Also, fair point about the amillennialism. There was nothing I said there could not be heartily affirmed also by a historic pre-mill and an older version of post-millism. That said, you are correct I struck some cords which are distinctive to a modern Reformed amillism.

But neither is the doctrine of regeneration the servant of Lone Ranger Christianity. One cannot be IN the church and NOT IN the church at the same time, no matter how many words you use to argue otherwise.

Are they coming or going? Someone with a low view of the church who preaches TULIP is better than someone with a low view who preaches human autonomy and divine impotence as long as what has changed recently is their view of salvation.

Whether your article *should* lead me to believe that you think Old Calvinism = Amil or not, it did.

http://www.desertratofmorgan.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-common-and-consistent-gift.html

Inserting infant baptism into Covenant – Federal – Theology requires distorting and inelegant ad hoc doctrine. Entrance into the Covenant of Grace is by regeneration by the word and the Spirit, not by cleric and ritual. God is sovereign in creation, providence, *and grace.* Exalting cleric and ritual above the word of God and the Holy Spirit shows a Cain-like anger towards God’s sovereignty in regeneration.

One *cannot* be IN the Covenant of Grace and *NOT IN* the Covenant of Grace at the same time, no matter how many words you use to stitch together a defense of such bad – though necessary from a paedo-baptist’s point-of-view – doctrine.

The simplicity and power of Covenant – Federal – Theology has not been taught because paedo-baptists have held a false proprietary relationship to it with the motive of keeping Romanish dogmas in the realm of sacerdotalism and priestcraft alive. That Reformed churches have devolved to hierarchical structures is another give away of the Romanist demands in the leaders of those communions. Use of the unbiblical language of ‘lay people’ a dead giveaway.

I’m sorry Bob, but of course the Baptists had Covenant Theology in view. They believed that only professing believers can belong to the covenant of grace, which substance and administration didn’t occur until the time of Reformation(Christ’s first advent).The Particular Baptists were quite Covenantal in their framework of the 2nd London Confession. Please review Pascal Denault’s book on 17th century Baptist covenant theology as well as 17th century Particular Baptist Nehemiah Coxe’s “From Adam to Christ” for an understanding of Baptist Covenant Theology. Comparing chapters in confessions isn’t quite enough since we know that all of the confession builds upon what went before it. Also, the Baptist Catechism of 1693 explicitly says that the means of grace are:God’s Word(read, but especially preached), baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and prayer.

And for the record, I’m Amil. 😉

Nothing in my post should lead one to think that I am saying any one particular eschatological position is exclusively the possession of the old (paleo?) Calvinism.

That wasn’t my question either.

My question isn’t about whether Tombes was consistent or not.

People are inconsistent all the time. One man’s inconsistency doesn’t invalidate a consistent position.

http://www.cityofgodblog.com/2014/03/question-what-about-john-tombes/

Thanks Michael, I appreciate you clarification on the means of grace. I was going to reference Barcellos’ book, but had to trim at places.

:O

Well. Classic baptist signature.

By the way, some of us Particular Baptists, especially those of us who are confessional, do regard the sacraments as means of grace (1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, 14.1,17.3,18.3).

I appreciate you (and all the other Reformed Forum cohorts) as always, brother!