This week on Theology Simply Profound, Rob and Bob discuss Louis Berkhof’s little book, Summary of Christian Doctrine. We continue our discussion of chapter XXVI, “Christian Baptism.” In this episode, we continue our discussion of Christian baptism.

Participants: Rob McKenzie, Robert Tarullo

This week on Theology Simply Profound, Rob and Bob discuss Louis Berkhof’s little book, Summary of Christian Doctrine. We continue our discussion of chapter XXVI, “Christian Baptism.” In this episode, we begin to discuss the nature and meaning of Christian baptism.

Participants: Rob McKenzie, Robert Tarullo

Today, we turn to pages 318–322 of Vos’ Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments to explore the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. Our goal is to offer a nuanced understanding by identifying both the similarities and differences between John’s baptism of Jesus and the baptisms John performed upon the people.

Vos aims to steer clear of two misconceptions: the first being that Jesus’ baptism and the people’s baptisms were entirely distinct events, and the second that they were essentially the same.

The baptism of Jesus holds dual significance. Firstly, it serves as a public and objective revelation of the Holy Spirit’s glory, manifested as the Spirit descended from heaven onto Jesus. Secondly, it has a sacramental meaning for Jesus himself, as he received something from the Spirit that furthered his earthly mission, which was a journey of suffering leading to glory.

In addition, we’ll examine the connection between Jesus’s baptism and his role as the Messiah, offering insights into both pneumatology—the study of the Holy Spirit—and eschatology—the study of end times.

Chapters

• 00:07 Introduction
• 00:37 Discussing the Recent Course on Aquinas’ Trinitarian Theology
• 09:49 John’s Baptism of Jesus
• 23:22 The Redemptive-Historical Roles of Jesus and John
• 27:05 Jesus Identifies with His People
• 29:55 The Objective Office of Messiah
• 41:42 The Descent of the Spirit upon Jesus
• 46:54 The Sacramental Significance of Jesus Baptism
• 50:31 The Beginning of the New Creation
• 58:49 Conclusion

Participants: Camden Bucey, Lane G. Tipton

Danny Olinger and Camden Bucey discuss Graham Greene’s novel, The Power and the Glory, which raises many questions about the nature of faith, ordination, and the sacraments through the lens of Roman Catholic theology. Greene said, “The aim of the book was to oppose the power of the sacraments and the indestructibility of the Church on the one hand with, on the other, the merely temporal power of an essentially Communist state” (Godman, 88). John Updike called this novel, “Graham Greene’s masterpiece.”

Danny Olinger is General Secretary for the Committee on Christian Education of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

Links

• Christ the Center episode 644, Catholic Theology and the Novels of Graham Greene
• Christ the Center episode 560 with Lawrence Feingold, The Beatific Vision and the Eucharist in the Theology of Thomas Aquinas.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Danny Olinger

In his first apology (ca. 150–155 A.D.), Justin Martyr wrote an early account of ancient Christian worship, describing ancient practices regarding the sacraments and Lord’s Day worship. It was written to an unbeliever, and therefore Justin does not assume that his intended reader—the Emperor Antoninus Pius (138–161)—knows anything about Christian worship. Moreover, while Pliny describes the worship practices of the Christians in Pontus, Justin describes the liturgical customs of the church in Rome. Justin lived and worshiped in Rome, but he didn’t convert in Rome. He most likely converted to Christianity in Ephesus around 130 A.D. So he was familiar with the liturgical customs of both Western and Eastern Christians. It is also important to understand that Justin’s account is descriptive not prescriptive. It is not a church order (e.g. Didache, Apostolic Tradition). It is simply a description of what Christians were already doing not what Justin thought they ought to do.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Glen Clary, Jeff Waddington

Here we seek to answer three questions: First, “What is the meaning of circumcision?” Second, “What is the purpose of circumcision? and third, “To whom is circumcision to be applied” We conclude that the sign of faith is to be applied to believers and their children.

Participants: Adam York, Glen Clary, Jim Cassidy, Mark A. Winder

God re-names Sarai—again reflecting his covenant promise. And one essential characteristic of the covenant of promise is that covenant community will always be comprised of elect and non-elect. Inseparable from the covenant itself are the parties of the covenant.

Participants: Jim Cassidy, Mark A. Winder, Mark Jenkins

Today on Theology Simply Profound, Rob and Bob return to the subject of baptism by way of answering some of our listener questions. Enjoy this practical discussion about some of the ins and outs of dealing with different circumstances that leaders might need to think through.

Participants: Rob McKenzie, Robert Tarullo

Cornelis P. Venema joins us to speak about his book By His Spirit and Word: How Christ Builds His Church (Reformed Fellowship, Inc.). Venema engages in an extended exposition on the doctrine of the church and its ministry as described in the historic confessions and catechisms of the Reformation churches. These confessions emphasize the church’s indispensability to the salvation of believers, for the triune God’s redemptive mission is principally effected through the ministry of the church. Dr. Venema is President and Professor of Doctrinal Studies at Mid-America Reformed Seminary in Dyer, Indiana.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Cornelis Venema

In his “Summary of Doctrine Concerning the Ministry of the Word and the Sacraments,” Calvin articulates the idea of union and communion with Christ through the means of grace.

The end of the whole Gospel ministry is that God … communicate Christ to us who are disunited by sin and hence ruined, that we may from him enjoy eternal life; that in a word all heavenly treasures be so applied to us that they be no less ours than Christ’s himself. We believe this communication to be mystical, and incomprehensible to human reason, and Spiritual, since it is effected by the Holy Spirit [by whom] he joins us to Christ our Head, not in an imaginary way, but most powerfully and truly, so that we become flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, and from his vivifying flesh he transfuses eternal life into us. To effect this union, the Holy Spirit uses a double instrument, the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments. When we say that the Holy Spirit uses an external minister as instrument, we mean this: both in the preaching of the Word and in the use of the sacraments, there are two ministers, who have distinct offices. The external minister administers the vocal word, and the sacred signs which are external, earthly and fallible. But the internal minister, who is the Holy Spirit, freely works internally, while by his secret virtue he effects in the hearts of whomsoever he will their union with Christ through one faith. This union is a thing internal, heavenly and indestructible. In the preaching of the Word, the external minister holds forth the vocal word, and it is received by the ears. The internal minister, the Holy Spirit, truly communicates the thing proclaimed through the Word, that is Christ…. so that it is not necessary that Christ or for that matter his Word be received through the organs of the body, but the Holy Spirit effects this union by his secret virtue, by creating faith in us, by which he makes us living members of Christ, true God and true man.[1]

[1] Jean Calvin, Theological Treatises, ed. J.K.S. Reid (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 170-77.

For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

In Calvin’s commentary on this text, the Reformer makes the following observations about the signs and realities of the sacraments.

When [Paul] says that the fathers ate the same spiritual meat, he shows, first, what is the virtue and efficacy of the Sacraments, and, secondly, he declares, that the ancient Sacraments of the Law had the same virtue as ours have at this day. For, if the manna was spiritual food, it follows, that it is not bare emblems that are presented to us in the Sacraments, but that the thing represented is at the same time truly imparted, for God is not a deceiver to feed us with empty fancies. A sign, it is true, is a sign, and retains its essence, but, as Papists act a ridiculous part, who dream of transformations, (I know not of what sort,) so it is not for us to separate between the reality and the emblem which God has conjoined. Papists confound the reality and the sign: profane men, as, for example, Suenckfeldius, and the like, separate the signs from the realities. Let us maintain a middle course, or, in other words, let us observe the connection appointed by the Lord, but still keep them distinct, that we may not mistakenly transfer to the one what belongs to the other.

So Roman Catholics err by confounding the reality and the sign. Anabaptists err by separating them. Calvin argues that sign and reality must be kept distinct, but they must not be severed. The sacraments are signs, but they are not empty or bare signs, nor are they signs of something absent but of something present, given, and received. Ultimately, the reality signified by the signs is Jesus Christ himself and all the benefits of redemption which are found in him.

What does the Didache teach us about the theology and practice of baptism in the ancient church? Chapter 7 of the Didache addresses the topic of Christian baptism. In verse 1 of this chapter, we see a connection between baptism and catechesis. Those who were about to receive baptism were first of all instructed in the way of life. Secondly, we learn that whenever baptism was administered, God was invoked by his triune name: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The recipient of baptism was being baptized into union and fellowship with the Triune God. Thirdly, baptism ordinarily would have taken place outdoors in living water, meaning running or flowing water. This was the ordinary setting for Christian baptism, but verse 2 tells us that if such water was unavailable, Christians were free to baptize with other water, preferably cold water. Next, we see that pouring water on the head three times—which is known as trine baptism—was an acceptable mode of baptism, even though it may not have been the ordinary mode of baptism. Finally, we see that the rite of baptism was preceded by a short period of fasting. Those who were about to be baptized should fast, and the one who was going to administer baptism should likewise fast, as well as any others in the congregation who were able to do so. This fast ordinarily lasted one to two days. The Didache does not explain the reason for the pre-baptismal fast, but it was most likely understood as a sign of repentance. So there we have a brief introduction to what the Didache says about Christian baptism in the ancient church.

If you’re interested in learning more about the Didache, I recommend the following resources. I would start with O’Loughlin’s short commentary. That’s the best introduction to the Didache available today. For more detailed study, you’ll need Milavec and Niederwimmer. The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary by Aaron Milavec The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. by Aaron Milavec The Didache: A Window on the Earliest Christians by Thomas O’Loughlin The Didache by Kurt Niederwimmer

In maintaining the perfection of the Scriptures, we do not insist that every article of religion is contained in Scriptures in so many words; but we hold that conclusions fairly deduced from the declarations of the Word of God are as truly parts of divine revelation as if they were expressly taught in the Sacred Volume. That good and necessary consequences deduced from Scripture are to be received as part of the rule of our faith and practice, is evident from the example of our Savior in proving the doctrine of the resurrection against the Sadducees,—Matt. xxii. 31,32; and from the example of Paul, who proved that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, by reasoning with the Jews out of the Old Testament Scriptures.—Acts xvii. 2, 3. “All Scripture” is declared to be “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;” but all these ends cannot be obtained, unless by the deduction of consequences. Legitimate consequences, indeed, only bring out the full meaning of the words of Scripture; and as we are endued with the faculty of reason, and commanded to search the Scriptures, it was manifestly intended that we should draw conclusions from what is therein set down in express words.

Michael Bushell rightly explains that the Westminster Confession of Faith “clearly operates on the assumption that principles derived from the Word by ‘good and necessary consequence’ [cf. WCF 1:6] are every bit as binding upon us as those ‘expressly set down in Scripture.’”[2] James H. Thornwell argued that this interpretation of the Confession has always been the Puritan view.

We have not been able to lay our hands upon a single Puritan Confession of Faith which does not explicitly teach that necessary inferences from Scripture are of equal authority with its express statements: nor have we found a single Puritan writer, having occasion to allude to the subject, who has not explicitly taught the same things.

So if infant baptism may be deduced from scripture by good and necessary consequence, then it is a divine imperative, just as if it stood written, “Thou shalt baptize infants.” Those who hold to the regulative principle of worship—which asserts that “not to command is to forbid”—must either affirm that infant baptism is commanded by God or it is forbidden by God. What seems to me to be incompatible with the regulative principle of worship is Lane’s “dual-practice view.” Either we must baptize infants or we must not baptize them. It’s either lawful or unlawful. But the one thing it cannot be—if the regulative principle is true—is optional. [1]David F. Wright, Baptism Three Views (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2009). [2]Michael Bushell, The Songs of Zion: A Contemporary Case for Exclusive Psalmody (Pittsburgh, PA: Crown and Covenant, 1993) 123.

To be sure, it is very easy to ask: “Where in Scripture are we forbidden to wear a crown?” But, can you show me a text that says we should be crowned? If people try to say that we may be crowned because the Scriptures do not forbid it, then they leave themselves open to the retort that we may not be crowned because Scripture does not prescribe it. But “Whatever is not forbidden is, without question, allowed.” Rather do I say: “Whatever is not specifically permitted is forbidden.”[2]

These two opposing principles—whatever is not forbidden is allowed (on the one hand) and whatever is not commanded is forbidden (on the other)—reappear in the sixteenth century debates on worship. Both the Calvinists and the Anabaptists employed the latter principle, but the two groups had different criteria for what constituted biblical warrant to justify liturgical practice. Specifically, the Anabaptists had a narrower understanding of biblical warrant and, therefore, a more restrictive version of the regulative principle than the Calvinists had. “Direct biblical warrant, in the form of precept or precedent, is required to sanction every item included in the public worship of God,” claimed the Anabaptists.[3] Therefore, they rejected infant baptism, for instance, because of the absence in scripture of any clear command or example to justify it. On the other hand, Calvinists recognized that biblical warrant could be established, not only by precept or precedent, but also by biblical inferences or, as the Westminster Confession says, deductions by good and necessary consequence. As James Bannerman explains,

The doctrine of the Westminster Standards [WCF 1:6] and of our church is, that whatsoever is not expressly appointed in the Word, or appointed by necessary inference from the Word, it is not lawful for the Church to exercise of its own authority to enjoin; the restriction upon that authority being, that it shall announce and enforce nothing in the public worship of God, except what God himself has in explicit terms or by implication instituted.[4]

Endnotes [1] Dr. Hughes Oliphant Old tipped me off to the Grebel-Tertullian connection. [2] Robert Dick Sider, ed., Christian and Pagan in the Roman Empire: The Witness of Tertullian (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2001) 120. [3] J. I. Packer makes this comment about the Puritans, but in our opinion, it is more descriptive of the Radical Reformers; see Packer, Among God’s Giants: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (Eastborne: Kingsway, 1991) 326. [4] James Bannerman, The Church of Christ (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974) 1:340.

My initial thought was to put briefly into writing a few introductory comments toward a redemptive historical response to a purified ecclesiology—positively stated, to articulate the starting point for an ecclesiology rooted in a redemptive-historical (Vosian) understanding of biblical revelation. I had planned to do this without bothering with baptism, but as it turns out baptism has quite something to do with ecclesiology. Even more surprising: I am interested in this connection. But the redeeming fact is that both provide an opportunity to reflect upon or even better to explore the fruit of viewing Scripture as divinely inspired interpretation of the organic and unified but historically progressive redemption of God in Christ. I expect that what follows will come across at least to some readers as a perhaps unfocused and overwrought defense of baptizing babies. Perhaps, but that would be a miscategorization. In my view the rejection of paedo-covenanting is a gift of particular commitments one level down, at the level of ecclesiology, and of additional commitments even further down, at the level of this relation between the sacrament and the redemptive historical nature of revelation and even of the historical nature of redemption. Ecclesiology then is the common ground between our sacramentology and our understanding of the historicity of redemption and revelation. Baptism fits nicely, and most naturally, into a mature ecclesiology, and ecclesiology saves our sacramentology from exegetical atomism. Additionally, as the primary ordinary context for the Lord’s shepherding and sanctifying of his people, the church itself, as active in its prescribed tasks, is where faithful theology begins and should remain. I have heard it said that there is no such thing as a Reformed Baptist. Now that’s a catchy thesis. So that’s what I am after in what follows: ecclesiology and redemptive history. Oh, and baptism. I agree that the “essence of the church consists in believers alone,” to quote Herman Bavinck (RD, 4:306). But there is no warrant in that assertion to go on to say that the church should consist only of the regenerate. Baptists often argue: baptism represents faith-union to Christ; therefore infants (and children) cannot be baptized and thus are not members of the church or the covenant body. Note the assumption, implicit in this way of putting it, that ‘baptism represents faith-union’ implies ‘baptism represents only faith-union with Christ’. Allow me to dispense with a bit of pedantry. The inference here is invalid. ‘Baptism represents faith-union with Christ’ does not imply that ‘baptism represents only faith union with Christ’. When I say that the inference is invalid, I mean that [(A: Baptism represents faith-union) implies (B: Baptism represents only faith-union)] is false. The statement is false because of the relationship that it affirms between the two clauses, implication. So we say that the inference is invalid, since, regardless of the truth value of the component propositions, it is never true that [(A is B) implies (B is A)]. Nonetheless either or both claims may still be true. And all in fact agree that A is true: baptism represents faith-union. Is B true? Paul’s argument in Rom 2–4 that circumcision was of no independent value under the old covenant, as neither was it for Abraham, means that under the old covenant, where circumcision sits in for baptism, A was true but B was false. The circumcised were not always the regenerate. The sign represented faith-union, but in fact the sign was primarily of the covenant, not only of vital union. So under the new covenant, the truth of B would represent pointed discontinuity between circumcision and baptism and between OT and NT ecclesiastical structures. On the contrary, I think we may assume continuity, since without it Abraham should have no place in Rom 4 and the OT saints of Hebrews 11 should be deemed fideists. But anyway if that were the case, B would require specific, explicit support in the NT. And there is none. No single verse in the NT reverses the OT status of B (as false) by teaching that under the new covenant all but those making credible confession are refused the sign of the covenant and excluded from the covenant community. To put it another way, all paedo-covenanters happily affirm credo-covenanting. Everyone is a credo-baptist. But many who affirm credo-covenanting renounce paedo-covenanting arbitrarily. Or we might put it this way: it is often claimed that ‘no single verse affirms paedobaptism’. This statement is helpful on at least three counts. First, it reminds us that, in complementary fashion, no single verse affirms credo-exclusive baptism; better said, no single NT verse renounces paedo-covenanting. The argument from silence is a draw. Second, it reminds us that, consequently, proof-texting will not resolve this issue and that instead we must look to sometimes implicit ecclesiastical structures, to a theology of the sacrament, and to the movement of redemptive history (any one of these alone will do, but they are related such that none bears neglect). And if ecclesiology, sacramentology, and redemptive history are where it’s at, the claim is exceedingly dubious; it is either false or true only on a most unfortunate interpretation: Peter never turned to the camera and said, ‘let me be clear: we baptize kids, and so should you’. But even if true, as a premise it is irrelevant, since—and here is the third point—it derives its purported punch from an assumption of OT/NT discontinuity. There is newness, yes, but newness within organic unity or I’m a Marcionite’s uncle. Surely the burden of proof is on the discontinuer, on the re-definer of the sign, the theology of the sacrament, and the order of the visible body. Note the lengths to which the author of Hebrews goes to prove that Christ satisfies, fulfills, supercedes and thus abrogates the sacrificial system and the priesthood. So anyway, in my experience, it is often believed that a ‘purified’ ecclesiology is the pride of the NT era. It is argued, as it is necessary for the rejection of paedobaptism, that the distinction between vital and formal covenants is an OT reality only, and that the NT church is pure, and vital only. Or put it this way: if you begin with a purified ecclesiology, you find that it has implications for one’s view of baptism, which will then be taken to represent in subjective, self-declarative fashion only the individual sinner’s entering into faith-union with Christ. Baptism becomes a reactive, ecclesial stamp on public confession. Given a purified ecclesiology, in other words, baptism has to be the closest possible visible correlation to actual regeneration, which is an epistemological problem. But let’s address this ecclesiological issue first. In my understanding the present age, as the common grace era, is a ‘mixed’ age, when the wheat and the tares grow together. God’s working redemption unto his own glory is the singular purpose of history since Gen 3, so there is some analyticity here: the present age just is, by God’s design, the mixed age. Accordingly, the individual believer, the church, and the world are all mixed realities until the number of the elect is complete and the Lord returns. The church still looks forward to entering the Lord’s rest, when the ‘not yet’ will be fulfilled, the ‘already’ consummated, the saints revealed in glory, and the church and individual believers attain incorruptible and imperishable holiness. In this sense, a pure church is an eschatological reality yet to come. Faithfully we strive for unity and purity in the church; but we are not expected to shift by our own effort the epochs of redemptive history. As noted, there is an epistemological angle here, as well. Were we to set out to purify our congregations of all those who would eventually fall away—or conversely, to bring into membership all those who have faith but are outside the church—we would face the insurmountable difficulty of discerning who was who. (Nor are the sacraments intended for this purpose.) In this sense a great deal of pressure is exerted on the necessary connection between baptism and regeneration and on our epistemic rights to this connection. Calvin quotes from Augustine’s commentary on John, saying that “many sheep are without, and many wolves are within” (Inst., 4.1.8). When Christ returns, the distinction will be made public—but not until then. Like ecclesiology, the epistemological situation is redemptive-historically qualified, and it is a common grace reality. Bavinck brings the ecclesiological and the epistemological together: “The visible and invisible church are two sides of the one and same church. The same believers are viewed in one case from the perspective of the faith that dwells in their heart and is only known with certainty by God; and in the other case they are viewed from the perspective of their witness and life, the side that is turned toward us and can be observed by us. Because the church on Earth is in process of becoming, these two sides are never—not even in the purest church—identical” (RD, 4: 306). With Bavinck (and Calvin, Augustine, et al), then, I believe that the NT teaches—presupposes, rather, or better yet, inherits from the OT—the distinction between vital and formal covenants or covenant bodies, such that the mystical body of Christ is not identifiable with the visible church community. This discrepancy is not an impediment to the church’s mission; it is part of the Lord’s design for the church. NT ecclesiology, reflecting the OT notion of a covenant people, assumes it. Bavinck calls these “two sides” of “one and the same church.” But the point is that there is no one-to-one correlation. As noted, the vital/formal distinction is more generally accepted regarding the OT people of God. The OT covenant people comprised the whole of Israel (formal covenant), but the Lord kept for himself a remnant which would not bow the knee to Baal (vital covenant). So my point is that the vital/formal distinction is trans-testamental, and the church, as a trans-testamental visible body, by design and anyway unavoidably is a mixed reality. The vital/formal distinction is impressed upon us by the apostasy passages in Hebrews 10 and 2 Peter 2, and by such things as non-soteric uses of “sanctify” in Heb 10:29 and 1 Cor 7:14–15. In my understanding, Hebrews 10:26–29 communicates the intensification of covenant curses and blessings within the context of the vital/formal distinction. The author says “how much worse” the punishment will be for the one who profanes the blood of the greater covenant, the blood of the Son by which he was sanctified, than for the one who has set aside the Mosaic law. The transgressor here is within the visible church (the formal covenant), but not the invisible one (the vital), and the author of Hebrews assumes OT–NT continuity in terms of the vital/formal distinction. But this is not an isolated instance. Much of the book of Hebrews, in fact, rather conspicuously assumes OT–NT continuity in terms of a danger of falling away and a soterically serious ‘becoming’ (Bavinck’s language) of the church, as evidenced by the use of Ps 95 in 3:7–11: “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion . . .” Similarly, Peter argues that the ‘state’ of the one who has escaped the defilements of the world through knowledge of Christ and who then returns to the swine trough will be worse than at first. He is a branch which was “in me,” says Jesus, but which is taken away (John 15:1–2). Again, to my understanding, Peter teaches an intensified accountability of the greater covenant which presupposes a vital/formal distinction—not an intensified accountability representing a redrawn and purified ecclesiology. The vital/formal distinction affords a richer understanding of baptism as symbolizing both covenant blessings and curses. Surely, baptism symbolizes union with Christ and entrance into resurrection life; but it also represents the waters of judgment, through which not only the faithful remnant but all of Israel passed, and through which Noah passed, but also Ham and Canaan. 1 Peter 3:20–22 associates baptism with the Noahic flood, and Jesus refers to his own crucifixion as a baptism, saying that he looks forward to it with “great distress” (Luke 12:50). So in this view, baptism brings the greater covenant to bear on the formal covenant community in terms of both blessings and curses. The use of Ps 95 in Heb 3 makes no sense without continuity in terms both of promised blessings and of threatened curses, and of course the same would be true of the Lord’s supper (1 Cor 11:27–29). Behind the notion of an ecclesiological shift from OT (mixed) to NT (pure), one often finds the idea that there is a parallel soteriological amplification from lesser to greater. The NT church is said to be pure because the soteric realities inaugurated by Christ are greater than those enjoyed by the OT saints. In my view, this theory of soteriological amplification confuses ordo and historia salutis categories. My view is that Scripture teaches a trans-testamental unity as regards the ordo, so that developments in historia do not constitute shifts in soteriological realities. Indeed, the gospel was preached beforehand to Abraham, and those who are of faith are blessed along with him (Gal 3:8–9). And Paul’s point here, intensely articulated in Gal 1, is that there is only one gospel. And if Paul teaches that ‘in Adam’ and ‘in Christ’ are two categories exhaustive of the set of all image-bearers (1 Cor 15), certainly we would prefer to say that Moses and John the Baptist died in Christ. There appears to be no tension in Scripture between the progress of historia salutis and the unity of the ordo salutis. So Calvin: “The covenant made with all the patriarchs is so much like our own in substance and reality that the two are actually one and the same. Yet they differ in the mode of dispensation” (Inst., 2.10.2). If this distinction is maintained, we may avoid both an over-realized ecclesiology and an unwieldy soteriological distinction between the OT and NT eras. I have found very helpful the following: Jonathan M. Brack and Jared S. Oliphint, “Questioning the Progress of Progressive Covenantalism,” Westminster Theological Journal 76 (2014): 189–217. See also the related discussion.

Jonathan Brack reviews The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology by Pascal Denault and published by Solid Ground Christian Books. This is a helpful treatment of historic Reformed credo-baptist arguments.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jonathan Brack