Entering and staying in the covenant of grace

I had a cordial conversation with a PCA pastor about Federal Vision theology recently.  Those are quite rare, so I enjoyed it.  We disagreed and didn't have much time, so came away with our same views, but one piece of the discussion was really enlightening for me.

My new friend asked a really helpful question:

Does entry into covenant with God, and continuance in that same covenant, have the same basis, the same requirements?

1.      The typical Baptist says yes, by the individual's profession of faith for both.  This seemed appalling to him, that a believer could be baptized and take communion for the first time on the same day.

2.      The typical Reformed (PCA, OPC, etc.) says no (profession of faith is needed to commune, but not to be baptized.  More accurately, a profession of faith of the parent(s) is needed to be baptized, while a profession of faith of the individual is needed to commune).

3.      I've come to believe as our denomination, the CREC, would answer this question: yes, entry into the covenant, and continuing in the covenant, have the same basis, the same requirements, AT FIRST, by membership in a believing household for both.  BUT, continuance in the covenant assumes their faith will become their own, and if it doesn’t, it will show in lack of interest in the things of the Lord, church attendance, lifestyle, etc. which must be disciplined by church leaders to avoid nominalism running rampant in the church.

      In other words, the practice of profession of faith as a requirement for coming to the Lord's Table, is not required to properly administer discipline in the local church.  It is not appalling, but glorious, to welcome a child to baptism, and then to communion on the same Sunday.  Because baptism is the biblical sign of entrance into Christ, while the practice of professing faith functionally makes that profession the REAL entrance instead of baptism.  The real crux for option #2 is your decision, your profession.  In this way, the typical Reformed is more baptistic (putting all the weight on our choice) than they care to admit.

      That's as far as our discussion went.  Here are two more thoughts.

      I'll fully admit that when a very young infant is brought for baptism, it's a bad idea medically to give them the same piece of bread an adult would take.  But this does not confirm position #2!  It only shows that growth is needed within the covenant, while we are in Christ.

      It's ironic to me that the 2nd option often accuses the 3rd of asserting that we stay in the covenant by our works, not by God's grace.  This is a false slander, for one thing.  For another, it could as legitimately be said that option 2 makes it a matter of works to come to the table: to be able to articulate adequately in words their profession before enjoying the full benefits of the covenant in communion.  Note I say "as legitimately."  I don't wish to slander option 2 - I think their position is that we profess our faith only by God's grace.  But why can't they see that we emphasize our faithfulness to remain in the covenant also as occurring only by God's grace?

Grace before Sin?

Here's a well done but heavily theological article on the covenant of works.

Many have sought to ostracize this position in the Reformed world today, yet it appears to be a respectable position among the Reformed historically.

Lots of theology humor going on, too...

What is baptism about, more theologically?

From some correspondence with a friend...

I like the joint FV statement on baptism and justification, and don't think it conflicts with Westminster Confession 28:6, which is quite striking in its language about what baptism does... for the faithful. That's the rub. What does baptism do for those who do not come to faith? I think traditional Reformed thought has been silent or said it does nothing. Federal Vision says baptism brings them into the church, and they partake of Christ non-savingly for a time, looking to make sense of John 15:1-5 and Heb 6:4 ish thereby. I don't find this heterodox, so long as it doesn't lead to the view that the sacraments automatically work salvation, which I don't think it does, inherently. If that is the concern, I can deny baptismal regeneration all day long, that sacraments do not save in themselves, etc. But they are more than a symbol, or we are Zwinglians. They are efficacious means of salvation, as our confessions (Westminster) assume and assert.

The grace of baptism

I just came across an amazing quote by John Calvin, responding to the Roman Catholic Council of Trent (which responded to and rejected the Reformation). Trent asserts that in baptism original sin is removed, but we still need penance to deal with actual sins. Calvin responds:

“We assert that the whole guilt of sin is taken away in baptism, so that the remains of sin still existing are not imputed. That this may be more clear, let my readers call to mind that there is a twofold grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made, but that regeneration is only begun and goes on making progress during the whole of life. Accordingly, sin truly remains in us, and is not instantly in one day extinguished by baptism, but as the guilt is effaced it is null in regard to imputation. Nothing is plainer than this doctrine.”
Now, in context, Calvin is rejecting how another sacrament is needed after baptism to deal with sin. But note what he assumes: remission and regeneration are conveyed in baptism. The Protestant protest against Rome does not reject that baptism conveys the grace of remission of sins, but insists it only comes to those with true faith. It is not an automatic, dispensed by the "vending machine" church.

For more proof of that, consider what Westminster says on baptism: "The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time." (John 3:5-8; Gal 3:27; Titus 3:5; Eph 5:25; Acts 2:38)

Here is the link to Calvin's whole response. It is very long! The quote above is in the fifth statement.

Federal Vision - a brief conversation

What exactly is "Federal Vision"? The way I see it, "Federal Vision" basically emphasizes God's covenantal promises as well as our covenantal responsibilities.

Yes, that's part of it.

"Federal Vision" also seems to say that sacraments are not merely symbols, but a means of grace.

Yes, but all Reformed Presbyterians following Calvin hold to this, as he did. FV people are concerned with how many Reformed folks are losing this view for a more baptist (merely symbols) understanding of sacraments.

"Federal Vision" also seems to say that we are saved by grace through faith and not by works, but faith without works is dead and therefore such "faith" is not of the saving kind. Does that about sum it up?

Yes, that's part of it, too. Also...

Paedocommunion is a big part of it. That the covenant is objective, and our children are included. Rituals like baptism convey meaning and grace to the elect, and should be esteemed like wedding ceremonies are, not denigrated by thinking of infant baptism as nothing more than a wet dedication. God is doing something to us and for us in the sacraments. We readily believe this for the bad, for judgment, in the case of communion, but don't have an equally strong belief that He works for our /good/ in the sacraments. We trust God that we and our children are elect, based on His covenant promises to us. Looking at the sacraments, the church, and our children with covenantal (federal) eyes, instead of trying to filter all that through God's eternal and invisible decrees. Deut 29:29 - “The secret things [decrees] belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed [covenant] belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law."

There is more, but that's a rough answer.