John Brown of Wamphray on the sacraments

John Brown of Wamphray was a Covenanter who was exiled to the Netherlands from Scotland in 1662; he lived from 1610-1679. For a time before his death he ministered to the Scots congregation in Rotterdam and while in exile he wrote some thirteen books. Among these books is his Exposition of Romans and I am going to quote a few passages from this book on the subject of sacraments and baptism since my curiosity has been peaked by the frequent writings over on Garver’s blog.

In commenting on Romans 4.11-12 Brown distinguishes between what he calls “external covenanters” and “internal covenanters”:

…he (Abraham) is a father to all those who profess faith in Christ, and so walk in the steps of that doctrine which Abraham believed and professed, and therein was a father to them by example, in casting them a copy, tho’ they believed not sincerely and savingly; so that such have a fundamental right to all the ordinances which are bestowed upon external covenanters: and to those who come up to the terms of the covenant, and believe savingly, as Abraham did, who have a right unto the saving blessings bestowed on internal covenanters, such as the righteousness of faith imputed: and of these, I think, he is mainly speaking here…

Speaking of circumcision and the sacraments by extension Brown writes:

However there be such a strait union betwixt the sign in the sacrament and the thing thereby represented, as that they become, in some manner, proportionably one; whence it is that the sign getteth the name of the thing signified, and the thing signified the name of the sign, yet they remain really distinct, and cannot be properly the same; for sacraments are signs, and so must be really distinct from the thing which they signify and represent, for nothing can be a sign of itself.

He goes on to say that sacraments, “…are not bare, void and ineffectual signs, but such as exhibit grace, and seal and confirm the covenant.” Brown continues:

Sacraments are not physical, efficient causes of grace, principal or instrumental, nor do they effectuate and produce grace and holiness by any inherent quality or power in them, or by God’s elevating them for the production of such an effect, but all that they work is only by way of sign and seal; and no inward graces do they confer, but what an outward sign or seal is apt to confer, viz, by working upon the understanding and faith of the receiver, for nothing that is material can produce any spiritual effect; they are here only said to be signs and seals of the righteousness of faith,

Brown summarizes a definition of what a sacrament is:

Hence we have a complete definition of a sacrament, viz. That it is a “holy sign, instituted of God, whereby Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, and applied unto believers.” See Gen. xvii.7,10; Exod. 13; 1 Cor. Xi.13,26; Matth. Xxvi. 26,27,28.

Being externally in covenant with God, though it entitles to external privileges and ordinances belonging to covenanters, as to the seals, Acts ii.38-39, and giveth a remote right unto salvation, that is, salvation offered unto them upon terms, an so salvation is of such, John 1.22, yet such have not a real and near right unto the spiritual mercies and blessings of the covenant, until they perform the conditions required, and believe savingly, and so walk in the steps of the faith of Abraham;

Later, speaking of Romans 6.2-4 Brown writes:

His using the word baptized into Christ, and into his death, serves to illustrate, clear and confirm this matter more, viz. that believers are both united unto Christ and to his death and burial; because baptism is an ordinance of God, instituted for this end, among others, to seal believers union with Christ, both in his death, burial and resurrection, and communion in the fruits flowing therefrom; and they are baptized, and have now fled into Christ by faith, which is the condition of that covenant whereof baptism is a seal. So then, to be baptized into Christ is somewhat else than to be baptized in his name, as we hear, Acts ii.28 for to be baptized in his name, is to dedicate and consecrate ourselves to him by baptism, to profess and avouch ourselves his, in taking his badge and livery: but to be baptized in him, is to be really united unto him; in a relative sense, to be implanted in him, and ingrafted by faith, and thereby made to participate of his influence and virtue, all which is the thing signified, exhibited and sealed by baptism.

Baptism is a sacrament appointed of God, to signify and seal the ingrafting of all believers into Christ, and the certainty of their partaking of the fruits and effects of his mediation, both for the mortifying of corruption, and strengthening the new man of grace; it seal and confirms to all who will believe the promise, and lay hold upon him in whom all the promises are yea and amen, the certainty and undoubted accomplishment of all which is promised in the new covenant: therefore we are said to be baptized in him, and baptized in his death, and buried with him in baptism, that as he was raised from the dead, we might walk, &c. See Col. Ii.12. And in particular, baptism doth represent, signify, and seal our regeneration in both its parts, both our mortification and vivification; our being under the water represents our mortification, and our coming up again, as it were, our vivification.

Tho’ baptism being a seal of the covenant of grace, which is held forth to all within the visible church, be applied to all that are members of the visible church, and is a sign representing the spiritual thing signified to all; yet it is not a seal of confirmation to all, but only to such as believe and lay hold on Christ; to those, and those only, it sealeth their ingrafting into Christ, and interest in his death and resurrection, for their mortification and vivification:

LDS Baptism 2

Picking up where I left off in 2nd Nephi: The writer continues discussing baptism in the context of denying Christ after baptism and says:

After ye have repented of your sins, and witnessed unto the Father that ye are willing to keep my commandments, by the baptism of water…

The emphasis here on being baptized seems utilitarian: it is done to keep the commandments. In other words if I were to ask: “why be baptized?” the answer would presumably be: “to keep the commandments.” This seems like a “because I said so” answer. The essence of baptism in this passage is that it shows one’s willingness to follow God. It is also emphasized that baptism is only the beginning of the path of eternal life:

Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost.

It seems that baptism precedes the remission of sin and the baptism of the Holy Ghost though the entirety of the chapter implies that all three happen virtually simultaneously. Baptism is the entrance into the gate and is to be followed by keeping God’s commandments, “feasting upon the word of Christ”, and enduring to the end.

Another key element of baptism in the Book of Mormon is the vehement denunciation of infant baptism. Mormons have the convenience of a clearly enunciated doctrine on the issue of padeo vs. believer’s baptism in their Scripture, something that could have spared us Christian’s millennia of debate over the issue. Towards the end of the BOM in the book of Moroni comes an epistle from the warrior and prophet Mormon to his son Moroni. In the narrative Moroni had recently been called to the ministry and Mormon has heard about “disputations among you concerning the baptism of your little children.” Mormon issues a scathing rebuke to the practice of baptizing infants:

And now, my son, I desire that ye should labor diligently, that this gross error should be removed from among you;

The reason that infants have no need of baptism is that the Church does not teach original sin but rather that infants are born pure. Mormon goes on to talk about this:

Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.

This attack on infant baptism continues:

…I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children. Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children. And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins….Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell. For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism. Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. (Moroni 8. 9-16)

Mormon continues his teaching by saying that all children are partakers of salvation and then says:

Little children cannot repent; wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him because of his mercy. And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption. Wo unto such, for they are in danger of death, hell, and an endless torment…For behold that all little children are alive in Christ…

Mormon goes on to say that baptizing infants is “putting trust in dead works”

These views of baptism are in line with many traditional Baptist and modern evangelical notions with the strong exception of the LDS doctrine of original sin—namely that it doesn’t exist. The larger core beliefs of Mormons on the big picture color all corollary doctrines like baptism, as we shall continue to see.

sleep deprivation

Many times I take caffeine pills to stay awake at work, maybe that’s because I don’t drink coffee but all in all I like that with the pill I don’t have to drink all kinds of stuff to stay awake. For others I know that coffee, Mountain Dew, or something like that is what keeps them going through the work day. I was talking to a guy at work and he used to be a cable installer; he said they would work 12-13 hour days six days a week. After working at this job for awhile he discovered that most of the employees were on speed to keep going. I worked with another guy who used to be in the Marine Corps Forced Recon. He said they would have missions which would involve their staying up for long periods of time and so they would put together a concoction of no-doz, coffee, Mountain Dew, and anything else that had caffeine in it. Then they mixed it up in a thermos I believe, and drank it. It sounds really nasty but I guess it did the trick and kept them wired long enough to do the mission.

In the city where I live there is a slaughter-house for cows. Apparently one of the jobs there is the “kill-floor” where a spike shoots out into the cows head and kills it. I heard (though I don’t know it to be true) that lots of people who work this job are on cocaine. If you add to that the number of people on anti-depressants, those who drink themselves into oblivion based on work-related stress, and those on other mind-altering medications, you begin to think that we are a pretty heavily medicated workforce.

I think sleep deprivation is a major issue for most Americans. We are constantly tired and trying to cope. I usually get about 6.5 hours of sleep a night on a work night and work a 12 hour day. By the end of 4 of those days I am shot. I often wonder how the “greats” of history seem to survive on little or no sleep? Is it because they are so driven by a sense of purpose that they don’t need normal sleep? I was reading a biography of Stonewall Jackson and it seemed like during the War that the man was lucky to sleep 4 hours at a time. Think about men running for President who seem to be on the go all day every day with very little downtime, or a guy like Calvin who apparently preached about every day, lectured, did regular pastoral work, wrote, etc. How? I get tired just thinking about it. That’s the difference between me and them I think.

LDS Sacramentology

{I’m not writing this as an expert, but learning as I go. Though I am quite familiar with Mormon theology and have read the Book of Mormon and many other LDS publications, there is always more to learn.}

I am going to examine what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) believe about the sacrament (or ordinance) of baptism. I would like to be able to sketch their position and see where it contrasts with other traditional Christian understandings, if it does that is.

I. The 13 Articles

LDS theology is generally not very systematic and draws from a number of sources, which are more or less authoritative. To find out what the Church teaches about baptism, I will first look at the Articles of Faith, 13 core beliefs that many people may have seen handed to them by LDS missionaries or in Church literature. Article 4 states:

“We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

There is an obvious allusion to Hebrews 6.1-2 here which I believe many restorationist churches base their beliefs on. That said, I note the cardinal importance of a mode (immersion) to correct LDS baptism and the fact that this baptism is for “the remission of sins” which is drawn from the King James translation of Mark 1.4, Acts 2.38, etc.

II. The Standard Works

LDS Scripture is made up of what they call the “Standard Works” which include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. I will first turn to the Book of Mormon to see what it has to say about baptism. I will not address here the time-frame that these Scriptures are said to have been written in or the oddity of full-blown dogmatic debates from many centuries later occurring in OT America, but will simply try to describe the theology contained in this Scripture.

Faith is clearly made as a pre-requisite for baptism in the Book of Mormon; 2 Nephi 9.23-24 says:

“And he commandeth all men that they must repent, and be baptized in his name, having perfect faith in the Holy One of Israel, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God. And if they will not repent and believe in his name, and be baptized in his name, and endure to the end, they must be damned; for the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, has spoken it.”

Baptism is clearly necessary for salvation and must be accompanied by “perfect” faith in God prior to occurring. Anyone not baptized will be damned according to this passage. Later in 2 Nephi in a long discourse on the baptism of Jesus we are told that baptism is a matter of keeping the commandments of the Father and that:

“…if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfill all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!”

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is also closely tied to water baptism in 2 Nephi. The writer says:

“And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost: and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.”

A linkage to what we would call today “second-blessing” theology is put forward: one who is baptized with water and takes the name of Christ will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.

Much more to say but that’s all I have time for at the moment…

Election 2004

To me the “culture of life vs. culture of death” issues are determinative of who I vote for. It seems to me that both the Republicans and Democrats are mirror images of each other when it comes to taxing and spending: witness the huge jump in spending under Bush jr. and the GOP Congress. I do think Bush is more pro-active in defense of the country but I don’t know what his reaction would have been to the USS Cole incident or the bombing of our barracks in Saudi Arabia–that would be interesting to research; did he comment prior to election on what he would have done in those situations? Anyway, Clinton did nothing but talk about terrorism primarily because it didn’t happen here. Bush reacted powerfully, but probably because it was here. The American public hasn’t cared much about bombings in Bali, or Spain, or the theater take-over in Moscow. As long as it is “over there” we don’t seem to care. But the second they did something on our soil it was the end of the world. But as of now I don’t know if Kerry would be dramatically weaker than Bush in responding to threats or not.

But what I do think is a vital distinction and is really the primary one to me is where these men stand on the culture wars. Neither of them is satisfactory to me. I don’t think Bush loses sleep at night over all the babies slaughtered every day in this country. But on the other hand you have Kerry (or any Democrat) who seem so infatuated with abortion that they can’t think of doing anything ever to stop it (except issuing condoms in schools). And practically the Democrats are a secular party, highly unfriendly to Christians. Witness Dean who only started mentioning Jesus when an article came out calling him the most secular candidate ever (or words to that effect). Dean started trying to connect with church-goers but only made himself look foolish. Kerry is ostensibly Catholic but like the Kennedy’s seems to care less what his church actually teaches about the unborn, homosexuality, or much else that I can discern.

And then you have the GOP that for all its many faults seems to be home to Christians in huge numbers. I believe this is a result of activism from Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, and others over the years which at several precinct levels was highly effective in the late 80′s (I don’t know where it’s at now). And the fact that openly Christian men have run for the nomination (Buchannan, Keyes, Robertson, now Bush) and been elected. The only party even attempting to protect the unborn is the GOP.

I have been somewhat surprised at the apathy I find even among Christians about this issue and how they will not even vote. Perhaps it’s because I was young in the 80′s when Melody Green was leading the petition for life and pro-life literature was everywhere. I have been in churches where many people admit they don’t vote and don’t think it matters (maybe this is you, sorry). To me this is incredible. I have no great love for the Republican Party or the way they use Christians to achieve their desired ends; but any chance we have to roll back abortion and stem the tide on perversions like gay marriage is with the GOP. I just hope Christians are motivated, clear-headed, and at the polls this November.

Works of the Messiah

(from Matthew 11) John the Baptist is in prison and he hears of the works of the Messiah, so he sends his disciples to Jesus to ask if Jesus is the “one who is to come” or if another will come? Jesus tells John’s disciples to report to John what they hear and see: “The blind regain their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have the good news proclaimed to them.”

Jesus is clearly echoing the teaching of Isaiah about the works of the Messiah:

“On that day the deaf shall hear the words of a book;

And out of gloom and darkness they eyes of the blind shall see.

The lowly will ever find joy in the Lord,

And the poor rejoice in the Holy One of Israel.”

(Is 29.18-19)

“Then will the eyes of the blind be opened,

The ears of the deaf be cleared;

Then will the lame leap like a stag,

Then the tongue of the dumb will sing.”

(Is 35.5-6)

Alec Motyer says of the verses from Is. 29 “This is a picture of people with new faculties and new appetites, finding satisfaction in God’s book.” Jesus’ works are ushering in this new reality, he points John’s disciples to this new reality as if to say “who else could do this but the Messiah?”

Jesus later tells a parable about the ministries of John and him:

“To what shall I compare this generation? It is like children who sit in marketplaces and call to one another, ‘We played the flute for you, but you did not dance, we sang a dirge but you did not mourn.’ For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they said, ‘He is possessed by a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking and they said, ‘Look, he is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is vindicated by her works.”

There are two groups of children in the marketplace, one representing John, Jesus, and their disciples; the other is a group that is not pleased with them. When John proposes a dirge, the second group does not mourn. When Jesus plays the flute, they do not dance.

There is an obvious link between the works of the Messiah and the vindication of wisdom by “her works.” The works of Jesus the Messiah are the embodiment of “wisdom” Something this brings to mind is John Sailhamer’s theory that the Song of Songs is a portrait of the Messiah’s love for divine wisdom—something I don’t have time to detail right now.

Our crucified Lord

Richard Horsley edited Paul and Empire, Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society. I don’t much about any of the contributors, they seem to be coming from the liberal side of the spectrum, but they have lots of eye-opening things to contribute to our understanding of the setting and message of Paul. N.T. Wright referenced the book in his paper Paul’s Gospel and Caesar’s Empire and I am sure we will see much more discussion of this topic in his forthcoming book on Paul. Horsley writes:

“It was before your eyes that Christ was publicly exhibited as crucified!” (Gal. 3:1). In the long-pacified Greek cities dominated culturally and politically by the philo-Roman elite and their aristocratic values, it would indeed have been “folly” (1 Cor. 1:23) as well as an anti-Roman political statement to proclaim and organize communities around a crucified political criminal as a central symbol. The rest of Paul’s fundamental gospel, of course, was that the political insurrectionary crucified by the Romans had then been enthroned as the true Lord of the world and was imminently to return in the (eschatological) parousia (a reference to an imperial entrance to a subject city). The one crucified by the Roman rulers was now the Lord who would soon subject “all things,” presumably including the Roman rulers (see esp. 1 Cor. 15:24-28; Phil. 3:20-21).

I’m looking forward to finishing this book, it’s one of those that enable you to read the Bible through new eyes.

Caesar and Pompey

Back to Plutarch for a minute: He seems to favor Pompey over Caesar, though he is more on the side of the early Pompey vs. the later days when Pompey stood with Caesar prior to the civil war. Plutarch seems to always be casting aspersions on the motives of Caesar, perhaps because of his drive for absolute power. But he also intimates that Pompey would have taken over if Caesar hadn’t.

Pompey essentially bungled his campaign against Caesar when he had all the military advantages. Pompey fled from the battle scene and into the arms of the Parthians, enemies of Rome at the time. He didn’t know that the Parthians would kill him to please Caesar. When he was departing his ship to go ashore, he turned to his wife Cornelia and quoted Sophocles:

“He that once enters at a tyrant’s door

Becomes a slave, though he were free before.”

When Pompey was assassinated his head was brought to Caesar in Alexandria and Plutarch relates that “he (Caesar) would not look upon Theodotus, who presented him with his head, but taking only his signet, shed tears.” That reminded me of David’s reaction upon learning of the death of Saul. Reading about of these men I wanted them to be friends and for a time there seemed to be a chance of this happening, but circumstance and their own lust for power prevented it.

Totalitarian Canada

A second and related article is by Raymond de Souza called “Thinly Disguised Totalitarianism” about the drift of Canada into thought control regarding Christians. This article is one of those that I think everyone needs to read right now. We are in dangerous waters. Clouds are gathering on the horizon and are actually overhead already but the church is sort of milling around as if things are just fine. I realize lots of charismatics and non-denominational Christians (probably all pre-mil folks) realize things are ugly but I don’t know if post-mil folks or other denominations are getting it (I’m thinking Lutherans, the Brethren, and all the other more traditional bodies). Of course I have no way of knowing what is going on in all of these groups but I think if things were being done we would know about it publicly.

The core of the problem in Canada is that gay “marriage” has been legalized and legislation has been introduced to exempt clergy from having to solemnize gay unions. As if the state is being kind in “granting” this “exemption” to clergy. As de Souza puts it:

That is the worst-case scenario of state expansion. But state expansion will likely pass other milestones on its way there, eroding religious liberty on questions related to marriage. First it will be churches forced to rent out their halls and basements for a same-sex couple’s wedding reception. Then it will be religious charities forced to recognize employees in same-sex relationships as legally married. Then it will be religious schools not being allowed to fire a teacher in a same-sex marriage. Then it will be a hierarchical or synodal church not being allowed to discipline an errant priest or minister who performs a civilly legal but canonically illicit same-sex marriage. All of this can happen short of the worst-case scenario specifically exempted in the federal government’s proposed law.

This should make the hair on your neck stand up. And one immediate thing that I believe has to happen is the re-election of Bush. I am no Bush fan, I thought the war in Iraq was not a just war and I think he uses Christians to the degree that they can help him win elections. However, the judicial appointments issue is so huge in our day that I think the alternative to him is the flood-gates being opened for EU or Canadian style soft totalitarianism in our country. I don’t think he is the answer or will make things better but I think Kerry and the apparatus of the left in this country would bring disaster in the area of abortion, euthanasia, and any expression of Christians against homosexuality. I think the US may have a better chance to lead the West back from the secular brink due to our history and the amount of Christian immigration into the country and Christian activity in the country. But there is no doubt that among the elites of the country the battle is lost and needs to be totally re-started. Anyway, a Bush victory can at least buy the church some time to breathe and see if positive developments happen. A Kerry victory I think will seal a lot of evil into law for at least a generation.

the church as culture

In the current issue of First Things (April 2004) Robert Louis Wilken writes about “The Church as Culture”. He mentions the collapse of Christian culture in the West. This is not to say that lots of people don’t attend church and it doesn’t mean what people might answer about beliefs when asked in a survey. What it means is that the liturgical calendar is ignored or forgotten and countless other markers both big and small that the Church built over two thousand years are largely forgotten. I thought his closing paragraph was a great vision of what could be:

If Christ is culture, let the sidewalks be lit with fire on Easter Eve, let traffic stop for a column of Christians waving palm branches on a spring morning, let streets be blocked off as the faithful gather for a Corpus Christi procession. Then will others know that there is another city in their midst, another commonwealth, one that has its face, like the face of angels, turned toward the face of God.

Part of his prescription is that the Church needs to tend to itself as it is in danger of losing itself:

At this moment in the Church’s history in this country (and in the West more generally) it is less urgent to convince the alternative culture in which we live of the truth of Christ than it is for the Church to tell itself its own story and to nurture its own life, the culture of the city of God, the Christian republic.

He mentions that the culture we live in is not neutral but is working to strip all public marks of Christianity away from the public square and that if this happens it will be increasingly difficult to practice our faith in any meaningful public way.