Amazing. How some forget that we cannot do a single work that is not defiled by our flesh and does not deserve punishment.(Rom.7:21) Even if we could show one good work, the remembrance of one sin is enough to make God reject it. (Jas.2:10) We would then always be in doubt, tossed to and fro without any certainty, and our poor consciences would be constantly tormented, if they did not rely on the merit of the death and passion of our Saviour.(Hab.2:4;Mt.11:28; Rom. 10:11)!

Right on.
Calvinists who believe in double predestination have to deal pastorally with those who despair of their salvation. How do they typically do this? By telling their people that there are signs of election: works – which brings them back to square one.

Paul, do you have anything you can refer me to on the age of accountability that many speak of?

I do not see this principle anywhere in the 5 points of Calvinism. We (meaning myself and the Calvinists at my church) are constantly reminding people that salvation is not something that we can obtain for ourselves, and it is also something that we can never lose once attained. Our pastors remind us daily that it is not our works that save us, and works are not required in order to keep salvation. In fact, if any works come out of a Calvinist Christian at all, it is a direct and irresistible result of having been saved by a loving and serving Christ who put that same heart in His children. I don’t know where you are reading this literature, or what authors are emphasizing the idea that you need works to accompany salvation or you will not meet God, but that sounds very Catholic, and that’s not who we are. God is good, and He knows we are incapable of doing anything to save ourselves.

Hmm. At the very least this is sloppy language on the part of Berkhof. Saying that justification is “secured” through good works makes it sound as though good works are the ground of sanctification.

But isn’t Berkhof only saying that Christians receive assurance of their justification through good works.

If so, is this really so different from the Apology’s affirmation that “good works” provide “consolation” to “terrified conscience,” and that good works portray the promise of the Gospel to “desponding minds” as is given to us in baptism and the Supper?

Ap. III.154-55-,157

And yet Christ often connects the promise of the remission of sins to good works, not because He means that good works are a propitiation, for they follow reconciliation; but for two reasons. One is, because good fruits must necessarily follow. Therefore He reminds us that, if good fruits do not follow, the repentance is hypocritical and feigned. The other reason is, because we have need of external signs of so great a promise, because 155] a conscience full of fear has need of manifold consolation.

“As, therefore, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are signs that continually admonish, cheer, and encourage desponding minds to believe the more firmly that their sins are forgiven, so the same promise is written and portrayed in good works, in order that these works may admonish us to believe the more firmly. And those who produce no good works do not excite themselves to believe, but despise these promises. The godly on the other hand, embrace them, and rejoice that they have the signs and testimonies of so great a promise. Accordingly, they exercise themselves in these signs and testimonies. Just as, therefore, the Lord’s Supper does not justify us ex opere operato, without faith, so alms do not justify us without faith, ex opere operato.

…

“Alms also are the exercises of faith, which receives the remission of sins and overcomes death, while it exercises itself more and more, and in these exercises receives strength.”

Rev McCain, I’m reformed. I believe it is simplistic to talk of “Calvinism’s” going wrong here. I think it truer to admit that certain streams of Calvinism have been legalistic in spirit (an over-emphasis on the Law might well be our weakness, in contrast to Lutheranism’s tendency to go the other way and deny the 3rd use). I fully admit that is the case, and am saddened by it. But I know there are many reformed teachers who would vigorously deny the idea that our Law-keeping “secures our justification”.

@ptmccain Hi Rev. McCain,
How true. I’ve just finished reading a number of books on Calvinism and several of them included guidance about how one can be assured that they are among the elect. It all came down to the evidence of works in their life: the elect do good works; the damned do evil. The elect pray, attend worship, etc. These are the proofs of one’s election.
So, you may be justified by faith, but you can’t ever be certain until you do works. You no longer have faith in God’s grace – you have faith in your works.

As my good reformed friend would say, “I know I’m saved, because I believe”. I’ve responded, “I know I’m saved, because I was baptized”. The objective is always better!

@ Clint Rogas and Rev. Paul McCain

As a former Anabaptist, I have found that the “Age of Accountability” is easy to refute with just four simple challenges. These are the four responses that I could never answer satisfactorily… which is why I am a FORMER Anabaptist.

1. “Where do you actually find that clearly taught in the Bible?”

Just like their hated nemesis, Rome, the Anabaptist movement has adopted philosophical arguments to plug the holes in their bad theological system. One can easily challenge the accuracy of the “Age of Accountability” the same way one challenges Rome on things like indulgences, purgatory, etc. Rather than having Scripture reveal the teaching, the teaching was made and then Bible passages had to be found that sound like they could possibly hint at the man-made doctrine… maybe. Anabaptists usually pride themselves on being “people of the Book”. Well, open your Good Book and show me where God explicitly taught this. It’s not in there. I spent years looking for it.

2. “No one actually practices this properly.”

Even if it did have Biblical support (which it doesn’t), I have never seen the “Age of Accountability” practiced in accordance with what it actually teaches. Anabaptists typically say that this age is somewhere in between 7 and 14, but that is totally arbitrary and it ignores small children. Everyone knows that just about every kid on earth begins to know right from wrong at half that age. How can you punish a 5 year old but still believe that he isn’t old enough to know any better in the eyes of God? Beyond that, I have seen 4 and 5 year olds who can articulate the faith better than their own parents… and their Christology is usually better, too. In Christian School, they had me memorize all 66 books of the Bible in order in Kindergarden and our whole class was able to do at least the New Testament. The verse that comes to mind is “Yes; have you not read, out of the mouth of infants (“napalon”) and nursing babies (“thalazonton”) You have prepared praise for Yourself?” [Matthew 21:16].

This is the response that I use when I am trying to get kids that I know and love baptized early in their Anabaptist churches. If you sit down with a young Anabaptist kid, you can disciple them in the faith and they will quickly know more than most church members. The great thing about Anabaptist chuches these days is that few actually take doctrine seriously. Who is going to say no to a cute kid who really knows his stuff? It is a gross double standard. All an adult convert has to do is cry, walk down an aisle, and repeat a short prayer. Kids growing up in the church have to face the inquisition. You just have to battle the closed-minded agism.

The kids who are taught well at home usually have a much lower “Age of Accountability” than those who aren’t taught at all. That should tell you something. I had a 4 year old girl who was a child’s friend who could accurately explain the basics of the Trinity, Substitutionary Atonement, and the Divinity of Christ. You basically become the kids advocate and try to figure out what their particular entrance requirements are and teach the child. It’s kind of a game of “Are you going to baptize this faithful kid already or not?”

3. “It’s so vague that no one can practice this properly.”

Usually what happens is that everyone just sits around and waits for the child to express interest or curiosity in baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Again, everyone can afford to do this because baptism is just some ordinance that Christ has us do that has no supernatural power in it. To quote my former pastor’s phrase that he always said while in the baptistry, “Baptism doesn’t save a person but is an outward expression of an inward experience.” Sometimes, they lump all the kids in the target age group together and hold information classes. Think confirmation except that the Lord’s Supper AND baptism are the carrots at the end of the stick.

The trouble is that “Age of Accountability” is too vague to be consistently practiced because it is as ambiguous as “Decision Theology” it is artificially designed to defend. How do we know if this repentance is good enough? How do we know if this knowledge is sufficient? How do we know that this profession of faith is sufficient? How do we know if this kid actually has his reason? The answer is you don’t and you can’t.

4. “God is petty and fickle then.”

The easiest response to this silly false doctrine is the most damaging. The “Age of Accountability” doesn’t teach that these little kids have faith and are saved. It teaches that God does not hold them accountable for sin… hence the name “Age of Accountability”. According to the doctrine, God calls these children to Himself by special exemption. And yet Christ says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father EXCEPT THROUGH ME.” [John 14:6]

With the Age of Accountability, you have big problems. God’s holiness is no longer perfect because He tolerates sin. God’s justice is no longer prefect because He has to create loopholes to fill the gaps in His judgement. Most importantly, God’s mercy is no longer perfect because He is petty and fickle about how he rescues different groups of people.

The question becomes, “If God loves children so much that He can save them apart from faith in Christ, why doesn’t God just do that for adults too?”

Sorry for double posting. I hit “Submit Comment” and thought of #5.

5. “Age of Accountability gets the message of Scripture backwards.”

The Bible tells adults to come to Christ like a little child. The “Age of Accountability” tells children that they must come to Christ like an adult.

In fact, Jesus rebukes this very way of thinking in the disciples.

Matthew 19:13-15: “Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” And he laid his hands on them and went away.”

@Michael Mapus
As I teach my kids, the answer is right in the Benedictus: You will know you’re saved because your sins are forgiven.

Rev McCain,

Thanks for the question. It’s a fair one. Let me first of all say, perhaps to your surprise, that I do believe Christ’s death is for all. Contrary to what you might have heard, not every “Calvinist” is happy with “limited atonement”. There have always been those “hypothetic universalists” in the tradition who affirm that Christ died for all, while equally affirming the reality of election. It cannot be denied that many in the tradition moved in the direction of making things logically tidy, thus moving the particularity of election into the scope of the atonement itself (and such a view is the typical one in modern-day confessional Presbyterian circles, where the Westminster Confession is upheld). But the early confessions do not promote such a position. The passage from the Canons of Dort which is commonly taken to imply “limited atonement” is actually talking of the effects of the atonement (i.e. who will be brought to faith) rather than its scope per se:

“it was God’s will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father…”

So my answer to your question “How can I be certain Christ’s death is for me?” is the same as the Lutheran answer. That said, it should be pointed out that even without such an affirmation, strict Calvinism (in the “limited” sense) affirms the infinite value of Christ’s death. The previously quoted Canons also say:

“This death of God’s Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.”

In other words, it is not possible that someone might believe in Christ but find his death insufficient for them. Part of the problem here, I believe, is the development in later reformed theology of an understanding of the sacrifice of Christ in quantitative, pecuniary terms.

As for your related question, “How can I be certain I’m among the elect?” I would answer “Wrong focus, don’t seek to delve into God’s hidden decree but accept the promise of Christ extended to you here and now.” I want to say that this is as much a Reformed response as a Lutheran one.

I referred in my original comment to “legalistic” streams in the reformed tradition; indeed many of the Puritans developed a focus on the evidences of our faith that was not helpful. But I want to close with a quote from Article 24 of the Belgic Confession, still confessed today by churches in the Dutch Reformed tradition (and quoted by Mark above), which I think you will agree is not introspective in the least:

“We believe that this true faith, produced in man by the hearing of God’s Word and by the work of the Holy Spirit, regenerates him and makes him a “new man,” causing him to live the “new life” and freeing him from the slavery of sin…

These works, proceeding from the good root of faith, are good and acceptable to God, since they are all sanctified by his grace. Yet they do not count toward our justification– for by faith in Christ we are justified, even before we do good works. Otherwise they could not be good, any more than the fruit of a tree could be good if the tree is not good in the first place.

So then, we do good works, but nor for merit– for what would we merit? Rather, we are indebted to God for the good works we do, and not he to us, since it is he who “works in us both to will and do according to his good pleasure” — thus keeping in mind what is written: “When you have done all that is commanded you, then you shall say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have done what it was our duty to do.’ “…

Moreover, although we do good works we do not base our salvation on them; for we cannot do any work that is not defiled by our flesh and also worthy of punishment. And even if we could point to one, memory of a single sin is enough for God to reject that work.

So we would always be in doubt, tossed back and forth without any certainty, and our poor consciences would be tormented constantly if they did not rest on the merit of the suffering and death of our Savior.”

Out of Context?
Here is the quote from Berkhof. The context is a discussion about the Natural Man. I get his meaning to say that the Natural man (excluding faith in Christ alone) is holiness and to obtain holiness is to keep the law perfectly. But with natural man we know no one can.

2. It follows from what Scripture teaches concerning the natural condition of man.
Holiness or conformity to the divine law is the indispensable condition of securing divine favor, attaining peace of conscience, and enjoying fellowship with God. Heb. 12:14. Now the condition of man by nature is, according to Scripture, both in disposition and act, exactly the opposite of that holiness which is so indispensable. Man is described as dead through trespasses and sins, Eph. 2:1, and this condition calls for nothing less than a restoration to life. A radical internal change is necessary, a change by which the whole disposition of the soul is altered.
— Systematic Theology—L. Berkhof

I am “chosen”,”saved”,”reconciled” to God because of Jesus atoning sacrifice on the Cross. God brought this reality to me by His real and tangible gifts of holy baptism and communion.

Rev McCain,

If I may, the following quote from a man of impeccable reformed credentials, Charles Hodge of Princeton (19th C), directly addresses the problem I mentioned of viewing the sacrifice of Christ in terms of a pecuniary payment. While Hodge affirms the limited intention of the atonement to bring about the salvation of the elect only, he denies that the atonement is limited in nature:

“There is no grace in accepting a pecuniary satisfaction… The moment the debt is paid the debtor is free; and that without any condition. Nothing of this is true in the case of judicial satisfaction. If a substitute be provided and accepted it is a matter of grace. His satisfaction does not ipso facto liberate. It may accrue to the benefit of those for whom it is made at once or at a remote period… it may never benefit them at all unless the condition on which its application is suspended be performed. These facts are universally admitted by those who hold that the work of Christ was a true and perfect satisfaction to divine justice… Such being the nature of the judicial satisfaction rendered by Christ to the law, under which all men are placed, it may be sincerely offered to all men with the assurance that if they believe it shall accrue to their salvation. His work being specially designed for the salvation of his own people, renders, through the conditions of the covenant, that event certain; but this is perfectly consistent with its being made the ground of the general offer of the gospel. Lutherans and Reformed agree entirely, as before stated, in their views of the nature of the satisfaction of Christ, and consequently, so far as that point is concerned, there is the same foundation for the general offer of the gospel according to either scheme. What the Reformed or Augustinians hold about election does not affect the nature of the atonement. That remains the same whether designed for the elect or for all mankind. It does not derive its nature from the secret purpose of God as to its application.”

@ptmccain

This is an unfortunate communication of Calvinism. Seems to me you need to talk to more Calvinists if you’ve only met those who point to themselves for assurance of salvation. The entire doctrine of Calvinism is built upon grace, that we do nothing to earn our salvation and our salvation is secured by Jesus. I mean this is basic Calvinism. If anyone is pointing to themselves then they aren’t reformed.

Your question of “how does anyone know if they are saved if you believe in limited atonement”, really has a fundamental misunderstanding of limited atonement and what election means. Anyone who turns to Jesus is saved, he doesn’t turn people away, the sign of the elect is that they have true conviction and repent and turn towards Jesus. Our eyes are only opened through the saving grace of Jesus. This doesn’t conflict with limited atonement in any way.

So your question is flawed. Nobody desires to lay their lives down and follow Jesus unless they are elect. So you are assured your salvation if you love and worship Jesus. That’s Calvinism.

Pastor McCain is not splitting hairs. As a layman, the reality I experienced in reformed circles, including Grand Rapids Michigan Christian Reformed was we are saved by grace alone. However, all preaching focused on me and my experience. Me and my “desiring God”. What I am doing. Not about the atoning work of Christ. That was assumed.

Only after attending a LCMS Lutheran congregation did I begin to see the reality of Christ crucified for me a sinner (because it is preached every week) and that Christ gives this reality in actual tangible ways as HIS gifts (baptism, communion). These sermons focused on Christ FOR US sinners rather than us for God is profoundly liberating and reassuring.

The last time I attended a non-Lutheran church that preached consistent with Calvinist ideations, I simply turned to my wife and asked: “What did you think?” She said:”They talked about me, but nothing about Christ or the Cross.”

It also is important for raising youth. When I tucked my 10 year old daughter in the other night, after a night of arguing I said to her: “Christ died on the cross for our sins, he has made you his in your baptism. You are forgiven and he loves you. Trust him in his promises.” My 10 year old had tears.

I will take the actual body and blood, my baptism, my pastors absolution (at Christ’s command and stead) rather than some small group DVD that talks about myself and what I feel any day.

@ptmccain
Rev McCain,
Indeed, I think you have a point. My quoting of Hodge is just to show that the common deduction of what the Reformed teach concerning the limited NATURE of the atonement is not true. For myself, I prefer to simply say that Christ’s sacrifice is payment for the sins of all the world.

Kyle,
To echo Rev. McCain’s reaction to your post, you belabored the fact that Calvinism does not point inwardly to determine whether we are saved, that it is all grace, etc. That is all well and good; but then you answered the question that Rev. McCain asked initially by saying, “the sign of the elect is that they have true conviction and repent and turn towards Jesus.” So your answer as to how we know we are saved is *still* to look inwardly. How do I am elect? I have repented in “true” conviction and turned towards Jesus.

Calvinism cannot answer the question any other way and remain consistent with its doctrine. Calvinism cannot answer the question by saying “Because Jesus died for me,” because you have to determine that he DID die for you first. The only way that you can do that is to point to your own inner change of heart, repentance, conviction, turning toward Jesus, etc.

Pax Christi.

Rev. McCain,

Louis Berkhof’s ST was our seminary dogmatics textbook, but I didn’t recognize the quote that you gave. I looked for it in my edition and I can’t find it. My edition is the Fourth Revised and Enlarged Edition, published in 1949. I think Berkhof may have changed his position on this, or at least clarified what he meant. In place of what you quoted above, I think we now have the following:

“There is some difference between the Lutherans and the Reformed with respect to the threefold use of the law. Both accept this threefold distinction, but the Lutherans stress the second use of the law. In their estimation the law is primarily the appointed means for bringing men under conviction of sin and thus indirectly pointing the way to Jesus Christ as the Saviour of sinners. While they also admit the third use of the law, they do it with a certain reserve, since they hold that believers are no more under the law. According to them the third use of the law is necessary only because, and in so far as, believers are still sinners; they must be held in check by the law, and should become ever-increasingly conscious of their sins. It is not surprising therefore that this third use of the law occupies no important place in their system. As a rule they treat of the law only in connection with the doctrine of human misery. The Reformed do full justice to the second use of the law, teaching that ‘through the law cometh the knowledge of sin,’ and that the law awakens the consciousness of the need of redemption; but they devote even more attention to the law in connection with the doctrine of sanctification. They stand strong in the conviction that believers are still under the law as a rule of life and of gratitude. Hence the Heidelberg Catechism devotes not less than eleven Lord’s Days to the discussion of the law, and that in its third part, which deals with gratitude.” (615)

That comes at the very end of the chapter on “The Word as a Means of Grace.”

BTW, as a Reformed minister, I preach that my people should look outside of themselves to Christ for their assurance. It is that act of looking to Christ, resting and trusting in him, that we call “faith.” Faith will naturally bear fruit and that fruit, coming out of our union with Christ, also gives evidence of spiritual life. But I would say the emphasis should be on Christ, not on us, even when it comes to the fruit. Good works are Christ’s work in us.

Rev. McCain, I was paraphrasing the song of Zachariah: “I will give you knowledge of salvation by the forgiveness of your sins”.

The irony is this…

The closer to the mind of God one becomes, the more that person comes to agree with God and see his own sinfulness. The deeper one delves into the mysteries of Scripture, the more convicted of sin he becomes. The more an individual comes to understand God’s law, the more it exposes him as a horrible wretch and a terrible hypocrite. The more one comes to see the perfect holiness of God, the more he falls to the ground like a dead man and cries, “Depart from me for I am a sinful man!” The more one grows in faith, the less he wants to even look at the filthy rags that are his good works… much less rely on them for any comfort.

So a maturing Christian looking to his own good works for assurance of salvation actually unsettles him rather than comforting him. Learning more about what the Law requires of us only deepens despair and drives us to the point of desperation. The frequent refrain of an individual with these struggles is, “The more I think I’m growing in Christ, the greater enemy of Christ I realize that I truly am!” The more the Law is known the more sin increases and becomes exposed with greater clarity. Often times, discernment makes us grow in the knowledge of our own sinfulness rather than becoming more aware of our increasing sanctification. Spiritual growth drives is in the opposite direction that we expect so that we call out with St. Paul, “Wretched man that I am! Who will save me from this body of death?!?”

This is why despair can only be soothed by pointing us to the cross where Christ died for the propitiation of our many sins. To point us to the secret counsel of God or to the proof found in our own works is to turn us in on ourselves. The last place the despairing sinner wants to be taken is deeper inside the blackness of his own being. In that place, despair can only increase and grow. The evidence within us does not ever help to acquit our guilt. It is evidence that only convicts us further when measured against the perfect holiness of God’s Law.

Instead, the convicted soul must be brought outside of himself to the alien righteousness of Christ who promises imputed grace, spiritual rest, and true comfort for all sinners through faith alone. The despairing Christian does not need subjective evidence. He needs to hear the objective and trustworthy promise from Christ himself.

@ptmccain

On the basis of the Word of God and on the promises signed and sealed to them in their baptism. The Reformed form for baptism says it nicely:

“When we are baptized into the Name of the Son, God the Son promises us that he washes us in his blood from all our sins and unites us with him in his death and resurrection. Thus we are freed from our sins and accounted righteous before God.”

Ephesians 1:7, “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace…”

I would say, “This is what the Word says about you. This is what your baptism promises you.”

In our morning worship service, after the confession of sin, we have an assurance of pardon. This is a Scripture passage that speaks about the forgiveness of sins. I usually say something like, “Brothers and sisters, hear what the Word of God says to assure us of pardon and forgiveness…” Last Sunday, I then read John 3:16. Then I would conclude by saying, “Hear those words and know that you are forgiven. Amen.”

I wonder if your comments are perhaps directed at a form of “hyper-Calvinism,” rather than a Reformed theology which takes the well-meant gospel offer seriously. In reading Walther, Pieper and others, I often get the sense that their “Calvinist” antagonists are what many Reformed would regard as on the periphery. For instance, on the issue of immediate regeneration. I don’t believe in immediate regeneration. I repudiate it. I believe that regeneration takes place through the Word and Spirit. So, when Walther and Pieper rail about “Calvinists” and their doctrine of “immediate regeneration,” I’m in agreement with their criticism.

@Mike Baker
Well said.

@Wes Bredenhof

Thank you for bringing up baptism. I did notice a distinct difference on your understanding of baptism, as compared to mine, that is a Lutheran. You stated: “When we are baptized into the Name of the Son, God the Son promises us that he washes us in his blood from all our sins and unites us with him in his death and resurrection. Thus we are freed from our sins and accounted righteous before God.” Do you mean that the promise of baptism simply “points” to Jesus making a promise that he washes us in His blood? I asked this as a Lutheran brother having a conversation with a Reformed brother. I noticed in the brief outline you gave of your service, you pointed your parishoners to the scriptures, which is a good thing. The problem I have, it seems your still puting their assurance on the condition of their faith. Maybe this example will be better, I’m starting to confuse myself. In Romans chapter six, “3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.” Does this promise of baptism simply point to the promise that Jesus will raise us up? Or does baptism actually do this? Concerning the issue of assurance, I choose the latter. For I know I was actually buried with Jesus January 25, 1970 and I rose in faith that very instance. All this took place when I was three months old. I have my baptismal certificate to prove it! Again thank you for your clarification on the Reformed posistions.

While the Reformed confessions use much of the same language as Lutheran statements, one can easily see the difference. In Reformed theology, Baptism is merely an outward sign that doesn’t actually accomplish any real salvific person in the one being baptized. The assurance that it grants is still predicated on being one of the elect for whom Christ died. If the one baptized is, in fact, not among that number, Baptism does absolutely nothing. If you can somehow determine that you are elect, then Baptism could be of benefit. You can’t actually look to your Baptism, though, because you still have to determine that any of its promises even apply to you.

Contrasting that with the Lutheran view, we know and confess that when someone is baptized in our churches, they are, without equivocation, saved. There isn’t any “unless,” “until,” or “if.”

@Matthew

Fantastic! Lutheranism: where unequivocal certainty kills “unless”, “until”, and “if”.

Yes, there is a significant difference between the Lutheran and Reformed doctrine of baptism. Most Reformed theologians don’t hold to any form of baptismal regeneration. We believe that the promises of God are signed and sealed in baptism. Every baptized child receives the promises. But not every baptized child receives what is promised. What is promised must be appropriated through faith. Every baptized child must believe in order to be saved. You can debate that with me if you want, but I’m just pointing out the difference. I’m not interested in debating, just helping to get a better understanding. For more information, check out the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Days 26 and 27 or article 34 of the Belgic Confession.

But what I really wanted to say is that there is something else at play here and it’s how we view the congregation. In the best Reformed churches, the congregation is viewed as a body of believers in Jesus Christ. We don’t view the congregation through the lens of election — because the identity of the elect is known only to God. Rather, we view the congregation as Paul and the other apostles viewed the churches of their day. So, for instance, Paul writes to the Ephesians and calls them “the faithful in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 1:1). When I preach I address my congregation as the “Beloved congregation of Jesus Christ…” They are a body of Christians. Peter (1 Peter 2:9) even called those to whom he was writing “a chosen people.” Does that mean that every single one of them was elect according to God’s eternal decree? I don’t think so. But it does mean that he was writing to Christians, and it is among them that one will find the elect.

I believe in election. I believe that Christ died only for the elect. I am confident that I am among the elect. Many (if not most) of my parishioners have the same assurance. It comes from God’s *well-meant* promises to us, written in his Word and signed and sealed in our baptisms. I believe in all the “doctrines of grace” or “five points” or whatever you would call them. But my ecclesiology is not determined by election or particular atonement because I don’t think it is that way in Scripture. I have seen some Reformed theologians do that. There are Reformed churches (Protestant Reformed, for instance) where election determines everything. But I and many others would call that hyper-Calvinism and a form of rationalistic theology.

One of my colleagues recently preached from my pulpit on baptism. He quoted Luther (in a positive way): baptizatus sum. There are Reformed folks who are closer to you than you think.

I guess what I’m saying is that there is diversity in Reformed theology. We should not all be tarred with the same brush. I’ve come to recognize that the same is true among Lutherans. Though I think you’re still wrong on some important points, I’ve also learned a lot about gospel emphases from LCMS writers and pastors. Luther himself has been enormously influential in my preaching and teaching. I wish the history could be undone in this age. I know it will be in the next.

Dear Dr. Bredenhof,
I wonder if the “diversity in Reformed theology” re. baptism is a result of the HC’s rather ambiguous language on the topic; one can truly read baptismal regeneration out of the HC. I’ve heard Westminster Pastors criticize the HC for this express reason (that one can easily infer baptismal regeneration from its pages). The vague language of the HC re. baptism is one reason I’m now a member of an LCMS congregation. But a sincere and honest question might be how can one subscribe to the Nicene Creed and its “One baptism for the remission of sins” AND reject baptismal regeneration? How can one pit baptism against election?
This is a great podcast by Issues, etc. on this exact topic: http://issuesetc.org/podcast/555081310H2.mp3

Sorry, the context of the podcast is that it describes so well what makes Lutheran baptismal theology so winsome.

I think it’s unfortunate to speak negatively of our Reformed brothers and sisters, using this forum to do so. At the Marburg Colloquy, Luther wrote up a statement of 15 points; 14 and 5/6 of these the Reformed and Lutherans present were in agreement on. Why not celebrate this almost complete consensus instead of majoring on the minors and picking our brothers and sisters apart?

Prince,
No one is speaking negatively of them as individuals. It is a sad commentary on the modern state of discussions of this sort when any criticism of an opposing viewpoint is seen as an ad hominem attack, even if that’s not what it is. Be that as it may… the Reformed churches teach, on many different subjects, doctrine which does not comport with Holy Scripture. Scripture teaches that Christ is the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world; the Reformed deny this. With their view of the atonement, they once again turn the believer in on himself in order to determine his standing before God. This is no different than what the false teachings of Rome did. Scripture teaches that baptism now saves you; the Reformed deny this; Scripture teaches that God wills everyone to be saved; the Reformed say that God decrees that a certain portion of the world will not be saved.

For these reasons, Reformed doctrine must be rejected as a viable alternative to, say, the Book of Concord. There is nothing wrong with this being done publicly on an internet forum. Reformed theology, at least of the more pietistic stripe, is once again very popular in broad evangelicalism. It deserves a public challenge.

How can anyone “celebrate” when consensus was not reached at Marburg regarding the Sacrament of the Altar? When Dr. Luther wrote on the table with chalk, “Hoc est corpus meum,” he was “valiantly” (no pun intended, “Prince”) defending the truth against the sacramentarians.

Matthew, you are correct when you say that Calvinists tend to “turn the believer in on himself in order to determine his standing before God.” But wouldn’t you also agree that we Lutherans go to the other extreme and tend never to look at ourselves but rather take for granted that we will all go to heaven no matter how we’ve lived our lives? Witness the rampant antinomianism that is plaguing the LCMS at present.

@Daniel. You’re right. I wonder how readily a reformed consistory would allow someone who believes in the real, local presence to attend a reformed Lord’s Supper? Or witness the label of “black magic” (yes, I got that one) applied to those who believe in baptismal regeneration? The bitter irony is that since I’ve joined the LCMS I’ve seen a number of “toddler baptisms” and hear that this is quite normal. My reformed Opa in the 1940s literally raced to the baptismal font on the baby’s third day – and without his wife! So what’s up with toddler baptisms?

Daniel,
That could certainly be true. I cannot say that I have personally witnessed antinomianism in our churches (that’s of course anecdotal). I do tend to see a version of it presented on some blogs, where sanctification is watered down so much that it ceases to be a teaching of our faith (which it is). However, while there always needs to be a corrective to that kind of extremism, the point still stands that no matter how much emphasis is placed on abstaining from personal sin, our subjective view of ourselves can never judge our relationship to God. Any honest conscience will immediately find sin and be thrown into despair or, worse, deceive itself and take a stance of hubris. Unlike Lutheranism, that kind of navel gazing is built in to Calvinism by virtue of its nominalistic subjectivity.

Antinomianism is not built into Lutheranism, though. If it is a problem in the LCMS (which I am WELS, so I am perhaps not as familiar as you), then it bears being addressed. We don’t have to change our theology to confront it, though. Calvinism would have to change its theology in order to be rid of the subjective (they would, as it were, have to get the L out).