What’s more, I’m not sure if anybody would argue that the NPP is faithful to the Westminster Confession; I think the better question for reception is whether it’s possible that insights from the NPP teach us a more faithful way of reading scripture than the Confession!

I do not believe that the RC church is acceptable, nor do I believe that it would be right to unite with such a church before deep and widespread changes have been made.

I do not subscribe to a Roman Catholic doctrine of the Church (witness my discussion with Bryan in recent comment threads for proof of this), but I place more significance on the institution of the Church and rites such as Baptism than Hodge and many other Reformed theologians would. I believe that the essential unity of the Church is not that of an organization, but consists in such things as the gospel, the sacraments and the shared life of the Spirit.

I believe that entry into the Church occurs in Baptism. The unity of the Church is not in the gospel abstracted from the sacraments. Baptism and the Eucharist serve to make us one body (1 Corinthians 10:16-17; 12:13). Part of the unity of the Church consists in our one Baptism (Ephesians 4:5), not in mere faith by itself. Faith and the preached Word are necessary, but not sufficient, marks for the Church. Membership in the Church is not apart from the sacraments. On this, Hodge’s statements are weak and fail to do justice to the biblical text. However, he is quite right to point out against the RCs that membership in the Church does not necessitate being under the papacy.

It depends what we mean when we call the ecumenical creeds a ‘sufficient basis for unity’. There are a sufficient basis for unity in the sense of showing the ‘one faith’ of the Church. However, they are not a sufficient basis for unity in the sense that many churches that hold to these creeds also hold dangerous and unbiblical errors that make fellowship with them impossible.

I believe that a person is regenerated and brought into the Church in Baptism. You allude to Romans 2:28-29, with reference to the connection between circumcision and regeneration. I think that you misread these verses, like most translations. The person being referred to in Romans 2:28-29 is not a believing ethnic Jew, but the believing Gentile of verses 26-27. I believe that an examination of the Greek and the surrounding context will demonstrate that this is the more likely reading. Paul’s argument is that the Gentile believer is a member of the new covenant people; even though he is not physically circumcised, he has the new covenant blessing of heart circumcision.

The new covenant circumcision is clearly associated with Baptism in Colossians 2:11-12. The same logic appears in Romans 6:1ff, where Baptism is the event in which the old body of sin is stripped off. The removal of the old fleshly and sinful nature took place in Christ’s death and in our baptisms we are baptized into Christ’s death. The new life of the Spirit was given in Christ’s resurrection and poured out at Pentecost and is enjoyed within the Church. We are permitted to share in the Spirit in the Church through Baptism (1 Corinthians 12:13) and are clothed with Christ in Baptism (Galatians 3:27).

The connection between Baptism and regeneration is quite clear in Scripture. Most commentators readily acknowledge it and those who don’t tend to provide little in the way of convincing exegetical argumentation to back up their case. Their arguments are primarily theological and founded upon an understanding of regeneration that differs significantly from that of Scripture. We are then given exegetical escape routes to help us avoid the apparent teaching of the text. This is my concern with many of the anti-baptismal regeneration arguments: they just don’t take the biblical text seriously enough. The fact that the language of the text is frequently not language that they themselves would use is quite significant. On other occasions they insist on ‘spiritualizing’ references to Baptism, presuming that water Baptism simply cannot be in view. I just don’t believe that this is a healthy way to be handling Scripture.

I can, I believe, understand where you are coming from on this issue, though. A few years ago I was in much the same position. I was convinced that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration must be unbiblical and attacked it very strongly. However, I kept running up against the biblical text and began to recognize that I was beginning to treat the text in an unnatural fashion. I was so concerned to prove that the text wasn’t teaching baptismal regeneration, that I failed to really take the time to listen to what the text actually was saying. As I began to listen to the text in this way, I found that my (valid) concerns were addressed and that, even though I came to hold baptismal regeneration, I did not have to reject the evangelical convictions that I had feared that I would have to reject. I still hold to the crucial importance of personal faith, a faith that is not automatically bestowed by Baptism, but is the sovereign work of the Spirit of God. I do not believe that Baptism converts people willy-nilly or that every baptized person is destined for heaven.

In my doctrine of the Church I am simply trying to think as a whole Bible Christian, and to take passages such as Ephesians 4 with the seriousness that they deserve. The OT may have a lot more to teach us about the Church than Hodge might have appreciated.

Thanks once again for this continued interaction. I have appreciated your gracious tone and have enjoyed our dialogue. I hope that I have been able to clarify my position somewhat along the way.

Blessings.

Your quotation from Hodge is interesting in that he takes the discussion a step further by insisting the church of Rome is part of the visible church. But this is only part of Hodge’s thinking, is somewhat of a smokescreen and, although I doubt you mean to do this, your lengthy quotation is somewhat misleading in that it gives the impression that Hodge found the church of Rome acceptable, which he clearly did not.

Whilst asserting the church of Rome as part of the visible church Hodge also asserts her apostasy. In the very document you quote from he goes on to say- QUOTE-“We argue from the acknowledged fact that God has always had, still has, and is to have a people in that church until its final destruction; just as he had in the midst of corrupt and apostate Israel. We admit that Rome has grievously apostatized from the faith, the order and the worship of the church; that she has introduced a multitude of false doctrines, a corrupt and superstitious and even idolatrous worship, and a most oppressive and cruel government; but since as a society she still retains the profession of saving doctrines, and as in point of fact, by those doctrines men are born unto God and nurtured for heaven, we dare not deny that she is still a part of the visible church.” UNQUOTE

Elsewhere Hodge lays out very clearly his perceived differences between the church of Rome and the Protestant church (which we may assume he was endorsing). I doubt not that you have read this but for the sake of clarity his comparisons are found on pages 134-135 of vol.1 of his systematic theology. Perhaps it would be helpful here to quote simply from his introductory comments to the two positions-

QUOTE- Romanists have transferred the whole Jewish theory to the Christian Church… Protestants on the other hand teach on this subject, in the exact accordance with the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles: (1) that the church as such or its essential nature is not an external organization. (2) All true believers in whom the Spirit of God dwells, are members of that church which is the body of Christ, no matter with what ecclesiastical organisation they may be connected…” UNQUOTE

Again, as I have been pointing out throughout out interaction, Hodge also makes the point that one of the main areas of disagreement is on how one enters the kingdom of which the gospel speaks. On our entrance into the true church he states-

QUOTE- “That the condition of membership in the true Church is not in union with any organized society (my note- i.e. contrary to the claims of the church of Rome) but faith in Jesus Christ.”… Almost all the points of difference between Protestants and Romanists depend on the decision of the question ‘what is the church?’ If their theory be correct; if the church is the external society of professing Christians, subject to apostle-bishops (i.e. bishops who are apostles), and to the Pope as Christ’s vicar on earth; then we are bound to submit to it; and then too beyond the pale of that communion there is no salvation. But if every true believer is, in virtue of his faith, a member of that church to which Christ promises guidance and salvation, then Romanism falls to the ground.” UNQUOTE

So again I make my point that whilst the early creeds are a healthy basis of agreement yet they are not a sufficient basis for unity (whether we call them a lowest common denominator or ‘primary and fundamental’). They are certainly primary in that they came before the developed doctrines of the reformation period, and as fundamental they are, as I have stated, a basis for agreement but not necessarily unity. The idea of foundation necessarily implies further building in that further common ground needs to be found and dare I suggest it, but surely we can not ignore the issue that I have raised throughout- viz. the basis of entry into the kingdom of which the gospel speaks.

In our discussion you have not stated clearly if you see regeneration as that which brings the individual into the church/temple/kingdom (I realise each of these terms has a distinct emphasis but I trust I have used them here in keeping with your use of them throughout our discussion) or if it is being first in the church and undergoing baptism that makes the individual regenerate.

It is clear that we differ in our views of baptism so no further comment there except to challenge your link of circumcision with baptism (I know that we are not going to reach agreement on this one). You say- “Circumcision may not have changed the heart, but it gave people a new access to God and a new relationship with Him; the circumcised person was a member of God’s covenant people.” The circumcised person was indeed granted mambership of God’s covenant people, however the true Israelite was always one who was also circumcised in the heart, that is regenerated. This is the very difference Paul makes between the old covenant and the new- viz. that the basis of entrance into the covenant community was no longer by external observation of a rite but by the internalising of that rite, i.e. circumcision of the heart or regeneration. Baptism is never described in scripture as the seal of our covenant relationship but rather we are sealed by the promised Holy Spirit, by the circumcision made without hands, viz. the regenerating work of the HS (Col 2:11- I suggest that it is inconsitent to use this verse as a reference to baptism unless of course one believes in baptismal regeneration). This is part of the new and better covenant in Christ. This is all part and parcel of the issue originally raised between us, that is- the basis of entry into the kingdom of which the gospel speaks, and therefore our basis of unity as the true children of God.

With all sincerity perhaps you are to a degree guilty of the accusation you lay at the feet of reformed theologians- viz. that they emphasise one aspect to the detriment of another? Or perhaps a little of what Hodge lays against the Romans viz. that they “transferred the whole Jewish theory to the Christian Church…” I’m not accusing you here Alastair, simply trying to understand you.

Nevertheless, I have thoroughly enjoyed the interaction so most sincere thanks again Alastair.

These are some tremendous reflections–especially concerning the importance of viewing the local church along geographical rather than denominational lines. You have helped me apply the biblical portrayal of the church in a much clearer manner to our current situation, and for that I am deeply thankful. My only regret is that I’ve only just now come across this… but better late than never.

I very much look forward to delving into your two lengthy subsequent posts!

Thank you for you continued service to our Lord and His one, holy, catholic Church.

Grace and Peace,

Jonathan