The church's practice of infant baptism came under attack in the sixteenth century. Since that time, many Christian churches have rallied against the practice, administering baptism only to believing adults. From Ligonier Ministries’ 1997 Pasadena Regional Conference, Drs. John MacArthur Jr. and R.C. Sproul discuss their views on the biblical meaning and mode of Christian baptism. Dr. MacArthur presents the credo-baptist position and Dr. Sproul presents the historic paedo(infant)-baptist position.

The church's practice of infant baptism came under attack in the sixteenth century. Since that time, many Christian churches have rallied against the practice, administering baptism only to believing adults. From Ligonier Ministries' 1997 Pasadena Regional Conference, Drs. John MacArthur Jr. and R.C. Sproul discuss their views on the biblical meaning and mode of Christian baptism. Dr. MacArthur presents the credobaptist position and Dr. Sproul presents the historic paedo(infant)baptist position.

Infant baptism or believer's only baptism? For the past two days on Renewing Your Mind, Drs. R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur have discussed their views on the Biblical meaning and mode of Christian baptism. Dr. MacArthur presents the credo-baptist position and Dr. Sproul presents the historic paedo (infant)-baptist position. Listen in as these two friends discuss a historic doctrinal divide.

The Case for Believer's Only Baptism The Case for Infant Baptism

In addition to the free streams above, this debate is available on CD for purchase.

The debate over baptism continues in the modern church. Many say that baptism must be administered only to those who have made a profession of faith, while others will also baptize the infant children of believers. Whatever one's position, the meaning and significance of infant baptism according to Scripture are often misunderstood. In this helpful booklet, the Rev. John P. Sartelle explains why it is biblical to baptize the children of believers, considers objections to the practice, and raises important questions for those who do not baptize the children of believers. This booklet provides a helpful analysis of baptism in the context of the larger issues of biblical interpretation and covenant that relate to the sacrament."I have known John Sartelle for many years, and this little booklet is one of the best explanations of the Reformed practice of infant baptism."—R.C. Sproul

J. Gresham Machen said, “In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight.” If Machen is right, and I think he is, then it is because baptism is very important that Christians often disagree about it. To be sure, debates about baptism are intramural, but they help us understand the distinctives of various Christian traditions. In this way, they also help us understand our brothers and sisters in Christ.

The Reformed view is summarized in the confessional documents of the Presbyterian and Continental Reformed churches: the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms for the former, and the Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, and Canons of Dort for the latter. These documents lay out a view of baptism that is distinctly different from the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Baptist views. This view can be understood under three headings: the meaning of baptism, the recipients of baptism, and the mode of baptism.

The Meaning of Baptism Baptism is the rite of initiation into the visible church, which consists of all those who possess faith in Christ, along with their children (Acts 2:39; WCF 25.2; 28.1). In administering baptism, the church exercises obedience to Christ’s command to “make disciples . . . baptizing them” (Matt. 28:19).

Baptism is a visible word, a sign act whereby Christ and His benefits are shown forth to believers and applied to them (WCF 27.1). Over against the Baptist view, the Reformed view asserts that something actually happens in baptism—grace is actually conferred to worthy recipients—and over against the Roman Catholic and Lutheran views, the Reformed view asserts that baptism does not regenerate; nor does it work through the automatic efficacy of the sacrament itself or in the precise moment of its administration. Instead, baptism works through the operation of the Spirit in His people, meaning that it can either precede faith or follow it (John 3:8; WCF 28.6).

The sacrament is a sign and seal of cleansing from sin and ingrafting to Christ (WCF 28.1). It is not simply an outward sign of an inward change; it is an act of God, a solemn promise to apply to worthy recipients the benefits signified in the sacrament—namely, the promises of God’s covenant.

The Recipients of Baptism Anyone who comes to faith as an adult and who has never received a valid baptism should be baptized (Westminster Larger Catechism 167). On this, all sides agree; Presbyterians as much as Baptists will baptize adult converts. But the Reformed view, over against the Baptist view, is that the children of at least one believer should be baptized as well (WCF 28.4).

[pullquote]

Under the old covenant, children were considered members of the covenant community and were granted the sign of initiation into that covenant, which was circumcision (Gen. 17:9–14). Under the new covenant, the substance of the one overarching covenant of grace has not changed; only the administration has (Col. 2:11–12; WLC

The Puritans of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries sought to bring about a more thorough Reformation in England—to purify the English church from any Roman Catholic vestiges—especially in the areas of theology, worship, and personal holiness. Originally used pejoratively, the term Puritan referred to one who, politically, reacted against the via media (middle way) of the Elizabethan Settlement; who, theologically, held the Reformed views of the five solas and (usually) the doctrines of grace summarized by the acronym TULIP; and who was committed to discipleship, evangelism, an experiential faith, communion with God, and personal piety. Despite their commonalities, there was no unified Puritan view on topics such as church government and baptism. While there has been much debate over the exact dates of the Puritan movement, Puritanism flourished between 1558 and 1689 in England and during the early eighteenth century in America.

When Christians think about baptism, what often comes to mind is debate and controversy over how it should be administered and to whom it should be administered. But what is most important for us to understand is why God has given us the sign and seal of baptism. In this lecture, Dr. Ferguson explains the significance of the sacraments, provides a detailed look at the baptism of Jesus, and notes how Jesus’ baptism sheds light on the meaning of our own baptism.

Throughout church history, the sacraments have been the subject of many heated debates because Christians have recognized that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are not empty rites. Instead, they are signs of God’s promise and faithfulness and, as such, “there is a spiritual relationship between the sign and that which it signifies. That relationship is established by God, who himself attaches the significance to the sacrament” (R.C. Sproul, Truths We Confess, vol. 3, p. 87). So, although the spiritual realities depicted in baptism and the Lord’s Supper are not caused by the performance of the sacraments themselves, the benefits signified and sealed in the sacraments are given in the sacraments to those who have true faith because of the promises of God.

First and foremost, the sacraments are signs of God’s faithfulness to His covenant. There is, of course, a sense in which we participate in the sacraments as a testimony to the watching world, but that is not the primary emphasis of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. These sacraments, alongside the preached Word of God, are designed primarily to show forth God’s trustworthiness. His faithfulness does not depend on the faithfulness of those who serve in His name (2 Tim. 2:13), nor does it depend on the strength of our trust in Him (Luke 22:31–34). Our Creator always keeps His promises.

Consequently, God never fails to keep His promise in baptism that He will cleanse from sin all those who trust in Christ alone for salvation. The outward washing in water, as question and answer 72 of the Heidelberg Catechism remind us, does not in itself wash away our transgressions. That is accomplished only if we are washed by faith in the blood of Jesus and in His Spirit (1 John 1:7). Nevertheless, the promise given in baptism is a real promise, and the Lord has bound Himself to keep this promise when those who are baptized outwardly come to faith in Christ Jesus. At that point of conversion, the outward baptism is fulfilled in the spiritual baptism into Christ and His benefits that the Holy Spirit accomplishes (Gal. 3:27).

As with the Word of God preached, a sacrament performed according to the directions of Jesus our Lord will accomplish its purposes. It is a promise of God used to build up His elect, but it is also a promise of judgment on all those who reject the promise signified in the sacrament.

As we have noted, the apostle Paul establishes a link between circumcision and baptism in Colossians 2:8–15. Our studies on circumcision therefore provide an opportunity to leave the book of Genesis temporarily and examine the wider biblical teaching on baptism with the help of the series Covenant Baptism by Dr. R.C. Sproul.

Even though Paul also tells us there is only “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:5), we must admit there is precious little Christian unity on the sacrament. Orthodox believers of all stripes debate the meaning, mode, efficacy, administration, and many other aspects of baptism. This disagreement, while regrettable, at least shows that Christians understand that baptism is an important matter.

John the Baptist administered the first baptism described in the New Testament to the nation of Israel just prior to the ministry of Jesus. In today’s passage, we see how his baptism fulfills Old Testament prophecy. Luke 3:4–6 quotes from Isaiah 40:3–5 where the prophet predicts an end to Judah’s exile and a road by which the captives would return to their land. Though many Jews returned to Jerusalem under the Persian emperor Cyrus, the lack of the nation’s repentance, as seen in later prophets like Malachi, soon made it clear the return from exile in Cyrus’ day was not complete, for turning from sin was the prerequisite for such blessings (Deut. 30:1–10).

No, God would cleanse His people, end their exile, and usher in the new heavens and earth promised by Isaiah (65:17–25) through the ministry of David’s greatest son. John the Baptist’s ministry was Isaiah’s straight, flat highway in the desert preparing the people to be ready for the kingdom of God to come in power and end their spiritual exile. His baptism was preparatory, revealing Israel must turn from the same uncleanness marking her Gentile persecutors.

John is seen as the new Elijah, for he is a prophet of the coming Messiah (Mal. 4:5–6; Matt. 11:1–14). His baptism is not the same as the one Jesus commands (Matt. 28:18–20), but it does share points of contact. The most important of these is our need to repent of our sin so that we can enter Christ’s kingdom (Mark 1:14–15).

A questions and answers session with Drs. W. Robert Godfrey, Joel Kim, and Derek Thomas.

Note: Answers given reflect the views of the individual speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dr. R.C. Sproul and Ligonier Ministries. Here is our Statement of Faith.

4_._ There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.[1**]**

[…]

The final clause of section 4 is frequently disputed among Christians: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.

In the so-called Jesus movement of the 1960s and 1970s, young people reacted against traditional authority structures and created an underground church that dispensed with regularly ordained clergy. People gathered around swimming pools and were baptized by Pat Boone or other celebrities. Church officials were unnerved by these practices and claimed that the sacraments are only to be administered by duly authorized individuals, such as ordained clergy. Over against that was an informal view of the matter that saw little need for ordained clergy.

Added to that was the impact of the charismatic movement, in which people supposedly receive special gifts from the Holy Spirit that empower them for ministry. Most of the New Testament information that we have about the gifts of the Spirit (Greek charismata) comes from Paul’s letters to the Corinthian church. In Corinth, people who received gifts from the Spirit challenged the authority of those who had been, under normal circumstances, set apart and consecrated for ministry. Paul’s two epistles to the Corinthian community deal with that internal disruption.

At the end of the first century, Clement, bishop of Rome, wrote an epistle to the Corinthian community because the crisis had actually worsened after the death of the Apostle Paul. The Corinthian church was in a state of spiritual and ecclesiastical chaos. Clement told the Christians at Corinth to go back and heed the teaching of the Apostle Paul. At the end of the first century, the debate had to do with regular ministers of the church as distinguished from charismatic leaders.

In the Old Testament, the gift of the Holy Spirit was given to people for special tasks at particular times. We read that the Spirit of the Lord came on Jeremiah or on Ezekiel. They were set apart by God for the special charismatic office of the prophet. The kings of Israel were anointed by the priest, as a sign of their anointing by the Spirit, to exercise their office in a godly manner. Before that, God raised up judges like Samson and Gideon as anointed, charismatically gifted leaders to provide some leadership to the loose federation of the tribes of Israel and especially to lead them against an enemy like the Philistines. Moses was also a charismatic leader who was endowed by the Holy Spirit with special gifts. God then anointed Aaron as the high priest and instituted his male descendants as the priesthood. The entire tribe of Levi was set apart for priestly duties and became part of the regular order of the Old Testament ministry.

In the New Testament, the charismatically endowed leaders of the Christian community

with this ecumenical council.

The fifth century saw the convening of perhaps the most important christological council in all of church history at Chalcedon in 451. Here orthodox Christianity had to fight a battle on two fronts. On the one hand was the opposition to the orthodox view of the nature of Christ in His incarnation by Eutyches. Eutyches was a monophysite — he declared that Jesus had only one nature. This nature was called a single “theanthropic nature,” meaning a divinely human nature or a humanly divine nature. This position, saying that Christ had one nature (Greek: monophysis), obscured both the real deity and the real humanity that were united in the incarnation of Christ.

On the other side of the debate, the Nestorians argued that if Jesus had two natures, He had to have had two persons as well, so they separated the two natures of Christ into two persons. Over against both heresies, Chalcedon gave its famous formula by which it declared that Christ is truly God and truly man, with the natures perfectly united in such a way that they are not confused — the natures are without mixture, confusion, division, or separation; each nature retains its own attributes. This was a watershed council because it set the boundaries or parameters of christological speculation. The two natures were not to be merged or confused; the human nature, for example, would not be absorbed or swallowed up in the divine nature and vice versa. At the same time, the two natures were not to be separated so as to lose their unity in the one person.

Throughout history since Chalcedon, the church in virtually every generation has had to face the tendencies of either confusing the two natures or dividing or separating the two natures. Orthodoxy in the fifth century declared that the natures must be distinguished yet never separated. They must be distinguished and never be co-mingled.

The other noteworthy event of the first millennium was the extraordinary impact of Augustine of Hippo, perhaps the greatest theologian of that millennium. Augustine was called to defend the church against the heresies of the Donatists in their disputes about baptism and, more importantly, against the heretical views of Pelagius, who denied original sin, arguing that even apart from grace the descendents of Adam could achieve lives of perfection. Augustine’s theology of salvation shaped the future history of Christianity, particularly as it helped quicken Luther and Calvin for the Protestant Reformation. At the same time, Augustine’s view of the church solidified the power of the monoepiscopacy and the Roman magisterium for all future generations.

These five aspects of the first millennium are only illustrative of a vast number of things that in the providence of God developed over this period of time. Sadly, at the end of this millennium, the church was already groping in the darkness and biblical soteriology had declined to such a degree that the gospel was rapidly becoming obscured, even becoming almost totally eclipsed until it was recovered in the

That is an interesting question. There has been some historical debate about that. I actually do not think the Baptists came from the Anabaptists.

The Anabaptists were a movement beginning in the sixteenth century and are best known today in terms of groups like the Mennonites and the Amish. They reacted viscerally against the wealth of the Roman Catholic Church in the sixteenth century but saw the antidote as a simple, disciplined life. The Anabaptists were often not very strong on theology or understanding justification by faith alone.

I think the real history of the Baptists rose out of seventeenth century Calvinist circles in England who felt that practicing believer’s baptism was a better way to spiritual discipline and a properly organized church.

this question is to go to Scripture and evaluate the importance of the issues of debate. All questions of truth are important, but not all are equally important. Controversies over central and essential doctrines cannot be avoided without betraying the gospel. As Paul warned the Galatians, a church unwilling to face controversy over doctrines of central importance will soon be preaching "another gospel." The church has had to face controversies over doctrines as central and essential as the full deity and humanity of Christ, the nature of the Trinity, justification by faith alone, and the truthfulness of Scripture. Had those controversies been avoided, the gospel and the authority of Scripture would have been forfeited. These controversies were over doctrines of "first-level" importance—those doctrines without which the Christian faith cannot exist.

Doctrines at the second level of importance do not have to do with the fundamental aspects of the gospel and its call to repentance and faith, but they do explain the division of the church into denominations. Denominations have arisen due to disagreements on baptism, church order, and other issues that are unavoidable in congregational life.

At the third level, we see controversies over issues that should be discussed, even debated, but should not divide believers into different congregations and denominations. Congregations and denominations must develop the biblical and spiritual maturity to judge the importance of disagreements and know when controversy is right and when it is wrong.

Politicians have been known to urge their colleagues not to waste a crisis. In the same way, the church must not waste a controversy. The faithful church must make its controversies count. Controversy, when it appears, should drive the church to Christ and to the Scriptures as believers seek to know all that the Bible teaches. Disputes and debates must send the church to its knees in prayer as believers seek a common mind led by the Holy Spirit. Controversy, rightly handled, will serve to warn the church of the danger of doctrinal apathy and the necessity of personal humility.

Finally, controversy should lead the church to pray for that unity that Christ will accomplish only when He glorifies His church. Even so, Lord, come quickly. Until then, we dare not waste a controversy.

Most of us want peace. Very few of us are willing to make it. If we breeze through the Beatitudes, we might mistake peacemaking for a passive quality, one possessed by people who mind their own business. Their virtue is found primarily in avoiding conflict. But that is certainly not Jesus’ intended teaching. A peacemaker does not avoid conflict. A peacemaker engages conflict—not to inflame it, but to resolve it. A peacemaker is one whose posture is primarily active; relentless in the pursuit of justice, harmony, repentance, and reconciliation. The life of Jesus, the supreme peacemaker, reveals how difficult and dangerous this work often is.

Who are these peacemakers among us today, and how can we join their blessed number? The peace-making envisioned and embodied by Christ has two orientations: toward God and toward man. Follow-ing in the footsteps of their master, the citizens of Christ’s kingdom are called to labor with both aims before them. Most basically, peacemakers are those who proclaim and apply the gospel in evangelism and in conflict resolution. If we would join their ranks, we must hone our skill in applying the good news to every conflict situation.

To find success in this endeavor, we must operate from a place of personal peace and reconciliation with God. Only in possession of this gracious gift can the peacemaker endeavor to bring peace to others. Having tasted and seen that God is good, they find that their heart’s greatest desire is for others to enjoy peace with God and those around them.

Christ’s words are a helpful corrective for those of us who are energized by the prospect of theological debate but bored by the thought of personal reconciliation. Jesus indeed warned that His truth would bring strife, but the heart of His mission was peacemaking. If we have found peace with God, the pursuit of peace with and for others should be a central aim of ours as well.

This is not work that can be accomplished in our own strength. Peace can only flourish where there is deep and lasting change within hearts. The free and undeserved grace that secured our peace with God is the same grace needed to make peace in the hearts of others. Remember this as you agonize over conflict between loved ones and God or among members of your church and community. Grace is what is needed. Bathe your peacemaking efforts in prayer. Ask God to honor your imperfect work for the sake of the supremely faithful Son.

The blessing promised to peacemakers is the remarkable approbation sons of God. In the preceding chapter of Matthew’s gospel, we witnessed the baptism of Jesus, during which God proclaimed from heaven, “This is my beloved Son.” Now Jesus offers a very similar title to the citizens of His kingdom. What an encouragement this is. Peacemaking is not only hard; it is blessed.

Rooted firmly in the peace made by Christ, today’s peacemakers must look to His life as a model. His peacemaking earned Him the hatred of religious

When we discuss the Reformation slogan solus Christus, it is important to understand the precise point of dispute. The Reformers did not reject the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine of the person of Christ. Nicene Trinitarianism and Chalcedonian Christology, which address the person and identity of Christ, were not the issues of debate and disagreement. The theologians of the Reformed churches readily used the biblical and theological arguments of patristic and medieval theologians to defend traditional Trinitarianism and Christology.

The problem, then, was not the person of Christ. The problem was the work of Christ. The debate centered on the sacramental system Rome had constructed, a system in which the grace of Christ was mediated to the people through an elaborate system of priests and sacramental works. Through this sacramental system, the Roman church effectively controlled the Christian’s life from birth (baptism) to death (extreme unction) and even beyond (masses for the dead).

Martin Luther and the other Reformers realized that this elaborate system of works obscured the person and work of Christ as it was so clearly taught in Scripture. Luther argued that the papacy, through this sacramental system, had usurped the prerogatives of Christ, making itself the dispenser of God’s grace. Christ alone, and not the church, however, is our only Mediator (Westminster Larger Catechism Q&A 181). As Huldrych Zwingli proclaimed, “Christ is the only way of salvation of all who were, are now, or shall be.” In Article 54 of his Sixty-Seven Articles (1523), Zwingli explicitly contrasts the Roman sacramentalist view with solus Christus: Christ has borne all our pain and travail. Hence, whoever attributes to works of penance what is Christ’s alone, errs and blasphemes God.” The Westminster Confession of Faith affirms that Christ alone is the object of our faith: “the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace. (14.2)

The Reformers and their heirs were intent on proclaiming Jesus Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2). They recognized that because Christ is the only way of salvation for man, He is central to the message of the Bible (Acts 4:12). Their books were Christ-centered. Their sermons were Christ-centered. Their worship was Christ-centered. All of this was in stark contrast to the man-centered religion of late medieval Roman Catholicism. If we are to see a new Reformation in our day, we too must believe and confess the biblical doctrine of solus Christus.

There are a number of works that can assist in our understanding of this doctrine. The following are merely a starting point.

Martin Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church

The Babylonian Captivity of the Church is the second of three great treatises Luther wrote in 1520 as part of his attack on the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church (the others were To the Christian Nobility and The Freedom of a Christian). The Babylonian Captivity is Luther’s scathing criticism of the Roman Catholic sacramental system. It is

the origin and theology of this dualistic religion.  He explains Augustine's attraction to it as an answer to the problem of evil as well as the reasons for his ultimate disillusionment with this religion.

Part Two covers the years 386-395, from Augustine's arrival in Milan to his consecration as coadjutor bishop of Hippo Regius in 395.  In this section, Brown discusses Augustine's introduction to Neo-Platonic thought, his conversion, his baptism, his important controversy with the Donatists, and the writing of the Confessions. 

In Part Three, Brown discusses the years between 395 and 410. He goes into some detail detailing Augustine's battle with the Donatists, a strict Pharisaical faction that advocated  withdrawal  and separation from the world.  The goal of Augustine's Catholic Christianity, in contrast, was to transform the world.  The debate between the Donatists and the Catholics was one of the fiercest battles in the first centuries of the church, and its outcome would determine the very nature of the medieval church.

Part Four covers the final years of Augustine's life from the years 410 to 420.  The world changed dramatically in 410 when the barbarian Alaric entered Rome.  This was the beginning of the end for the western half of the Roman Empire.  The biggest immediate impact that this event had on Augustine was the flood of refugees who fled to North Africa.  Pelagius himself, who would later become Augustine's greatest nemesis, passed through Hippo at this time.  Unfortunately (because it would have surely been an interesting encounter), Augustine was away at the time and never met him personally.  In these chapters, Brown focuses much of his attention on Augustine's battles with Pelagius and his followers, and he briefly discusses the later works of Augustine that included such books as the Retractions.

It is almost impossible to overstate Augustine's influence upon the Christian Church.  Peter Brown has done the Church a great service by providing the world with a wonderful portrayal of the man and his work.  If there are any weaknesses in the book, they are almost inconsequential.  One may hope, of course, that eventually the author will incorporate into the body of the text what he has learned in the 35 years since the publication of the first edition.  He expresses the changes in his thoughts in the new epilogues, and it should be noted that these changes do not significantly detract from the overall worth of the book.

Augustine was undoubtedly the greatest theologian of the early church.  As great as he was, however, he understood better than many of his heirs his own limitations.  I can think of no better conclusion to this review than to remind readers from one of his newly discovered letters what Augustine himself had to say about his own authority and the authority of other non-scriptural works: We, who preach and write books, write in a manner altogether different from the manner in which the canon of Scriptures has been written.  We write while we make progress.  We learn something new every day.  We dictate

book he co-authored with Dunn, The Justice of God. In general, the portrait of Luther in this essay is bizarre. On the first page we are told that Luther wanted to purify Catholicism (true) and retained 'many of its beliefs and practices, much like the English King Henry VIII’. Given the fact that Luther fundamentally restructured the sacramental theology of the church and that Henry VIII personally took him to task on precisely this issue, burning a good few Lutherans into the bargain, Suggate’s description here is unlikely to be one that either of them would approve, recognise or find particularly flattering. In addition, we are told, portentously, that 'the temptation to launch attacks against Catholicism was very strong, and Luther cannot escape some of the blame for what happened after him’. Then, just in case any of us have missed the point of Luther’s pornographic anti-papal woodcuts or his obscene language in his anti-Roman polemic, we are reminded that 'Luther was not above intemperate attacks himself.’

We may well laugh at the oddity of these comments but it is important to realise the game that is being played by Suggate here: Luther is being portrayed as the man who let the genie out of the bottle; he was not necessarily a revolutionary or an extremist himself, but his thinking was fundamentally inconsistent in attempting to balance his new understanding of justification with a strong ecclesiology; and, in the generations after his death, the doctrine of justification won out, undermining and ultimately destroying the doctrine of the church. For Suggate, the road from Luther runs fairly directly to the totalitarianism of Nazi Germany where the individualist piety of Lutheranism was incapable of providing a rationale for any kind of concerted social resistance to tyranny.

The political question is, of course, a highly complex one and, given the horrors of the Holocaust, any connection made between Luther and the Third Reich raises the whole debate to a highly emotive level. Nevertheless, even if we allow the ideas of particular individuals a significant role in the formation of a nation’s social, political, and cultural values (and that in itself is a philosophically contentious position with which I am profoundly unhappy in such a bald form), Luther’s Christianity is by no means the sole candidate for criticism as far as Germany’s recent history goes: the philosophy of Hegel and Bismarck’s policy of Realpolitik are also significant intellectual sources of modern Teutonic totalitarianism.

If we move away from confusing the issue of Luther’s theology with events in the mid- twentieth century, there are two basic points which can be made to counter accusations of individualism (in the anti-social, anti-ecclesiological sense of the word that Dunn appears to be using): Luther’s high view of baptism and its relation to the Christian life; and the connection between justification and social ethics.

Accusations of individualism as lodged by Dunn and Suggate fail to come to grips with the fact that Luther combined his understanding of justification by faith with a high

volume is only for the die-hards, but if your interest is in the historical Presbyterian doctrine of the church, this is a helpful volume to peruse.

Church Government

Church government is considered a boring subject by many, but it has been the source of much debate and discussion throughout the history of the church. Is church government something to be determined by local needs, or do the Scriptures mandate a particular form of church government? If so, what? These questions are important.

This book is part of Zondervan’s Counterpoints series. The views represented are: Episcopalianism (by Peter Toon), Presbyterianism (by L. Roy Taylor), Single-Elder Congregationalism (by Paige Patterson), and Plural-Elder Congregationalism (by Samuel E. Waldron).

This volume is bart of Broadman & Holman’s Perspectives series, which is identical in concept to the Zondervan Counterpoints series. The five views represented in this volume are: Single-Elder Congregationalism (by Daniel Akin), Democratic Congregationalism (by James Leo Garrett, Jr.), Plural-Elder Congregationalism (by James R. White), Presbyterianism (by Robert L. Reymond), and Episcopalianism (by Paul F.M. Zahl).

Hodge’s Systematic Theology does not contain a section on ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church). He hoped to write a fourth volume on the subject but was prevented by infirmities. This volume is a collection of some of his numerous articles on ecclesiology. It was arranged by one of his pupils and met with his approval. It remains a very valuable work on this subject.

This is a volume that every elder and deacon in every Reformed church should take the time to read. No one will agree with every point made, of course, but the essays are all thought-provoking.

Samuel Miller was one of the first professors at Princeton Seminary, preceding both of the Hodges. Many of his works remain among the best written on a particular subject (e.g. his book on creeds and confessions and his book on infant baptism). Likewise, this book on the biblical doctrine of church elders is outstanding.**

A careful biblical-theological work examing what both the Old Testament and New Testament teach us about the role of the elder in the church.

In our next installment, we will look at some of the best books on Christian worship.

This article is part of the Recommended Reading collection.

Why do we do the things we do? Scholars struggle to understand human nature and, in particular, what theologians call sin. Where does it come from and why do we do it? In 2002, James Waller produced a careful work of psychology called Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing. What is fascinating about Waller’s study is that he challenges the common assumption that “extraordinary evil” must arise only from some abnormality within a people or society. Such a common view of extreme evil is a comfort to those of us who are “normal,” as it reassures us that we would never participate in such horrific events — we are not that bad. Yet what is so unsettling about Waller’s study is that he shows “extraordinary evil” actually arises from “ordinary people” — people like you and me.

The reality of extraordinary and ordinary evil remains a nagging problem, not easily answered and not easily ignored. Famed social psychologist Philip Zimbardo recently wrote The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil (2007), emphasizing that the fundamental problem that leads us into offensive actions is environmental: what corrupts us is the hostile or acidic situations in which we find ourselves. Zimbardo is right to highlight the significance of context in shaping a person, but he is wrong when he reduces our proclivity for evil to influences from external situations.

Something is wrong not simply “out there” but within us. Jeremiah probed the human heart and soberly declared, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jer 17:9). Similarly, the apostle James did not blame God for our temptations or sin but concluded, “Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire” (James 1:14). But why do we have desires that can be so hurtful to others and so contrary to God? What is wrong with our hearts?

In the early church’s struggle to understand human nature, no debate became more significant than that between Pelagius and Augustine.

Zealous Pelagius, apparently frustrated by the lackadaisical ethical attitudes he saw around him, stressed the importance of unbending moral behavior. In the process, he argued against the idea of what we call “original sin” — when Adam and Eve sinned, their actions fundamentally affected all who would follow. After this fall, people are born with sinful impulses that turn them away from God. Pelagius disagreed. He believed that we are not born sinful, but we sin when we show inadequate willpower and give in to seductive situations. Like Adam and Eve before they gave into the deceptive sounds of the serpent, each of us begins life with the ability to remain untainted by sin. While there is no original sin, Pelagius did admit that people do sin, and thus Jesus is still needed.

By our baptism into Christ, Pelagius argued, all of our previous sins were forgiven, returning us to a clean slate. Baptized believers are called then to follow Jesus’ perfect moral example.

As Dr. Robert Letham points out in the Introduction to his new book on the Lord's Supper, one of the most striking differences between the Reformation era and our own day is our modern neglect of the Lord's Supper. This doctrine, which was the single most discussed theological topic during the sixteenth century, is virtually ignored today. One may easily find numerous volumes debating various aspects of baptism, but there are very few good modern works on the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Letham's small work is a good step in the right direction toward the resolution of this unfortunate state of affairs.

The book is divided into four main parts. The first part of the book deals with the biblical foundations of the Lord's Supper. The second part of the book deals with different concepts of the Supper in the history of the Church. Part three focuses in more specifically on the Reformed doctrine, and the fourth part of the book discusses several practical issues related to the Supper. The book concludes with an Epilogue titled "The Lord's Supper and the Future."

We are provided a hint of Letham's understanding of the sacrament in the Introduction where he mentions the famous nineteenth century sacramental debate between John Williamson Nevin and Charles Hodge. By the nineteenth century, the Reformed Church as a whole had moved quite a distance away from the Eucharistic doctrine of John Calvin. In 1846, Nevin wrote The Mystical Presence: A Vindication of the Reformed or Calvinistic Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist in an attempt to call the Reformed church back to the doctrine of Calvin. In 1848, Hodge wrote a lengthy critical review in The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review strongly criticizing Nevin's defense of Calvin's doctrine. Hodge considered Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper to be a peculiar foreign element in his theology that should be discarded. In 1850, Nevin published a 128-page response to Hodge in the Mercersburg Review. Nothing more was heard from Princeton on the subject after this. It is clear that Letham is sympathetic to Nevin's position. He writes, "The verdict of history has been that Nevin was right and that Hodge had failed to grasp his own theological tradition" (p. 2). Letham is clearly on the side of Calvin (and Nevin) as opposed to that of Hodge.

In Part One, Letham discusses several important biblical passages and issues related to the doctrine of the Supper. In his examination of the relationship between the Supper and the Passover, Letham takes the position that the point of contact with the Passover was the Cross, not the Supper. He appeals primarily to John 18:28, which speaks of the Passover in the future tense on the day following the Last Supper. After briefly outlining some of the primary scriptural terms used to describe the sacrament, Letham explains that three main things happen in the Eucharist. First, it is a memorial. Second, it is a proclamation of the Gospel. And third, it

magic bullet of missions and church planting that will cut through the rock hard soil of western Europe.

We agree. We need this magic bullet. And we have it, but, alas, we disagree with the pragmatists and progressives as to where it may be found. It is not to be found in the newest fad but in the nature of the church and the promises given to it.

In Matthew 16, Jesus makes a promise to Simon Peter: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (v. 18). While there is some debate as to what Jesus meant by “on this rock,” what is clear is the import of Christ’s promise to build His church. Jesus is the originator of His church. He is the builder and keeper of His church. And just as He has charged the disciples with making disciples of all nations, including the spiritual wastelands of Europe, by baptizing them and teaching them to observe all that He has commanded them, so He has promised to be with His church, even to the end of the age (Matt. 28:18–20).

The true church of Christ has always been recognized by the marks of true gospel preaching, baptism, the administration of the Lord’s Supper, and discipline, which are also the means of grace God ordinarily uses and promised to bless. This church is kept by Christ in such a way that not even the gates of hell shall prevail against its mission.

Admittedly, Christ’s promise to Peter may seem counterintuitive today, especially in Europe. But then again, we must walk by faith, not by sight. We need to rely on God’s promise, draw from God’s strength, and use the means He has given the church. That is our only hope. Such a promise-driven approach to ministry cannot ultimately fail because the church will ultimately survive. This is the magic bullet of ministry if there ever was one.

Recent years have witnessed a renewed interest in the sacramental theology of John Calvin. A number of studies have been published, but unfortunately until now it has been difficult for many interested readers to find access to many of the relevant writings of Calvin on the subject. His commentaries and his Institutes of the Christian Religion have long remained in print, but many other important tracts and treatises have remained buried in long out of print and obscure volumes. With the re-publication of Treatises on the Sacraments, this problem has been resolved to a large degree.

This volume is a collection of some of John Calvin's most important writings on the subject of the sacraments in general and the Lord's Supper in particular. The works are translated and introduced by Henry Beveridge, a well-known Calvin scholar. The first tract included in this volume is the Catechism of the Church of Geneva, first published in French in 1536. It is roughly divided into five major sections: Faith, the Law, Prayer, the Word of God, and the Sacraments. The section on Faith includes an exposition of the Apostles Creed. The section on the Law discusses the Ten Commandments while the section on Prayer includes a helpful explanation of the Lord's Prayer. The authority of Scripture is explained in the section on the Word of God, and the section on the Sacraments explains the nature and purpose of Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Following the Catechism of the Church of Geneva are Calvin's forms for prayer, the administration of the sacraments, the celebration of marriage, and the visitation of the sick. These documents provide an invaluable glimpse into the liturgical life of the church Calvin shepherded. The next two documents included in this volume are a brief personal confession of faith followed by the Confession of Faith of the Reformed Churches of France.

Each of the remaining documents in this volume addresses the doctrine of the Lord's Supper from varying perspectives. Calvin's Short Treatise on the Lord's Supper is one of the most helpful summaries of his view to be found in any of his writings. The document titled "Mutual Consent in Regard to the Sacraments" was written in the context of Calvin's discussions with the churches of Zurich. The Second Defense of the Pious and Orthodox Faith Concerning the Sacraments; the Last Admonition of John Calvin to Joachim Westphal; and The Clear Explanation of Sound Doctrine Concerning the True Partaking of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Holy Supper were all written in the context of heated debate and controversy with certain Lutheran writers. These writings are helpful primarily because in them, Calvin clears up a number of misunderstandings regarding his views. In the final treatise, Calvin outlines what he believes to be the Best Method of Obtaining Concord on the doctrine of the Sacraments.

While secondary sources are usually helpful, there is no substitute for going to the sources themselves. For English readers interested in the sacramental theology of John Calvin, this volume

in disputes involving the Sabbath, the days of Genesis, theonomy, the gifts of the Spirit, church government, you name it. In every dispute over the meaning of some biblical text or theological point, it seems that someone eventually throws out some version of the line: “The simple fact of the matter is that we believe what God clearly says here and you don’t.” When both sides in a given debate do it, the result is particularly edifying.

Re-read the Lutheran quote in the first paragraph. Do you (assuming you are not Lutheran) find it persuasive when it is said of you that the only reason you do not accept the Lutheran understanding of baptism is because you do not believe God’s Word? Probably not. But we find that same kind of statement very assuring (and persuasive) when it is said in support of a doctrine or interpretation that we happen to agree with.

The problem with Pieper’s statement is that he does not allow for any conceptual distinction between the infallible and inerrant Word of God and his own fallible and potentially errant interpretation of that Word. Thus, to disagree with his interpretation is to disagree with God. But this is obviously false. Presbyterians and Baptists do not reject the Lutheran doctrine of baptism because they disbelieve God’s Word. They reject it because they think Lutherans have misinterpreted God’s Word.

The fact of the matter is that people who believe equally in the authority and inerrancy of Scripture sometimes disagree in their interpretation of some parts of that Scripture. We know God’s Word is not wrong, but we might be. God is infallible; we are not. We are not free from sin and ignorance yet. We still see through a glass darkly. In hermeneutical and theological disputes, we need to make an exegetical case, and we need to examine the case of those who disagree with us. It proves nothing to make the bare assertion: “We believe the Bible and you don’t.”