What Federal Vision?

There is an increasing amount of interest in England at the moment about the “Federal Vision”. I understand Don Carson spoke at considerable length during question time at the EMA this year. I am of the opinion that in England at least it really doesn’t make sense to talk of “The Federal Vision” as an entity that really exists.

The labels “Federal Vision” and “Federal Visionist” referring to the theology and its proponents respectively (though definitely not respectfully), following a pastors’ conference in 2002 entitled “The Federal Vision: An Examination of Reformed Covenantalism”, seem initially to have been applied by those who have denounced the theology as a denial of the gospel and those who taught it as false teachers. It makes sense at this present time to talk about the “Federal Vision”, now that “Federal Visionists” have come together to make a joint profession about what they believe, although before that, I don’t think it was justified, and even now, it is hardly an homogeneous position. This statement can be found HERE and articulates a commitment to historic reformed teaching, and to Scripture, along with an optimistic eschatology, an emphasis on thinking in terms of the visible, historical church, and an articulation of the real privileges that its members have and the objectivity of the sacraments and the blessings they convey. I am very impressed with John Piper for sticking his neck out and inviting Doug Wilson to speak at his Desiring God conference this year (I believe Doug was actually invited first, so that the other speakers knew who they would be sharing a platform with). Piper has recently recorded a video clip endorsing Doug and explaining why he wanted him to speak and this can be found, along with Doug giving his testimony, HERE. It appears Piper has, perhaps not unexpectedly, come in for some criticism for his decision.

As I hope the extracts which I posted previously from Calvin’s Institutes and Bradshaw’s The Olive Branch show, this view of the church and sacraments is nothing other than what Calvin himself believed and taught, and is also the classical reformed evangelical Anglican view. As my bishop remarked to me, a high reformed ecclesiology is a mainstream Anglican position which goes right back to the Reformation and indeed beyond that back to Augustine, or rather, Scripture as seen through the eyes of Augustine. Moreover, most of the Puritans were postmillenarian. Evangelicals, particularly Anglican evangelicals with their doctrinal and liturgical heritage in the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer, should have nothing to fear from the insights of those who come under the Federal Vision umbrella. It doesn’t make sense to talk about “The Federal Vision” in England as a distinct doctrinal position or movement. What goes by the name “Federal Vision” already has a name here: classical reformed Anglican evangelicalism.

Reclaiming Worship

I am perhaps stating the obvious here, but it seems to be the case that in conservative evangelical circles, worship is something that we are to do with the whole of our lives, but is not what we go to church for: we go to church to encourage one other and to hear the Bible read and explained. This seems largely to be an Anglican phenomenon. My reformed non-conformist friends have no problem with referring to Sunday “meetings” as “worship services”. Indeed, even the more traditional conservative evangelical Anglican churches are quite happy to refer to services as “worship”. The last time I looked, the board outside St. James’s, Poole, advertised Morning Worship at 11.00am and Evening Worship at 6.30pm. This was a position I most eagerly adopted as an undergraduate, but I think my zeal, as with a number of things I became eager about as an undergraduate (but not including infant baptism), was zeal without knowledge. The view that says we don’t go to church to worship is, I think, an overreaction to the charismatic movement. Of course we want to say that worship is more than singing. I do become irritated when I hear people say, “We’re now going to go into a time of worship,” which is distinct from the Scripture readings, the sermon and prayer. But it is to go too far, I think, to say that the service considered as a whole is not a time of worship. Worship is what is going on during the singing, when the Bible is being read, when we pray, when we go to the Lord’s Table. Worship is what a man does when he enters the pulpit to preach, and worship is what the congregation does when it listens.

I think I have the Bible on my side here. The New Testament explicitly uses a word we translate as “worship” when it describes what the church is doing when it meets together (and I certainly think the application is wider than simply to ordinations).

“Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While they were worshipping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off.” – Acts 13.1-3

In heaven, “worship” is the label given to the ritual action of the twenty-four elders when they are gathered around God’s throne and bow down and say words together. This should of course be the pattern for what we do when we gather together. We pray in the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” It is this assembly with which we have communion when we gather together (Hebrews 12.22-24).

“And whenever the living creatures give glory and honour and thanks to him who is seated on the throne, who lives for ever and ever, the twenty-four elders fall down before him who is seated on the throne and worship him who lives for ever and ever. They cast their crowns before the throne, saying,

“Worthy are you, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honour and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they existed and were created.”" – Revelation 4.9-11

Hebrews 12 seems to bear this out. After describing what it is that Christians have come to when they draw near through the blood of Jesus as they assemble together (Hebrews 10.19-25), we are urged, “Let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12.28-29).

This is also supported by what Jesus himself taught. In John 4, he is talking to the woman of Samaria at the well. She says, “Our fathers worshipped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship.” (John 4.20). This establishes that “worship” in this context means the corporate ritual action that is going on in Jerusalem. Moreover, this indicates that the conversation is about where worship occurs, not the fact that “worship” refers to what goes on when God’s people meet together. So Jesus replies to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father”. Rather, the “place” where worship will occur from now on is in “spirit and truth”: there is no one fixed location where we go to worship God but rather, we worship God wherever the church, upon which the risen and ascended Christ has poured the Holy Spirit, gathers around God’s word. “The hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4.23-24).

This is the basis upon which we as Christians are described as an holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2.5), which includes proclaiming “the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light” (1 Peter 2.9), offering up “a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name” (Hebrews 13.15). This is of course not to say that we are not to worship God with the whole of our lives. Hebrews 13 continues, “Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God” (Hebrews 13.16). “I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Romans 12.1). We are even to regard the words which we speak as an offering to the Lord: “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person” (Colossians 4.6 cf. Leviticus 2.13).

We go to church to worship. We worship God with our whole lives.

Covenant Renewal in the Book of Common Prayer

Back in October, I showed how the Common Worship Order 1 text for Holy Communion could be used for a covenant renewal service following the pattern of guilt offering (confession), ascension offering (consecration through word and prayer), and peace offering with fellowship meal (communion). I was looking last night through Exodus 24, and I had what might be described as a Michael Ward moment. I don’t know whether Cranmer was aware of this, but the order for Holy Communion in the Book of Common Prayer follows the narrative of the renewal of the covenant in Exodus 24.1-12:

1. God calls his people up to his mountain to worship him (vv. 1-2)
2. Moses tells the people the words of the LORD (i.e. the Ten Commandments from Exodus 20) and they respond with one voice saying, “All the words that the LORD has spoken we will do” (v. 3). In the Communion service, the minister rehearses the Ten Commandments, after each of which the people reply, “Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law” and, “Lord, have mercy upon us, and write all these laws in our hearts, we beseech thee.”
3. Moses reads the Book of the Covenant in the hearing of the people and they respond by saying, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient (v. 7). In the Communion Service, after a Collect for the Queen, the Epistle (or portion of Scripture appointed for the Epistle) and Gospel are read, the people sing or say the Nicene Creed in response to the readings, and after the notices, there is a sermon.
4. Moses takes the blood of the oxen which have previously been sacrificed as burnt offerings and peace offerings to the Lord, half of which has already been thrown against the altar, and he throws it on the people, describing it as “the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you”. In the Communion Service, after the offering and prayer for the church militant, an exhortation is given to come to communion, and the people confess their sins, the absolution is pronounced and comfort is given as the people are assured of the propitiation for their sins that has been made by Jesus.
5. Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel go up the mountain (v. 9). In the Communion Service, the minister says, “Lift up your hearts,” to which the people reply, “We lift them up unto the Lord,” and they praise him along with angels, archangels and all the company of heaven.
6. They see the God of Israel but he does not lay his hand on them, and they eat and drink with him (vv. 10-11). In the Communion Service, the Prayer of Humble Access is said, as the people acknowledge their unworthiness and God’s mercy, the Prayer of Consecration is said, and the people receive bread and wine, after which they pray, thank God, praise him, and receive his blessing.

The Communion service in the Prayer Book, and therefore Order 2 in Common Worship (of which there is a contemporary language version which may be more appropriate for general use in the church) is a covenant renewal liturgy which follows a pattern laid down in Scripture. This is all of grace. It is God who gathers his people, and the Ten Commandments which are read at the beginning of this service begin with, “I am the Lord thy God’: the commandments which represent our obligations in the covenant are a response to God’s prior approach to his people, in which he freely and graciously promises himself to them, and are to be fulfilled in the context of the relationship which he himself has already established with them. It just remains to be said that as New Testament people, the privileges we have are even greater than those enjoyed by Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and the elders. Because of the shed blood of Jesus, which he described as “my blood of the new covenant”, we can all draw near to God (Hebrews 10.19-22), and we ascend not Mount Sinai but into heaven itself, where we enter the presence of innumerable angels in festal gathering, the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, God the Father, and Jesus (Hebrews 12.18-24).

Home Education in the United Kingdom

My thanks to Marc Lloyd, whose weblog post alerted me to various things in the news about home education recently.

The government has accepted a report, written by Mr. Badman (I kid you not), which recommends that all people who home educate should register with their local council, with officials being granted access to the homes of home educators to inspect the education that children are receiving and to interview them (one article suggests that this might even be done without a parent present), and requiring home educators to submit a plan outlining what children will be taught in the ensuing twelve months. Government ministers have tried to justify this increased regulation of home education to the public by suggesting that home education as it currently stands could be used to conceal child abuse. These are just alarmist tactics designed to strong-arm people into allowing even greater government intrusion: I am aware of no cases of children who are educated at home being subject to abuse. In all the cases reported in the press of school-aged children being abused, those children were in schools run by the state and in many cases, state agencies such as the social services were heavily involved. Parents are more likely to pull children out of schools because their children are being harmed there through bullying or inadequate education. The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, the Rt Hon Ed Balls MP, has explained that the government needs to increase regulation of home education in order to bring us into line with many European and other developed countries. He of course fails to explain why that itself is a good thing. Moreover, home education is not the same as education in a school; given that one can think in the long term about what one’s children should have learned and achieved by the end of their time of education, and there should be room for flexibility depending on a child’s developing interests and emerging abilities, and a family’s changing circumstances, rather than specifying what should be covered in any given twelve-month period.

Thinking about this in a more explicit Scriptural way, we see that God has given primarily to parents the task of educating children so that they live well in every area of life in his world (at St. Ebbe’s we have been reminded recently of this in a superb series of sermons from the Rev. Vaughan Roberts):

“Hear, my son, your father’s instruction,
and forsake not your mother’s teaching.” – Proverbs 1.8

“Hear, O sons, a father’s instruction,
and be attentive, that you may gain insight,
for I give you good precepts;
do not forsake my teaching.
When I was a son with my father,
tender, the only one in the sight of my mother,
he taught me and said to me,
“Let your heart hold fast my words;
keep my commandments, and live.
Get wisdom; get insight;
do not forget, and do not turn away from the words of my mouth.” – Proverbs 4.1-5

Moreover, God’s people are to ensure that through the education they receive, their children are taught to put their trust in the God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, to love him and to fear him, and to walk in his ways. No part of the day nor any aspect of life is to be divorced from this instruction:

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.” – Deuteronomy 6.4-7

“Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.” – Ephesians 5.4

Parents have freedom in the Lord to choose how to provide this education for their children, but wisdom is required. I know a number of people who have decided that the wisest thing to do in our country at this time is to educate their children at home. If the Lord grants  children to Brooke and me when we are married, and a classical Christian school has not been established close to where we live by then, then we will do the same.

I will probably get my name put on a list somewhere for saying this, but in making clear its agenda to increase the regulations surrounding home education, the Labour government is still managing in its death throes to extend its tyranny into yet more areas of people’s lives over which God has not given them authority. It is rather like those scenes you sometimes watch in films when one of the characters has a heart attack in a restaurant, collapses, and as he falls to the floor, clutches at a tablecloth and pulls it and everything on it, on to the floor with him in the process, making a horrible mess and smashing all the crockery. Still, we have only received the government we deserve. As a country we have refused to take responsibility ourselves and have continued to give power over more and more areas of life to the state; as a church we have colluded with this, transferring our duties to the state so that it can fulfil them for us, rather than standing up prophetically against its tyranny and saying, “This far, and no further.” We are reaping what we have sown.

Until such time as the governing authorities command us to do something that God forbids, we are to be subject to them and not resist them. At some point, those Christians who choose to educate their children at home may have to open their doors to officers from the council so that they can inspect the education the children are receiving and interview them, and then they will have the opportunity to demonstrate how happy, fulfilled, balanced, well-educated and well-mannered these children are. In the meantime, new legislation will need to be passed, so this is not yet a fait accompli. We can and should use the instruments that have been given to us to oppose this, including writing to Members of Parliament, and above all we need to confess our sin, the sin of the church, and the sin of the country, repent, and pray.

For some recent articles and commentary in the news see HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.

Evangelical Anglicanism and Covenantal Objectivity

I read The Olive Branch by the Rev’d Dr Timothy Bradshaw last year but I seem not to have posted on what I have found helpful in his exposition of the doctrine of the sacraments in the reformed Anglican tradition. Having posted a fair amount of Calvin, here are some extracts from this marvellous book.

Bradshaw discusses what he regards as a distinctive feature of reformed Anglican ecclesiology from the earliest days of the Reformation, namely, the distinction between the church visible and invisible, or spiritual. However, he is very clear to guard against any notion of there being two churches. He rejects a dichotomy or dualism between visible/physical and invisible/spiritual. The one church can be said to be invisible with regard to her relationship with her Lord who is invisible; only God knows the hearts of men and women and their relationship to him and that cannot be seen. This spiritual or invisible church is the church as it is known by God. This same church has a visible body which makes its presence felt in the world in history.

“The church on earth is always a visible body, but it has a spiritual ‘heart’, her relationship to the invisible Lord.

“God always has been the invisible God, universal and known in faith by the Hebrew people. The church continues to know this God and in basically the same kind of way, but in a still more privileged way because of the indwelling Spirit. When evangelical theology speaks of the invisible church it means to say that Jesus is the Lord of the church and that communion with him establishes the church and adds new members ot the body. This has regularly been discussed in terms of the inner heart of the church, and also fo the inner spiritual life… Christ’s spiritual presence is invisible, the church never was. The fact that Christ is invisible now, that the church lives between the times of the first coming and the second, does not mean that the faith is purely or mainly ‘inward’…

“The concept of the invisible church means that the church knows her Lord spiritually.But spirituality for the Christian faith is hard to pin down: it does not simply mean an invisible plane higher than the earthly. On the other hand, Christian spirituality cannot be separated from involvement in the physical world of the cheque book and the ballot paper… The picture seems desperately hard to understand for the Western ‘enlightened’ mind trying to think in terms of invisible spirit or idea, over against visible physical matter: for such a mind either something is spiritual or it is physical. Spirit stands opposite matter. The doctrine of the church has to involve talk of the spiritual and the visible, but along the lines of Paul rather than of a spirit-matter dualism gained from Greek and enlightenment culture. The spiritual church is the church, united with the Lord and, leaving aside the unseen ‘cloud of witnesses’ who are with God on the other side of death, this spiritual church is the physical, tangible and audible family of God. The church’s spirituality cannot be regarded as the reverse of her physical historical being. When evangelicalism forgets this and identifies spiritual with invisible, then it lapses into a form of pietism, of which it has all to often been guilty…

“Evangelical ecclesiology agrees with Hooker that the distinction between the spiritual and the visible aspects of the church cannot be avoided for Christian thought, and that it prevents confusion. The church spiritual is the church as known by God, who alone knows the hearts of men and women… This distinction claims the authority of Paul, for whom membership of the community alone is not sufficient, the need is for a living communion with Christ.” pp. 141-143

This forms the basis of the evangelical Anglican position regarding the sacraments. Bradshaw quotes one author who explains the nature of sacraments as signs and seals of God’s grace and the coincidence, taught in Calvin, of the sacrament and reality. Sacraments are not merely visual aids. Sacraments are objective signs and seals of God’s grace. Faith looks to God’s grace in the sacraments and receives it.

“The seeing of the covenant sign of the rainbow by the people of God is no mere visual aid of God sustaining seed time and harvest, but the very process of this faithfulness to creation is seen in the rainbow itself. The promise and the promised reality coincide. The gift of mercy and divine faithfulness presences itself in that majestic sight, only to the eye of faith, to the effect that God is keeping his promise of mercy and will continue to do so. The gift is real, the sign seals and guarantees this gift. So it is with baptism and the holy communion.

“Dimock insists strongly on this point. It stresses the objectivity of the sacraments: ‘it is to be observed,’ he teaches, ‘that this relationship of the sign to the thing signified – in the teaching of our reformers – is not affected by the faith or want of faith of the receiver. The reception of the thing signified depends on the faith of the receiver, for without faith it cannot be received. But the sacrament is the seal of donation nevertheless… Man’s faith does not make the grace of God. Man’s faith does not make the sacrament to be the seal of God’s grace. It is the office of faith… not to make but to receive, and to receive by believing – by believing the gift conveyed by the Seal, by believing that which is in itself truly objective and independent of faith.’ Here is shown the classical reformed Anglican stress on objective grace, grace needing only to be accepted trustfully, just as the bride needs only to let the groom put the ring on her finger.” pp. 182-3

Bradshaw has already used the image of the giving of the ring in the wedding service to illustrate what is going on when we receive the sacraments. The giving of the ring is the giving of the other person; through the giving of the symbol, the other person gives himself or herself. “With this ring I thee wed &c.” This strong sacramental teaching regarding their objectivity, which Bradshaw declares is the classical evangelical view, does not undermine the need for faith. Sacraments objectively signify and seal God’s grace whether the recipient has faith or not. Those without faith have nevertheless received the sacrament, but their unbelieving response brings judgement. Bradshaw goes on to say:

“The classical evangelical view then is a high sacramental one, the gospel and the sacrament being identified, both accepted thankfully by trustful people of God. This continues in the dealings of God with his people down the centuries of faith in the promises of the living and active God. The privilege of circumcision was that it sealed the promises of God on Israel, and it required faith in the promises thereby signed and sealed. Romans and Galatians speak of the need for faith in order to be true Israelites. The seal without faith gains nothing, except judgement, according to the Old and New Testaments. Paul in 1 Corinthians 10 tells the story of the covenant people, called out of slavery, and as it were baptised and partaking in the eucharist, going under the cloud and eating the heavenly food, yet meeting judgement for their lack of faith and obedience. The outward seals proved meaningless without that trustful attitude to them. In the same epistle Paul berates those who eat and drink at the eucharist ‘not discerning the body’, selfishly indulging in hearty excess, for this also attracts the judgement of the Lord. The gift signed, sealed and pledged, can be gratefully taken or not. It is the sacramental giving of the gospel.” pp. 183-184

Bradshaw proceeds to apply this to baptism more specifically, and he laments the way contemporary evangelical Anglicans have departed from the classical reformed understanding of baptism:

“There seems to be a cleavage between the classical reformed doctrine of baptism and much current feeling on the subject among evangelical Anglicans. Certainly one detects a failure of nerve among many in the evangelical Anglican position… The classical evangelical view is covenantal and objectively gospel focused.” p. 184, emphasis mine

He goes on to quote N. T. Wright, who diagnoses the problem as individualism and pietism, an excessive concentration on the internal, personal experience of the individual at the expense of the people of God in history, the visible church, if you wish.

“‘Modern evangelicalism is not in a position to be smug about the weakness of others, as though we had kept on the high road while our Catholic and radical brethren wandered about in the fog. We have tended to stand closer to Bultmann that we like to realize, with his emphasis on faith as experience unconnected with history, his existentialist call for a decision, his view of justification as the establishment of a personal relationship with God, his wedge between justification and the historical people of God.’ The evangelical today has tended to lose touch with the historical covenant theology of the people of God, with its important stress on the outward and visible seals of the objective gospel of Christ.” p. 184, Bradshaw quoting Wright and then commenting

Bradshaw moves on to talk about what baptism actually does, how it functions as an instrument. It admits people into the historical, visible church. It does not work ex opere operato in conveying the union with Christ and the washing away of sins which it signifies and seals; faith is required.

“Sacramentally water baptism is entry into the messianic people of God. It is ‘as an instrument’ in the sense of the legal, perhaps royal, instruments or warrants crowning with outward authority the gift bestowef. As Motyer clearly points out, the instrumentality involved is not mechanical, as if by a ‘blunt instrument’ an effect was instantaneously caused! Rather the instrumentality is of the outward, formal kind, always assuming the moral and spiritual counterpart of saving gract known in faith.” p. 187

Bradshaw explains how baptism is to be applied to adults who profess faith in Christ, and the children of the people of God. It has the same meaning for both, namely, “the objective grace of God in Christ crucified”, and it is not primarily an opportunity to declare one’s faith. He goes on to explain how covenant children should be brought up prayerfully to gradually grow in trusting in Christ for themselves from their childhood, rather than be expected to have a conversion moment when they grow up (at a summer camp, perhaps?). We mustn’t turn faith into a particular height of knowledge to which a child must attain, a barrier over which they must jump, for that makes faith into a work. Bradshaw also makes the point that infant baptism contributes to making the church truly catholic:

“They should be brought up within the covenant, learning to pray with parents and the church, appropriating the promises of God sealed on them at baptism, growing into the Christian faith. Their unbelief can make the warrant, the seal of no account. But that is not the expectation of the prayerful family of the church. There is such a thing as an infant Christian, the church is not catholic without all age groups, and there must be no confusion between knowledge on the one hand, and faith of a childlike kind on the other…

Baptism of infants of the Christian family is regarded with positive expectation by the classical Anglican evangelical ecclesiology, not with a nervousness centring on the existential decision of the child in early teens.” pp. 190-191

At the end of the day, this is a position which, while affirming the need to receive God’s grace in Christ through faith for final salvation, doesn’t dismiss the sacraments including baptism as being of no real value. Instead, it esteems baptism, and teaches that a person who has received it has been given something of great worth, regardless of the response just like the Old Testament Israelite who was circumcised on the eighth day. Indeed, it is this intrinsic, objective value of baptism, which summons its recipient to faith in God.

“The external rite, however divinely ordained, is itself not meant to replace grace appropriated in faith: it is an outward expression of grace offered to faith. Paul does not conclude by becoming an anti-sacramentalist, or an existentialist! ‘Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way’ (Romans 3:1); the Jew has the external seals and the testimony of the living God, constantly calling forth faith, constantly calling for belief in the circumcision, for ‘considering yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus’, as the messianic community.” p. 187

“Surrounded by prayer, the scriptures, and the testimony of the good God, the child of the covenant, like the Israelite of Romans 3, has the advantage of the oracles of God, the promises, and faith which is to be nurtured and incarnated.” p. 191

Christians and Mental Health

The reflexions in this post are largely prompted by my current (and last ever!) two-week placement, in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Mental health is another area in which there is sometimes a degree of craziness amongst Christians. The way mental illness is thought of here in England among medical professionals, and the framework in which it is treated, is largely correct, I think. We are taught to think of the causes of mental illness in terms of biological, psychological and social factors. Treatment follows the same lines. I would simply add one further category: spiritual factors. We must avoid the danger of becoming reductionists in our approach to mental illness, by saying on the one hand that it is all the result of sin in someone’s life, or on the other that it is entirely a problem with the levels of chemicals in the brain and so someone just needs to go on medication.

Sin can lead to madness (Jonah 1) and at the end of the day, some people’s mental illness is a result of sin in their life which they need to take responsibility for, confess and repent of, for which they will need the help of the Holy Spirit. It is striking in consultations when the advice given by the doctor would, in the setting of minister’s study, be translated repentance, with a strong encouragement to put into practice Proverbs 13.20: “Whoever walks with the wise, becomes wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm.” It is also striking when patients acknowledge they they are trapped in addictive patterns of behaviour, know the danger, but don’t just have the ability to change. What they really need is the gospel. I would just add, in mental small print and several layers of parentheses that, while the crucified, risen and ascended Christ has triumphed over all spiritual powers in the universe by the blood of his cross (Ephesians 1.20-21, Colossians 2.15, Revelation 12.10), there is nevertheless some degree of ongoing demonic activity in the world (Acts 16.16, 19.12-16) and, though in the largely rationalistic West the devil has devised other strategies to war against God’s people, there may nevertheless be those who suffer mental illness because of their dabbling in the occult (a small group in the West, but more likely a larger population in some of the more tribal areas of Africa and South America, I would think), for whom the ministry of deliverance, such as that described HERE may be appropriate.

It must be remembered by Christians, however, that the brain is, at the end of the day, matter, and, following the Fall and the curse, things made of matter may not work properly. There may be no unconfessed, unrepented of sin in someone’s life, they may be surrounded by a wonderful family and have an enjoyable job and a lovely home, but still they may develop mental illness, for example depression. Mental illness can be organic in cause, with structural problems or problems with the levels of different chemicals in the brain. There may be some contribution from someone’s genetic make-up. Just because we are dealing with the brain, that doesn’t mean we have to  dismiss the physical in favour of the ethereal. People who are in that position must not be made to feel guilty about their mental illness, just as a child shouldn’t be made to feel guilty if they develop leukaemia. The biological aspects must not be forgotten in the treatment of mental illness, either. In cases where people develop mental illness for no apparent reason, as well as in those where there are a whole host of social, psychological and spiritual problems (broken family, unemployment, poor housing, bereavement, low self-esteem, drug or alcohol addiction &c.), there is a role for medication, if only to get people to a position from which they can begin to deal with all the other problems, for example, repenting of their sin if that is what is needed, solving the problem of getting a new job, developing more healthy patterns of thinking. Depression, for example, is a perfectly valid clinical diagnosis and it is entirely reasonable for some people to be given medication in the form of anti-depressants to help overcome it. A similar point could be made about bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. Incidentally, I do just want to make the point that Psalms 42 and 43 are not about someone suffering from clinical depression, they’re really not, and it strikes me as a most unhelpful thing to say to a Christian with clinical depression, on the basis of these Psalms, “Why are you depressed? Put your trust in God and you’ll feel better.” If you get a response at all, it may well be, “If I knew that, I would be doing something about it. As it happens, I am trusting in God, and while you may be right in saying that I will feel better one day, how exactly is it helpful to be told that right now in the depths of my present misery.”

Returning to the theme of spiritual factors leading to mental illness (although it overlaps with what those operating in a purely scientific framework would call social factors), at the heart of what is necessary for good mental health is upbringing in a godly family. The foundation needs to be a strong marriage, in which the husband loves his wife as Christ loved the church, giving himself sacrificially, cherishing and protecting her, in which the wife respects her husband and lovingly submits to his headship, a relationship in which there is quick repentance and forgiveness. This will be protective for both the husband and the wife. Children need to be raised in this context, being shown affection by their parents, being taught to honour and obey their parents, and having boundaries laid down which are maintained by loving, consistent discipline. This is reflected in the fact that children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) are helped when their parents attend parenting skills training; parents need to know when to say, “No,”, the children need to be taught to obey their parents simply because they are their parents, there needs to be discipline, and the children still need to learn self-control. Medication, when given appropriately, does help with this, but it is not the be-all and end-all. Godly family life and faithful child-rearing is, of course, not an absolute guarantee against psychiatric illness, given the biological factors which contribute to it, any more than a healthy diet and regular exercise is a fail-safe against other illnesses, but it is very important, and highly significant in reducing its occurrence.

Christians and Health

It seems to me that some Christians, dear brothers and sisters, have developed some pretty nutty health views which I suspect they have largely imbibed uncritically from the world around. One of these takes the health approach that “natural” things and methods are automatically better, leading to a general suspicion of the medical profession and medical interventions.  This obsession with the natural manifests itself in a number of ways, including faith in homeopathic diagnoses and remedies for which there is no evidence base at all apart from the fact the assertion that they are “natural” and therefore better for you, to an insistence on giving birth at home.

The problem with this approach is that it forgets that the Fall happened. All of creation is under a curse. That includes “nature” and our bodies. “Natural” is therefore not always synonymous with “better”. If we don’t forget the Fall, there is still the danger of an over-realised eschatology: just because we have been redeemed through Christ, it is not the case if we go down the “natural” route that no harm will befall us. One aspect of God’s common grace to his fallen world is to grant us advances in medical knowledge and capability. So, for example, the a risk of stillbirth or other morbidity more than doubles if a pregnancy gets to 42 weeks, so induction is offered from 41 weeks. Yes, induction doesn’t always work, labour may take longer and you may need a Caesarean section and have to say in bed because of your epidural, but at the end of the day, medical interventions are not sinful, and you are likely to have a healthy baby which might not have been the case if you had waited.

Some conspiracy-theorists might respond, “Well, you would say that, wouldn’t you?” Yes, I would.

“Enhancing the democratic legitimacy of the Union”

THIS article in the Telegraph highlights the hypocrisy of the European Union, which is supposedly so committed to democracy. I simply regard democracy as the system we have in place at the moment and desire to exercise wise stewardship of what God has given us. I hesitate to call democracy a right and question the wisdom of hundreds of sinners governing instead of a few or one. I merely wish to highlight the European Union’s hypocrisy here.

David Cameron has pulled the Conservatives out of the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) and formed a new, more Eurosceptic bloc called European Conservatives and Reformists. It has to be said that David Cameron is not all that much of an Eurosceptic. He has pledged to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty (a European Constitution in all but name, further establishing the European Union as a distinct legal and political entity in its own right and increasing its powers over individual nations) only if it remains unratified by the Irish (who voted ‘No’ the first time this was put to a referendum, but apparently this answer is not allowed) by the time of a British general election. Even this is not acceptable, however, and there appears to be an intention to railroad the Lisbon Treaty through regardless of the wishes of the subjects or citizens of the individual countries. It has even been intimated that there is pressure to delay a General Election in Britain until after the second Irish referendum so that a referendum won’t be held here which could jeopardise the ratification of the Treaty. This is all about getting the treaty through and increasing the powers of the EU, and not about respecting the nations which comprise it. Here are some extracts:

“”Even though the Conservatives have left, we will work to make sure the Lisbon Treaty comes into force at the end of the year. We regret all demagoguery and populism. We will do this even if David Cameron threatens a referendum,” he [Joseph Daul, chairman of the EPP] said.”

“It could be rather awkward if we had a snap election in Britain with a referendum as one of the issues,” he said. “The political situation in the UK is therefore extremely important. We want to see political stability or we have the danger of opening up a debate that could jeopardise the Lisbon Treaty.” (Wilfred Martens, EPP president)

“No one wants an election in Britain, not because of any special affection for Gordon Brown but because an early election would threaten the Lisbon Treaty. That cannot happen,” said a European diplomat.”

What this does is highlight the tyranny of the European Union. Britain, or more precisely, the countries which are now part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island, have been conquered by other powers in the past. The only difference is the way in which we are being conquered, not by large armies with weapons, but by manipulative politics. Christians have been subjects of tyrants before and we have to submit to tyrants when God places them in power over us. But at the moment, that hasn’t quite happened and it may still be possible to stave this off. The shift to Euroscepticism in last week’s European Parliament elections was telling. Let us continue to use the legimate instruments which God has graciously given us at this time to make our voices heard in the government of our country, and let us pray, for the hearts of rulers are in the Lord’s hands. We have already got the government we deserve, and we could be given even more of what we deserve on an international scale.

Being part of the EU is bad for us. It costs us a fortune. It stifles our fishing industry. It stifles our agriculture by subsidising unproductive farmers in other countries, and then penalising those who are over-productive. The laws it passes are interfering at an ever-increasing level in our lives, with no noticeable benefit, and with some detriment to businesses. And at the end of the day, our Reformation heritage is at stake; written at a time when there was a different over-reaching, tyrannising power, namely the Church of Rome, the Thirty-Nine Articles assert the sovereignty of the Queen as the embodiment of the government of this country which is not to be surrendered to foreign powers:

“The Queen’s Majesty hath the chief power in this realm of England and other her dominions, unto whom the chief government of all estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not nor ought to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction… The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.” – Article XXXVII.  Of the Civil Magistrate

Yes, Jesus has been raised from the dead and seated far above all earthly (and spiritual) rule and power. Yes, the story of Scripture is ultimately a comedy, ending in a marriage and a feast. That means we can be people of hope, not despair. But until we reach the final chapter of that story, when we look at how individual characters fare, there may well be crises. Britain has already fallen a long way. The question is, how much more of a death will there be before there is a resurrection?

The Lord is my shepherd

I just noticed this on Steve Jeffery’s weblog and I simply had to point it out over here. I have never seen this before and it makes so much sense of this passage.

In Mark 6.30-56, we see many parallels with Psalm 23. Jesus is the Lord who is our shepherd as he has compassion on the crowd because they they were like sheep without a shepherd (v. 34), he makes people lie down in green pastures as he bids the crowds to sit down in groups on the green grass (v. 39) (so that’s why Mark tells us the grass is green!), he leads people beside still waters as he walks on the sea, gets into the boat and the wind ceases (vv. 48-51) and he restores people’s souls as the sick touch his garment and they are made well (v. 56). Perhaps more obviously, he prepares a table as he feeds the people with the five loaves and two fish and they are certainly not in want – they eat and are satisfied (vv. 41-42).

The government we deserve

In a recent article commenting on the expenses scandal rocking Parliament, Melanie Phillips, although not a Christian herself I believe, makes an astoundingly insightful point about the culpability of the church in all this in its compromise with the values of society (hat tip: Anglican Mainstream):

“Personal accountability, in the form of paying a price for one’s misdeeds, is essential to a moral sense.

“It is the breakdown of such accountability at all levels in our society that has caused the values free-for-all of which our MPs have shown themselves to be such spectacular exemplars.

“For years, however, the Church has spinelessly gone along with this wider nonjudgmental culture of self-gratification which has turned morality on its head and undermined the cultural foundations of this nation…

“This society has accordingly got the Parliament it deserves. And we won’t put Parliament right until and unless we arrest the slide in our wider culture.”

If there is to be any real change in the way this country is governed at a local or national level, if there is to be any change in how Europe as a whole is governed, then, like Nehemiah and Daniel, we need to confess our sins and the sins of our people, the sins of the church, our lethargy and passivity, our failure to fulfill our prophetic office of calling our rulers and the country as a whole back to Biblical faith and behaviour, and our lack of love for the Lord our God and our neighbour that this reveals. The votes we cast today will mean nothing, if the church in England does not repent.

God’s servant for your good

“[The one who is in authority] is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” – Romans 13.4

Tomorrow is Polling Day, which has set me thinking a little about what the Bible has to say about human authorities, their purpose. how we are to relate to them, and, given the opportunity to make some contribution to their election, some principles for voting.

1. The authority is God’s servant

St. Paul makes it clear that God is the only authority and the authorities which exist have been instituted by him (Romans 12.1). St. Paul says this, writing to the church in Rome. St. Peter is equally clear: “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God” (1 Peter 2.13-14). God has instituted every human authority and that includes the bad ones, who may do things which are sinful and for which they are culpable, but nevertheless serve God’s ultimate purposes (see, for example 2 Kings 17).

2. The authority is God’s servant for justice

St. Paul explains that rulers are to uphold and approve good conduct, and to punish wrong (Romans 12.3-4). St. Peter, in this passage I quoted above, says the same thing. Now we have been given the opportunity to cast our vote for those who represent us in the councils and parliament of this country, and the parliament of Europe. This is not a right, but it is a gift from God, a gift of which we must be good stewards. “Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required” (Luke 12.48). Those who make good use of the talents which their master has given him are praised; those who bury them in the ground are criticised (Matthew 25.14-30). I think, therefore, not bothering to vote is inexcusable. I repent of failing to vote in my recent city council elections, although less will be required of me for that: I would hardly use the adjective “much” to describe the impact that had. Voting in General or European elections, however is very different. The importance of voting in the European elections is to be emphasised, given that it is the eve of Polling Day, and given the massive influence Europe has on our legislation and economy, and given the influence it wants to have. This principle also means that our voting has to be thoughtful and considered. Of course it may be that the outcome of that commitment to thoughtful, considered voting is to put a line through all the options and write, “The Queen,” as I have heard some people do.

What we should take into consideration when we are voting is whether the individual for whom we are voting (or, in the case of the European elections, which party we are voting for, because we can’t vote for individuals – what a great system this is!) upholds the distinction between good and evil and rewards the good and punishes the evil. The Bible has to furnish us with these categories. Are those who work hard for a living allowed to reap the harvest of their labours, or is money taken from those who work hard and given to reward those who don’t? Am I paying for what I use, or am I also paying for what other people use? Are the lives of the vulnerable (which must include the unborn and the elderly) protected? Are criminals punished justly? Is the institution of marriage and the family protected and allowed to flourish, or is it being penalised in favour of other relational arrangements? Are those who truly have no-one to help them and who cannot help themselves provided for in terms of health care, basic food and clothing, and education? (As the church grows and is transformed by the renewal of its mind through the gospel, this is a function which I would expect it to naturally take over from the state, either as an entity, or through the benefaction of its individual members.)

Moreover, is the person or party for whom we are voting heading on a trajectory which keeps the governing authorities within the remit God has given or are they overstepping the mark more and more? The authority is God’s servant for justice, the reward of good and the punishment of evil. Apart from this, it seems to me that the Bible doesn’t give much else of a role for governing authorities. Areas where it could be argued governments are overstepping the mark is running healthcare and education, and getting our grandchilden into debt in order to shore up private businesses.

Although not especially relevant for tomorrow’s elections, I do feel that a word on the relationship between church and state is appropriate here. The Bible knows no separation of church and state. It is legitimate for governing authorities to use their power in the service of the church for its protection and growth, both numerically and in maturity: “Kings shall be your foster fathers, and their queens your nursing mothers” (Isaiah 49.23). “Foreigners shall build up your walls and their kings shall minister to you” (Isaiah 60.10). However, these governing authorities are themselves to bow before the Lord Jesus Christ as their king, which means they are to be subject to the word of God and disciplined by it: “Thus says the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel and his Holy One, to one deeply despised, abhorred by the nation, the servant of rulers: “Kings shall see and arise; princes, and they shall prostrate themselves” (Isaiah 49.7).

Calvin on the Sacraments

With his high view of the church comes Calvin’s strong view of the sacraments, which again has given rise to a noble high reformed heritage in churches such as the Church of England, and is not something to be regarded with suspicion. If we were to regard the sacraments in the way that Calvin did, baptism and the Lord’s Supper would be neglected far less and believers would benefit more from them.

Following Augustine, Calvin defines a sacrament as an outward, visible sign of an lnvisible grace, or a visible word. It consists of God’s external word of promise and the external sign. Calvin compares sacraments to the seals affixed to diplomas and public deeds, which, while having no effect on its own without the word on the parchment, nevertheless, when added to the parchment, have the effect of sealing and confirming them. He points to Paul’s description of circumcision as a seal in Romans 4.11. As visible words, sacraments are signs of the covenant, representing God’s promises graphically and physically. They are manifestations of God’s grace to us. Calvin deals with the objection that they could not possibly be manifestations of God’s grace because they are held forth to unbelievers as well. We lay hold of what God promises us in his sacraments by faith.

It is irrational to contend that sacraments are not manifestations of divine grace to us, because they are held forth to the ungodly also, who, however, so far from experiencing God to be more propitious to them, only incur greater condemnation. By the same reasoning, the gospel will be no manifestation of the grace of God, because it is spurned by many who hear it; nor will Christ himself be a manifestation of grace, because of the many by whom he was seen and known, very few received him. Something similar may be seen in public enactments. A great part of the body of the peope deride and evade the authenticating seal, though they know it was employed by their sovereign to confirm his will; others tample it under foot, as a matter by no means appertaining to them; while others even execrate it… It is certain, therefore, that the Lord offers us his mercy, and a pledge of his grace, both in his sacred word and in the sacraments; but it is not apprehended save by those who receive the word and sacraments with firm faith: in like manner as Christ, though offered and held forth for salvation to all, is not, however, acknowledged and received by all. Augustine, when intending to intimate this, said that the efficacy of the word is produced in the sacrament, not because it is spoken, but because it is believed. Hence Paul, addressing believers, includes communion with Christ, in the sacraments, as when he says, “As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal iii.27). Again, “For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body” (1 Cor. xii.13). But when he speaks of a preposterious use of the sacraments, he attributes nothign more to them than to frigid, empty figures; thereby intimating, that however, the ungodly and hypocrites may, by their perverseness, either suppress, or obscure, or impede the effect of divine grace in the sacraments, that does not prevent them, wherever and whenever God is so pleased, from giving a true evidence of communion with Christ, or prevent them from exhibiting, and the Spirit of God from performing, the very thing which they promise. We conclude, therefore, that the sacraments are truly termed evidences of divine grace, and, as it were, seals of the good-will which he entertains toward us. They, by sealing it to us, sustain, nourish, confirm, and increase our faith.” (Institutes IV.xiv.7)

Calvin acknowledges that sacraments do not have intrinsic magic properties: there is no ’secret efficacy perpetually inherent in them, by which they can of themselves promote or strengthen faith’. Rather, the power comes from the Holy Spirit: the sacraments have been instituted by God as the means or instruments by which this grace is ministered to us. With Augustine, Calvin teaches that the sacrament and the matter of the sacrament, the sign and the thing signified must be distinguished. It is possible to receive the sign – baptism or the Lord’s Supper – and nevertheless perish. This in no way impinges on the nature and the power of the sacrament itself. Quoting Augustine, Calvin writes: “If you receive carnally, it ceases not to be spiritual, but it is not spiritual to you.” He warns us on the one hand not to regard the sacraments as so empty that we do not thing we receive anything by them, and on the other, not to fail to look beyond the sacrament to Christ who by the Holy Spirit bestows what the sacraments signify.

Calvin is quite comfortable in attributing a lot to the sacraments. Of baptism in particular, he writes of being brought into the church, ingrafted into Christ and made God’s children.

Baptism is the initiatory sign by which we are admitted to the fellowship of the Church, that being ingrafted into Christ we may be accounted children of God.” (Institutes IV.xv.1)

“Those whom the Lord has once admitted into favour, and ingrafted into communion with Christ, and received into the fellowship of the Church by baptism, are freed from guilt and condemnation while they persevere in the faith of Christ, though they may be beset by sin and thus bear sin about with them.” (Institutes IV.xv.12)

We can look to baptism for assurance:

“The first object, therefore, for which it is appointed by the Lord, is to be a sign and evidence of our purification, or (better to explain my meaning) it is a kind of sealed instrument by which he assures us that all our sins are so deleted, covered, and effaced, that they will neer come into his sight, never be mentioned, never imputed.” (Institutes IV.xv.1)

“Believers become assured by baptism, that this condemnation is entirely withdrawn from them, since (as has been said) the Lord by this sign promises that a full and entire remission has been made, both of the guilt which was imputed to us, and the penalty incurred by the guilt.” (Institutes IV.xv.10)

Calvin points us to Ephesians 5.25-26, Titus 3.5, and 1 Peter 3.21 as passages treating the effects of baptism. The sacrament doesn’t have any power in and of itself to save: the salvation which Scripture attributes to baptism comes from Christ.

“In this sense is to be understood the statement of Paul, that “Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word” (Eph. v. 25, 26); and again, “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost (Titus iii. v.). Peter also says that “baptism also doth now save us” (1 Peter iii. 21). For he did not mean to intimate that our ablution and salvation are perfected by water, or that water possesses in itself the virtue of purifying, regenerating and renewing; nor does he mean that it is the cause of salvation, but only that the knowledge and certainty of gifts are perceived in this sacrament. This the words themselves evidently show. For Paul connects together the word of life and baptism of water, as if he had said, by the gospel the message of our ablution and sanctification is announced; by baptism this message is sealed. And Peter immediately subjoins, that that baptism is “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, which is of faith.” Nay, the only purification which baptism promises is by means of the sprinkling of the blood of Christ, who is figured by water from the resemblance to cleansing and washing.” (Institutes IV.xv.2)

In all this, baptism is an aid to our faith, and this effect of baptism continues with the fact that through baptism we are united with Christ in his death and resurrection, which is the basis of the Scriptural exhortation to holy living.

“Christ by baptism has made us partakers of his death, ingrafting us into it. And as the twig derives substance and nourishment from the root to which it is attached, so those who receive baptism with true faith truly feel the efficacy of Christ’s death in the mortification of their flesh, and the efficacy of his resurrection in the quickening of the Spirit. On this he founds his exhortation, that if we are Christians we should be dead unto sin, and alive unto righteousness. He elsewhere uses the same argument – viz. that we are circumcised, and put off the old man, after we are buried in Christ by baptism (Col ii.12). And in this sense, in the passage which we formerly quoted, he calls it “the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Tit. iii. 5).”" (Institutes IV.xv.5)

By faith, we are to see that the Lord who is the one acting in the sacrament. Again, it is not that there is any efficacy, but the Lord chooses to use sacraments like baptism as instruments:

“For inasmuch as it is appointed to elevate, nourish and confirm our faith, we are to receive it as from the hand of its author, being firmly persuaded that it is he himself who speaks to us by means of the sign; that it is himself who washes and purifies us, and effaces the remembrance of our faults; that it is himself who makes us the partakers of his death, destroys the kingdom of Satan, subdues the power of concupiscence, nay, makes us one with himself, that being clothed with him we may be accounted the children of God. These things, I say, we ought to feel as truly and certainly in our mind as we see our body washed, immersed and surrounded with water. For this analogy or similitude furnishes the surest rule in the sacraments – viz. that in corporeal things we are to see spiritual, just as if they were actually exhibited to our eye, since the Lord has been pleased to represent them by such figures; not that such graces are included and bound in the sacrament, so as to be conferred by its efficacy, but only that by this badge the Lord declares to us that he is pleased to bestow all these things upon us. Nor does he merely feed our eyes with bare show; he leads us to the actual object, and effectually performs what he figures.” (Institutes IV.xv.14)

For whom is this baptism? Children and their believers. Calvin argues this on the basis of God’s covenant with Abraham to be God to him and to his seed, and the similarity between circumcision as a sign of that covenant, and baptism, in what they signify. Moreover, to exclude children would be to reduce the grace of the Father to Christians than to Jews, which he justly calls blasphemy. It is a repeated point in Calvin’s thought that many of the grounds for rejecting baptism would be a rejection of circumcision, too, which would be to reject a divine institution. Calvin also appeals to Jesus’ reception of children at the stage of being infants at their mother’s breast, declaring “of such is the kingdom of heaven”. Through baptism, Calvin says, children enter into what is theirs by right:

“If the kingdom of heaven is theirs, why should they be denied the sign by which access, as it were, is opened to the Church, that being admitted into it, they may be enrolled among the heirs of the heavenly kingdom?” (Institutes IV.xvi.1)

Calvin discusses the blessings of that baptism of infants brings, both to the believers who bring their children, and the children themselves. He recognises how far into the distant future God’s promised grace reaches. In baptism, God takes the children of believers to be his own children.

“The divine symbol communicated to the child, as with the impress of a seal, confirms the promise given to the godly parent, and declares that the Lord will be a God not to him only, but to his seed; not merely visiting him with grace and goodness, but his posterity also to the thousandth generation… Let those, then, who embrace the promise of mercy to their children, consider it as their duty to offer them to the Church, to be sealed with symbol of mercy, and animate themselves to surer confidence, on seeing with the bodily eye the covenant of the Lord engraven on the bodies of their children. On the other hand, children derive some benefit from their baptism, when, being ingrafted into the body of the Church, they are made an object of greater interest to the other members. Then when they have grown up, they are thereby strongly urged to an earnest desire of serving God, who has received them as sons by the formal symbol of adption, before, from nonage, they were able to recognise him as their Father.” (Institutes IV.xvi.9)

Calvin dismisses the argument that baptism shouldn’t be applied to infants because, as a consequence of their young age, they cannot display what baptism signifies, namely repentance and faith. While these things may not be the same in infants as they are in older children and adults, and not as fully formed, nevertheless, by the Spirit, they are present as it were in an embryonic form:

“Children are baptised for future repentance and faith. Though these are not yet formed in them, yet the seed of both lies hid in them by the secret operation of the Spirit.” (Institutes IV.xvi.20)