That's me, and it's very helpful and clear. Thank you. Though, I've already caught a typo and I'm only on page 3!

Thanks for the link, Josh. Hope everyone in Moscow is well.  Looking forward to our next video phone call.  By the way, just finish No Country.  Very good.  Do you think Chigurh is The Misfit's first cousin? Love,

Mom

And I should have put a comma after typo. Do you mind if I link to this?

I have a hard time deciding which thoughts of mine are 'over the line', 'on the edge' or 'okay and a little funny'.  So here I go:

Can I get a copy of the transcript and nail it on the front doors of Elverson Evangelical Free Church?

On the side, are the "Cold War Kids" popular?  I stumbled upon them a couple of months ago and want to know if I'm on the cutting edge in the music industry.

I think your comment is 'okay and quite funny.' The Cold War Kids are gaining popularity all the time, I think. I got their album for Christmas and only heard about them a little while before that, so you're as 'cutting-edge' as I am, but I don't think that places us on the front lines. Which is alright with me. To be truly cutting edge, you either have to live in a major city or pretend to like and actually listen to some really awful stuff, or both of the above. I prefer to stand back a little and see what can tear its way up through through the market and still be interesting.

Okay I "skimmed" the link you sent.  Basically I would like to ask a couple of questions:

Would you agree that one does not need to be baptised in order to be united to Christ?

How does baptism "unite a person to Christ"?  along the same lines how does "Baptism regenerate"?

The statement says that one has "assurance of his grace" through baptism, what exactly does this mean?

Peace out, Girl Scout

As a preface to these comments I want to characterize the FV a little bit. All of the issues raised here by the question "What does baptism actually do?" are answered by FV thinkers in ways that I might (crudely) characterize as "naturalistic." So getting into questions about whether or not baptism actually saves a person, are answered in FV much the same way they are in any protestant theology. Baptism does not equal salvation. Many baptized people will be in hell. No doubt about it. The naturalism (I apologize again for the term) comes in when we ask "Well, if baptism doesn't save you, what good is it?" because it seems important. It's one of two major rites in the Christian religion. Is it a public confession of faith? Strictly speaking, I don't think so. I don't see a lot of Scriptural support for that. Does it guarantee you entrance into heaven? Roundly, no. Limbs can be cut off and cast into the fire, just as they were in Israel. So, what does it do?

FV has suggested that baptism should be seen as a person forming a bond of covenant (there's the word!) obligation to God. Baptism is the mark that designates a person as belonging to God, being one of his people. This is union with Christ as Paul talks about it. This means that the person is now formally identified with Christ and thus subject to both blessings and curses. There's nothing specifically mystical about this union, baptism is simply a mark on you that means you're obligated to act like a Christian, because you have been identified/united with Christ through baptism. However this mark has a real impact. When parents baptize their children they enter into a covenant with God on behalf of their children. Baptism unites the child with Christ and the parents have taken a solemn oath before God to raise their child in a way that becomes followers of Christ. Rites, it should be understood, work in this naturalistic way. Eating bread and wine is not magical in Rome's sense. It's just bread and wine. But because it is situated as a rite in the Church and has special attendant meaning it has real effects. Now, I'm not discounting elements of mystery in either of these rites (I believe the Holy Spirit is present and does things and changes people in these events) but fundamentally God has designed rites to shape us by real means, and change us by certain ritual actions.

To answer your questions specifically:
Saying that someone doesn't "need" to be baptized to be united to Christ misses the point. Of course, there will be people in heaven who were not baptized. However, that doesn't mean that baptism doesn't matter. I think that ultimately church cultures who don't practice infant baptism or downplay the importance of baptism in general, don't necessarily damage salvation for individuals, but they are not expressing the full range of God's work and intent on earth and so inhibit in a small way the progress of the kingdom on earth. In other words, it's much better to be baptized and to baptize your children, but, sure, you can be saved without it.

I've already touched on the second one, but I will stress again that baptism does not save people in the sense of you-have-been-baptized-you-will-be-
in-heaven-regeneration. But I also don't think that's really the right way of talking about Christ's work of salvation, which is much bigger than me as a person getting into heaven, although it certainly includes that. Baptism initiates a formal relationship between the believer and Christ, with attending blessings and curses.

The statement about assurance of grace is once again more "naturalistic" than perhaps we're used to thinking about the issue. If you doubt your salvation the intent is that you look to the objective mark placed on you in baptism, a mark you can trust. God worked in history to ensure that you would come to that day and that you would undergo that rite, because He intended you to become one of his people. However, having that sign placed on you now requires that you conform to it. You're united with Christ, so now you must act like it. Those who reject their baptisms and rebel or do not grow in sanctification are barren branches which will be cut off and thrown in the fire. The assurance there simply means that you've been given an objective sign that you are one of God's people. It does not mean that you cannot fall away.

This is lengthy and probably unclear and unhelpful, but I would gladly clarify and answer any other questions you have.

Peace.

"The statement about assurance of grace is once again more "naturalistic" than perhaps we're used to thinking about the issue. If you doubt your salvation the intent is that you look to the objective mark placed on you in baptism, a mark you can trust."

I guess I have some problem with this statement.  As the legendary 80's band, Roxett said, "Listen to your heart."  Maybe I'm knit picking here but you previously said,

"This means that the person is now formally identified with Christ and thus subject to both blessings and curses. There's nothing specifically mystical about this union, baptism is simply a mark on you that means you're obligated to act like a Christian, because you have been identified/united with Christ through baptism."

You shouldn't so much look at baptism for assurance but rather are you 'acting' like a Christian for assurance.  Wouldn't that be the essential element to diagnosing where you stand with God?  Not to mention if your doubting our salvation, certainly means you care which shows the doubting itself is attest to the fact you are saved.  Therefore wouldn't you look toward your heart and actions as a sign of whether you are in fact saved, rather than objective signs?  I guess I'm struggling with the idea of objective signs as a way to feel assurance.  We both clearly believe infant baptism is a mark into the covenant and because Rachel and Nadia are in the covenant we should treat them like anyone else in the covenant and that means treat them as if they are Christians, we have faith Christ will save them.  On the side I do feel children should be allowed to take communion before the prerequisite of getting grilled by a pastor and making the public promise to take a bullet for Jesus.  So to sum it up if Federal Vision believes nothing much more than what I stated in my belief than why is there something called "Federal Vision",?  After all reformers have taught this for hundreds of years.   Can you tell me what other jump or step does Federal Vision have beyond what I already stated as my belief?  Also, can you put another picture of yourself on your blog, preferably one that shows some more skin?  Thanks      

"You shouldn't so much look at baptism for assurance but rather are you 'acting' like a Christian for assurance."

This is essentially what FV thought does. By placing the emphasis on an objective relationship established by baptism, we then have a standard against which we can measure ourselves. However, we also have something hard and fast to hold on to. Baptism is a real, objective thing that happened in your life that you can look to. Instead of relying on introspection, we can look outside of ourselves, look to our actions and judge them. The objective view augments the subjective, and doesn't replace it.

"So to sum it up if Federal Vision believes nothing much more than what I stated in my belief than why is there something called "Federal Vision"?"

This is my question too. Of course, the FV thinkers never set out to develop something called "Federal Vision." I think some folks feel that it's a political threat within the Reformed church, and there are various other motivations.

"Can you tell me what other jump or step does Federal Vision have beyond what I already stated as my belief?"

The diversity of ideas that have been pulled in under the blanket term Federal Vision do incorporate some new takes on old ideas. There's been a lot of discussion about the nature of Christ's atoning work, passive versus active obedience and a lot of other stuff which I'm not as familiar with, but these are most often attempts to describe things in biblical language and not use scholastic terms which muddy the water or go beyond what we find in Scripture. In other words, it appears that tradition has grown up in some Presbyterian and reformed circles and that we need to go ad fontes like the Reformers and examine some of our understandings according to Sola Scriptura. A lot of this has to do with whether or not you believe that the Reformers figured out everything hundreds of years ago, and that the Westminster Confession is the complete formulation of the Christian faith which will never be improved upon, or whether you believe the church continues to reform over time, and that our understanding of theology will be refined and expanded over time.

"Can you tell me what other jump or step does Federal Vision have beyond what I already stated as my belief?"

From the FV statement:
"We affirm not only that Christ is our full obedience, but also that through our union with Him we partake of the benefits of His death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and enthronement at the right hand of God the Father.

All who are baptized into the triune Name are united with Christ in His covenantal life, and so those who fall from that position of grace are indeed falling from grace."


The FV has redefined several ideas/terms, one example being "Union with Christ". They would say that our justification comes because we are united with Christ while historically the reformed would say that we are justified first and then united with Christ. The FV have said that all those who are baptized are united to Christ, including being justified. However, there are those who "fall away" and these would then lose their salvation.

As you can see, this is but one way the FV is trying to redefine what is reformed, as even the most basic reformed view (5 points of Calvinism) states the perseverance of the Saints and irresistible grace.

In other words branches can not be cut off?

John 15:5 "I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned."

These branches seem to have some sort of union with Christ, eh? Perhaps members of the covenant? Otherwise, what are they falling away from? You have to be joined to something in order to leave it, right? I can't quit being an infantryman in the US army if I never joined up. Weird. Jesus seems to have a different idea of perseverance of the saints and irresistible grace than you're proposing.

Members of the covenant community - yes. Just as in Israel, not all had faith but were members of the community, so it is with the church today. Do they share all the "benefits of Christ"? no they do not. Are they "saved" for a time? No they are not. Do they lose their salvation? no because they were never saved.