GA Goings On

Joel Garver posted a resolution that was denied at General Assembly a few weeks ago. Overall it was a well-written resolution but a couple of things were especially interesting to me. Here are two of the propositions that were up for resolving.

(1) Justification is through faith in Christ alone. We affirm that justifying faith will necessarily produce good works. We deny that good works are a constituent element of justifying faith.

and

(5) Baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace. We affirm that the grace of baptism confirms our salvation and strengthens our faith. We deny that the ritual act of baptism accomplishes salvation or creates faith.

First, it strikes me as odd that this resolution was even necessary. Everything in it is found in the Westminster Confession, why reinvent the wheel? The answer to that question leads me to my second interest. The reason this wheel was reinvented was because there are some who would have others believe that there are ministers in the PCA who deny these things.

Who denies these really? Presumably, what was underlying this resolution was a felt need for the PCA to distance itself from those associated with Auburn Avenue and New Perspective. But of these men, who denies that justification is by faith alone? Who affirms that good works are a 'consituent of justifying faith'? Who's the Lutheran among us who maitains that the 'ritual act...creates faith'? Sheesh.

The problem with resolutions like these is that they are too pithy to really mean much. As to (5), the first sentences is fine, as is the second. But what does the denial mean? In what does the 'ritual act of baptism' consist? What is meant by 'accomplishes salvation'? What exactly is the connection that is being made between ritual and accomplishment? Is it something like what the Larger Catechism claims

Q161: How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
A161: The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered, but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they are instituted.

What is important to note here is that the writer of the resolution should be careful to define 'accomplish salvation' in such a way as to not deny the Catechism's teaching that the sacraments are indeed 'effectual means of salvation'. Is he making a distinction between 'accomplish' and 'effectual'? If so, what is the distinction? If not, why the hubbub? As it stands it is less than clear.

Now, this resolution seems to assume that there are those who teach that water saves. This, of course, is absurd. The question isn't, Does the ritual act save? The question is, Is Christ actually offered to us in the sacraments? Does the Holy Spirit make use of physical means to confer grace? To answer negatively is to be Baptist. To answer affirmatively is to be Confessional. To wit,

VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.
(WCF XXVII.6, emphasis added)

and

VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
(WCF XXIX.7, emphasis added)