Banner
The New Birth in a Type PDF Print E-mail
Theology - Life in the Regeneration
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Sunday, 01 July 2012 07:08

The absolute necessity of the new birth can be seen in a type. The law of God distinguished between clean and unclean animals -- the unclean could not be offered in sacrifice. From this, some might want to infer that any clean animal could be so offered, but this was not the case at all. An animal could belong to the category of the clean, and yet still not be fit for sacrifice. The weak and infirm animals could not be offered, the animals with a blemish could not be, and so on.

When we come to worship God, we come to offer ourselves. If someone is baptized, this means he is a sheep, not a dog. But more is required than "not being a dog." When a priest was examining an animal presented for sacrifice, his work was not done when he ascertained that it was not a dog.

And of course, the final gospel answer is that we are all of us maimed, and the only perfect sacrifice was that offered by the only clean victim. If we are in Him, then His perfections are ours. If not, then our imperfections remain our own -- even if we have been removed by baptism from the category of the unclean.

A blemished sheep in sacrifice can no more be accepted by God than a pig.



Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
Matthew N. Petersen  Sunday, July 01, 2012 1:19 pm
I'd more or less dropped out of this because I believe I've answered your claims, but this is perhaps a very stunningly odd post. Are you claiming that when the unregenerate come to offer the sacrifice of the Eucharist (themselves) their sacrifice is not accepted? Or are you saying that none of us are perfect, and it is only inasmuch as we are covered in Christ that our sacrifice is accepted?

If the first, this seems to me to be almost exactly the Roman Catholic meritology that sparked the Reformation.

Rather, for all the baptized--in Christ by virtue of their Baptism, as St. Paul says--the sacrifice is accepted. And God freely offers Himself back to us, actually and honestly telling us as a community and each of us individually that His body is broken for us. If we receive faithlessly, the faithlessness condemns us, so we are like someone who briefly passes through the light, but with his face ever toward darkness. (To use Augustine's expression.) But you may as well take the late medieval view as this damned merit nonsense you're offering us here.
Douglas Wilson  Sunday, July 01, 2012 5:46 pm
Matt, I am saying that without faith it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6). And since evangelical faith is a gift, what I am saying is clean opposite any medieval merit-mongering.
Michael Bull  - More Bapcision  Sunday, July 01, 2012 7:23 pm
Pastor Wilson

Once more, you've got your baptism where circumcision ought to be.

James Jordan observes that the sacrificial process is a bloody recapitulation of the Creation Week. He'll kill me for this, but that structure doesn't help any when it comes to support for paedobaptism.

http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-107-re-creation-in-the-ascension-offering/

All the baptism stories in Acts follow this order exactly. The gospel is preached (as a new "apocalypse/revealing") and only after the sacrifices are cut up are the lower parts "baptized." The head and the clean parts weren't washed before being burnt. Baptism is a "body" sacrament. It has to do with mediators between heaven and earth.

The clean animals were cut up before their unclean parts were washed. If they correspond to Adam and Eve, as Jordan observes, there's not a baby in sight. Baptism is about rulers, qualified and invested.
Michael Bull  - Burnt Offering  Sunday, July 01, 2012 10:46 pm
Or perhaps I will just get roasted slowly over a low flame.
Matthew N. Petersen  Monday, July 02, 2012 12:20 am
Every Catholic, always, has said that all good works are a gift. Try again.
Douglas Wilson  Monday, July 02, 2012 5:25 am
Every Catholic, huh? Well, in that spirit, every Protestant has always said that faith is the instrument of justification.
Matthew N. Petersen  Monday, July 02, 2012 10:34 am
The difference with the Catholics is not over whether the thing we must do to be favorably addressed by God is a gift. Catholic theology unambiguously states that all our works are gifts. You can't point out your difference from them by pointing to common ground.

If the only difference between your belief and the Catholic belief is that you call the thing you must do to be favorably addressed by God "faith", and they call it "works", then you must argue that somehow "faith" is a different sort of thing than "works", and that the problems with arguing that "works" are necessary no longer apply to arguing that "faith" is necessary.

Now, to your most recent, dodging response: The Protestant says that our sacrifice is accepted not on our own merits, but because it is the sacrifice of the Church. If, however, we do not have faith, we pass through the light of accepted sacrifice into the greater darkness of mockery of the sacrifice we have made. The Protestant says that we are favorably addressed by God in Baptism and the Lord's Supper (as does Christ). Faith is necessary to receive the address, but faith is not necessary to be addressed. We are actually addressed and actually receive forgiveness, only to instantaneously add the greater sin of faithlessness.
Matthew N. Petersen  Monday, July 02, 2012 8:58 pm
Which does not prove you are Catholic. It may be that the difference between Protestants and Catholics is that Protestants say God must give us the gift of faith before He will speak graciously to us, and Catholics say He must give us the gift of justice. And then it may be that the difference between faith and justice is relevant. I disagree with that position, but it could be argued. But then, it would need to be argued.