My comments here were begun prior to Lane's excellent post above, and do not refer to them, other than at the end. I am in no way "responding" to what he wrote, other than to agree with him right out the gate.
Calvin's comments on Gen.4:26
26.Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord. In the verb ‘to call upon,’ there is a synecdochee, for it embraces generally the whole worship of God. But religion is here properly designated by that which forms its principal part. For God prefers this service of piety and faith to all sacrifices, (Ps.50:14.) Yea, this is the spiritual worship of God which faith produces. This is particularly worthy of notice, because Satan contrives nothing with greater care than to adulterate, with every possible corruption, the pure invocation of God, or to draw us away from the only God to the invocation of creatures. Even from the beginning of the world he has not ceased to move this stone, that miserable men might weary themselves in vain in a preposterous worship of God. But let us know, that the entire pomp of adoration is nothing worth, unless this chief point of worshipping God aright be maintained.
Although the passage may be more simply explained to mean, that then the name of God was again celebrated; yet I approve the former sense, because it is more full, contains a useful doctrine, and also agrees with the accustomed phraseology of Scripture. It is a foolish figment, that God then began to be called by other names; since Moses does not here censure depraved superstitions, but commends the piety of one family which worshipped God in purity and holiness, when religions among other people, was polluted or extinct. And there is no doubt, that Adam and Eve, with a few other of their children were themselves true worshippers of God; but closes means, that so great was then the deluge of impiety in the world that religion was rapidly hastening to destruction; because it remained only with a few men, and did not flourish in any one race. We may readily conclude that Seth was an upright and faithful servant of God. And after he begat a son, like himself, and had a rightly constituted family, the face of the Church began distinctly to appear, and that worship of God was set up which might continue to posterity.
Thus, following Calvin, it would be correct to understand that prayer (which is a kind of confession of faith), being the principal part of worship, is also its basic part; and participation in that worship by united prayer/confession is an incorporative act.
But more must be said. There is an undeniable incorporation (by this rule) by
anyone who worships, therefore. And unfortunately, this runs into several problems. For worship to be truly corporate, it must be in unity. And insofar as unity can be exhibited, it must be by way of agreeable forms or order. No one can see the heart of another (he can barely trust his own heart). True worship is incorporate by men's spirits in union with Holy Spirit. The church on earth is therefore only more or less a true incorporation, and not a perfect one.
From the earliest days (Seth's) it becomes a progressively greater requirement to distinguish the worshipers of God from the non-worshipers. But, in addition, it is necessary to distinguish between those who worship God in Spirit and truth from those who worship in error. If the verbal confession of faith is the ultimate incorporative act, then the power of incorporation is lodged in the individual; ratification only is lodged in the overall (i.e. multiple individual) acceptation of the confession by the other confessors. In this case, there is no "body" to which has been granted the greater authority to incorporate (or refuse it) on earth. There is only the "hive-mind," which cannot distinguish between competing claims over directional power.
Competition leads to factionalism and fracturing. Without a unitary confession for the body, and unifying principles or acts that impose unity from the body, the cracks widen and the process of disintegration continues repeatedly and indefinitely. Where cohesiveness is maintained, it comes at the price of "lowest-common-denominator" unity; the body is invariably distorted and palsied, cancered and disordered, when a body can even be identified. Swarms are an illusion of real unity.
Thankfully, there is an alternative. In answer to earthly problems, we've been given solutions. The church is given leaders by God; the church recognizes certain truths as non-negotiable, common-denominator elements for unity, and then it insists on obtaining
that confession from those who would incorporate. Let it be emphasized that the body makes a ministerial and declarative statement, rather than a constituting statement. The church has not usurped either the divine role, or the individual's role in incorporation, but performs a mediating role. By representing an already formed "body" to which the individual seeks incorporation, the church shows the priority of divine constitution and monergistic salvation. It presents a confession (the gospel, defined and explained) to the individual, and invites participation. The individual, by his (outwardly expressed) consent is incorporated to the church,
just as secretly expressed faith instrumentally unites the believer to Christ in his justification.
In connection, therefore, we understand the role of baptism--the church's act of baptizing, correlative to the Spirit's baptism. Baptism is an acknowledgement of separation from the world, of solemn admission into the church. It is an actively-receptive embrace, a gift-giving act. It repeats the gospel-offer that was already declared, and proclaims salvation for those who are true disciples. It is a citizenship-act, made by the government. In the heavenlies, such things are perfectly stated; here on earth, the matter is testified though imperfectly. The
gift of Holy Spirit is predicated on union with Christ. Yes, the same Spirit brings about this union; he is already at work prior to regeneration, because he is in the world to convict of sin, righteousness, and judgment (Jn.16:8-10). But the baptism of the Spirit follows from faith, an effect almost palpable in the book of Acts. He is our
experience of the union with Christ, and our experiences always follow what is initiated prior to our experience. Experience does nothing to initiate itself.
So, it is the case that baptism by the church is an experience of reception, and union with the body on earth. It testifies to the realities of the past, present, and future. Not to abandon the citizenship-metaphor, but we may also liken baptism to the solemnization of marriage. The commitment of the two parties unto marriage (the confession, plighting the troth) is really that which brings them together, grounds the incorporation. But that itself is not the "solemn admission" to the union--such is the purpose for the ceremony, the public covenant. This is to be followed by the future life together, which includes the bed, etc. (This sort of understanding of marriage exposes the gross fallacies and confusions of those who put the cart before the horse--but that is a whole other topic.)
Confession of faith--the ostensible heart-union--is the ground of incorporation; while baptism does, in fact, incorporate through the bestowal of the gift. And of course, I am in full agreement with Lane's observation concerning the infants, that baptism does not resume them in covenant (administratively) that they were not already in by virtue of their birth.
This, I think, brings together things I said earlier, and Lane's further qualifications.
