On Mark Horne’s blog, Joel Garver said (If my name was where Joel’s is, I would have already said, “Uh oh”):

“It seems to me the difficulty comes when our systematic theology (scholastic or not) comes to trump exegesis and systematic categories replace those of Scripture, generating theological problems where the Scriptures know of none. The solution, of course, is not to get rid of systematic theology, but to revise it in accordance with Scripture.”

So what are we trying to do? We’re trying to correct this with more “scriptural” language. Here’s something that I am seeing people have a problem with. Are we just changing our systematic terms to more biblical systematic terms? I don’t know if this makes sense, but maybe an example will help clarify what I mean. Yesterday I heard two men talking about baptism as the entrance to the covenant. All fine and dandy right? Well one of them seemed to have difficulty with this being more “exegetical” because it seemed clear that baptism unites you to Christ, but it wasn’t as clear that baptism was covenant entrance. Hum…this isn’t coming out correctly. His objection was that if baptism was covenant entrance, and excommunication was being blotted out of the book of life, then you should rebaptized when you come back to the fold. The second person correctly responded that excommunication was not invalidated by excommunication, but your baptism condemns you. Finally, they settled on baptism being the initial entry to the covenant. It seems like if we are not careful, the term “covenant” will be the newest catch phrase in systematic theology. I fear it is already the hippest thing to say in Reformed circles. “Yes sir, I’m covenantal. Can I marry your daughter?”

The same thing goes for what Tim is calling baptismal transition or Rich Lusk is calling baptismal efficacy. People take one look at Titus 3:5, and the confusion between regeneration, efficacy, and transition begins. “Why leave the biblical term of regeneration?” we’re asked. I understand the tendency in Reformed circles to flee all things papist, but we have a problem on our hands. If we use the term regeneration, we find a burning mitre on our doorstep. If we use transition or efficacy, we are accused of ambiguity and might get the hearing. Then the question is asked, “Well aren’t you slipping right back into the systematic theology you are so frustrated with?” Don’t get me wrong; there’s nothing wrong with systematic theology. But I think we’re going to have to take a step back and think about what is happening and what we’re being accused of on all sides of the issues.