The Aaron Papers www.the-aaron-papers.net
BAPTISMAL
EFFICACY AND
THE REFORMED TRADITION:
PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE
By
Rich Lusk
Copyright
© 2002
(aaron— First, I am presenting this critique of this Rich Lusk article with the hope of achieving a more complete proof for the efficacious practice of Infant Baptism /or Pedo-baptism.
Second, this difficult critique is intended to generate additional dialogue on this important issue of Infant Baptism within the context of an institutional understanding of Abraham’s Covenants with God. Gen.17:1-27, Gal.4:21-31)
OUR REFORMED HERITAGE
When a Reformed Christian hears "baptismal regeneration," what comes to mind? "Heresy," most likely.
(aaron— Could I suggest that in this instance, the Reformed Christian response is not completely wrong with their heresy conclusion? As we try to establish the efficacy of infant baptism, I do not believe that "baptismal regeneration" is actually necessary for achieving some immediate efficacy within that ordinance. I might then suggest that this problem basically comes from the confusion that surrounds the common Christian understanding of regeneration. The efficacy of Christian baptism can actually be derived from the God established Old Testament visible initiatory rite of circumcision that we find first established in the Abrahamic Covenant. [Genesis 17:1—27] There, the efficacy was based on the simple principle of obedience. That is, the obedient participation of the individual in the God established visible initiatory rites, immediately established that individual as a member of God's family and one of His institutional corporate peoples.)
Unfortunately, many in the Reformed community today have lost touch with some important aspects of their own heritage. If Reformed theology is going to continue reforming according to Scripture, we must recover the forgotten richness of the classic Reformed understanding of baptism. Today, baptism is often treated as a sign of personal commitment to the Lord, or a mere picture of spiritual blessings that are received apart from tangible means of grace. Infant baptism, on this view, accomplishes nothing of real significance and is merely a "wet dedication" service. But this is not the way Reformed Christians have always understood baptism.
(aaron— The Reformed resistance to the efficacy of Pedo—baptism has historically come from the influential Baptist camp. The Baptist followers have always rejected the practice of infant baptism on the basis that infants cannot understand the significance or repent of their sins. Yet they themselves promote Credo—baptism that is generally supposed to produce a spontaneous regeneration in the individual. Which is, in all actuality, adult "baptismal regeneration".)
The earliest Reformers held a robust view of baptismal efficacy. A whirlwind tour of sixteenth and seventeenth century writings reveals how far we have moved away from the faith of our fathers [1].
1. All emphasis in the following quotations is mine.1.
In Calvin's Strasbourg catechism, he asks the student "How do you know yourself to be a son of God in fact as well as in name?" The answer is "Because I am baptized in the name of God the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
(aaron—The presumption here in Calvin's Strasbourg catechism that by being baptized "in the name of God the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost", that everyone automatically becomes "a son of God" may not be precisely accurate. Taking our intimation from God's first peoples Israel, we should understand from the Apostle Paul that they are not all Israel who are of Israel. I would suggest that the second "Israel" Paul mentions here is in fact representative of the visible Israel—God's institutional corporate peoples. Then the first "Israel" that Paul mentioned is in fact representative of invisible Israel—the hidden Israel of God. These would be representative of "the sons of God" who would make—up the Covenant of Promise. This same distinguishing principle is again explained by Paul when he wrote—He is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh. Here, Paul is defining just the visible dispositions of God, and then explains that just because you are a part of God's visible peoples does not mean that you automatically become a part of God's invisible peoples. Paul then goes on to confirm God's invisible dispositions—But he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit. These are the Spiritual attributes that God Himself instills within all those whom He chooses out from among His institutional corporate peoples.)
In his Geneva catechism, he asks, "Is baptism nothing more than a mere symbol [i.e., picture] of cleansing?" The answer: "I think it to be such a symbol that the reality is attached to it. For God does not disappoint us when he promises us his gifts. Hence, both pardon of sins and newness of life are certainly offered and received by us in baptism."
(This question and answer from Calvin's Geneva catechism does express a similar efficacy that one might find attached to the Old Testament practice of infant circumcision. That is to say, only their obedient participation in God's established visible initiatory rites [circumcision and baptism] was necessary for them to become a member of God's institutional corporate peoples. Besides their subsequent participation in the Passover celebration /the Lord’s table, there are no other evident requirements to be met in this membership process.)
Early on in his discussion of baptism in the Institutes, Calvin claims, "We must realize that at whatever time we are baptized, we are once for all washed and purged for our whole life. Therefore, as often as we fall away, we ought to recall the memory of our baptism and fortify our mind with it, that we may always be sure and confident of the forgiveness of sins."
(aaron— If, as the Council of Trent states—"The fifth canon asserts that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, and everything is removed which has the true and proper nature of sin... It is admitted that concupiscence remains in the baptized, against which believers are to contend..." is correct, then Calvin's statement would seem to be echoing these same principles of efficacy.)
Essentially, Calvin could say, "You know you are renewed and forgiven because you have been baptized."
(aaron— Yes, there must be a sense of renewal involved in the physical act of water baptism: It is "through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ conferred in baptism". Then remembering that the old man and the new man coexist! There is an additional process involved here that we understand as the sanctification process—the battle between the flesh and the spirit that must be earnestly fought with all vigor.
Understand that renewal and regeneration are one and the same.
As we observe our Old Testament example relationship through God’s first peoples Israel, we discover that their visible initiation [physical circumcision] into God's visible institution did not automatically give them the invisible circumcision of the heart. As Israel's uncircumcised [heart] state is born out in Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6, and Jeremiah 4:4. Then the two circumcisions, the visible circumcision and the invisible circumcision, are especially evident in Jeremiah 9:26, and Ezekiel 44:7—9. So for us to summarily associate the invisible spiritual things that belong totally to God, with the visible initiatory rites that God has given us for our consolation is not good theology.
Even though Calvin could have said— "You know you are renewed and forgiven because you have been baptized", that does not necessarily make it theologically correct. To be theological correct here, John Calvin would have needed some understanding into the complex definitions of both circumcision and baptism.)
Elsewhere, Calvin wrote, "It is a thing out of all controversy true, that we put on Christ in baptism, and were baptized on this very ground, that we should be one with him" [2].
(aaron— The things that Calvin sights here are absolutely true with respect to the Christian Church—when considering both its visible component and its invisible component. It is "true, that we put on Christ in baptism, and were baptized on this very ground, that we should be one with him". But now should we so quickly depart from our visible example Israel, to infer by this inference that the whole of the Christian Church is necessarily regenerated/ or circumcised in heart? The answer to this question is absolutely no!)
2. Critics will no doubt point to passages in Calvin that seem to contradict the clear statements I have quoted above. Most scholars recognize a deep tension in Calvin's baptismal theology.
(aaron— The very same tension that is evident within the Christian Church even today. I would suggest that this tension is the result of some bad theology. That is, by trying to give common definition to Scriptures that are written with a specific theological meaning, creates much confusion and inconsistency.)
For an excellent discussion, see Edmund Schlink's The Doctrine of Baptism, especially 99ff. However, Schlink wrongly labels Calvin's view of baptismal efficacy as "parallel" rather than "instrumental" (e.g., God works alongside of rather than through the ordained means). I also have to disagree with Schlink's (Lutheran) assessment that the cognitive/assuring pole (baptism as sign or pledge) and the efficacious/salvific pole (baptism as means or instrument) of Calvin's thought should be played off against each other. Rather I think they should be combined, so that baptism is considered as both a means of redemption and a sign of assurance.
(aaron— I would agree with this authors last assessment—"I think they should be combined, so that baptism is considered as both a means of redemption and a sign of assurance." But then at the very same time, we must resist the need for promoting presumptive regeneration.)
Schlink exaggerates the extent to which Calvin loosened the connection between baptism and God's saving action. Even Schlink is forced to admit, "[I]n spite of Calvin's one sided emphasis on the cognitive reference, not only the sign but also the signified grace, regeneration, dying, and rising with Christ are present...In any case, the church of the Lutheran Confessions did not regard Calvin's teaching on baptism [as] divisive as it did...his teaching on the Eucharist...The most profound difference [in baptismal theology] runs its course not between the Eastern Church and Augustine, nor between Thomas and Luther, not even between Luther and Calvin, but between all these on one side and Zwingli and the Baptists on the other. The most profound difference is...the understanding of baptism either as God's deed or as the deed of human obedience" (168—9). Calvin, with virtually the whole church catholic up to the Reformation, believed God was powerfully and savingly at work in the sacrament of baptism.2.
(aaron— Please read this again— "Calvin, with virtually the whole church catholic up to the Reformation, believed God was powerfully and savingly at work in the sacrament of baptism." Then to understand baptism even better, the Christian community needs to spend considerable time evaluating the efficacy that was present within the visible circumcision of Genesis 17:1—27. I would suggest that the efficacy of visible baptism for the New Testament dispensation is precisely the same as the efficacy of visible circumcision for the Old Testament dispensation.)
(aaron— The problem in understanding the efficacy of baptism and the subsequent confusion that presently exists between the various Pedo and Credo Christian groups, is in their basic failure to recognize the complex character of baptism itself. That is, in understanding that baptism has both an active visible characteristic that is effective in the fulfillment of the visible Abrahamic Covenant, and an active invisible characteristic that is effective in the fulfillment of the invisible Covenant of Promise. This pattern is just like the separate allocation assigned to the visible and invisible circumcisions in the Old Testament dispensation. All who receive the God established New Testament initiatory rite of visible water baptism do not automatically receive God's invisible Spirit baptism at the same time.
I would offer some excerpts from my thesis on Covenant Theology. Now for us to move around this present confusion, we must try to determine exactly where the denominations have gone beyond the bounds of sound interpretation.
Unfortunately,
1. The Roman Catholic Church has crossed this line in their doctrine of baptismal regeneration.
REASON: Baptismal regeneration supposes that through their obedience in performing God’s visible initiatory rite of water baptism, each and every individual would simultaneously receive that regeneration.
First, regeneration must be defined as the special operation that only God uses for selectively choosing those who belong to His invisible priestly line; the invisible Messianic Covenant line; His invisible Covenant of Promise.
The specific condition of "regeneration"; the born again experience; born of the Spirit; born from above; or having received a circumcised heart, originates and proceeds only from God and cannot indiscriminately flow from the willful act of man.
And then under the Covenant of Grace we find that water baptism would validate God’s institutional grace, as it is associated with His universal call for His corporate peoples.
But the basic confusion that we have here concerns the distinctively different characteristics of God’s grace and of God’s regeneration. Though "grace" and "regeneration" both come forth from God, they are not of the exact same office.
So then by saying that grace effects the calling of God, and regeneration effects the election of God would essentially summarize this proposition.
Second, the Roman Catholic’s error here in baptismal regeneration, is similar to, if not exactly the same as, the error that exists within the Protestant Catholic’s understanding of adult baptism. These Protestant Catholics also suppose that regeneration always accompanies their willful act of adult water baptism. Again, the confusion here continues to be the result of the amalgamation of 1—justification, 2—sanctification, and regeneration. These dispositions of God are not intended to be the same, and the distinctiveness of each must always be considered. Though justification, sanctification, and regeneration are all God’s graces and are certainly interconnected, yet they must always be seen as functionally independent.
(Hodge’s Systematic Theology vol.ii, p.176
Doctrine of the Church of Rome.
4. The Synod condemns all who teach that newborn children should not be baptized; or, that although baptized for the remission of sins, they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which needs to be expiated in the laver of regeneration in order to attain eternal life, so that baptism, in their case, would not be true but false...
From this it appears that according to the Council of Trent there is sin in newborn infants, which needs to be remitted and washed away by regeneration.
(aaron— Their sins are absolutely washed away by the visible water baptism of repentance unto the remission of their sins. Lu.1:76—79; Mk.1:4)
Then once again—
5. The fifth canon asserts that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, and everything is removed which has the true and proper nature of sin... It is admitted that concupiscence remains in the baptized, against which believers are to contend...
(aaron— We must be mindful that the first part of this fifth canon is talking about just the soul, and the second part is talking about only the flesh. But now can we say with any certainty that "through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ conferred in baptism" that our sins are remitted? The answer to that question would be positively yes! Ref.Gal.3:27; Col.2:12)
In the sixth session when treating justification (i. e., regeneration and sanctification), the Council decides several points, which go to determine the view its members took of the nature of original sin. In the canons adopted in that session, it is among other things, declared:
(1) That men cannot, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, by their own works, i.e., works performed in their own strength, be justified before God.
(aaron— This article would be identical to St. Augustine.
This article also wholly precludes any sort of works doctrine in the Church of Rome.
But then for them to lump justification, sanctification, and regeneration all together is not Scripturally viable, as well as one of the primary causes for much of the confusion within the whole of today’s Church. It is extremely important that we understand this stated fact: that each of these important terms has its own specific function and definition within God’s reconciliation.)
(2) That grace is not given simply to render good works more easy.
(aaron— But it certainly does help.)
[ac Define 1—JUSTIFICATION; 2—SANCTIFICATION; and also REGENERATION:]
(3) That men cannot believe, hope, love, or repent so as to secure regenerating grace without the preventing grace of God.
(aaron— Here we are correctly given a dual definition for grace: First—preventing grace. Second—regenerating grace.
One might suggest that preventing grace [or justifying grace] is the initial work of God in the heart of the believer, and would be validated in the fount of water baptism.
[Sanctifying grace helps the believer to grow in their faith.]
And then regenerating grace [or to be born of the Spirit] must be understood as a second work of God’s Spirit, and would be received as the validation of God’s elective process. This understanding of a "second work of God’s Spirit" is difficult for the Reformed Church as well as other denominations to receive. This is partly due to the Pentecostal’s use and interpretation of this vernacular and its association with their speaking in tongues. But the intent of the stated principle above is directed more to the conformation process of God’s elective activities. An example of this fact is found in John chapter three’s description of Nicodemus’ conversation with Jesus. Nicodemus was very much a part of the corporate peoples of God and a believer in Jehovah, yet he was still not regenerated; not born again; not born of the Spirit; not born from above. Then in Jn.3:5, Jesus plainly tells Nicodemus that he must be born of (1) water and (2) the Spirit to come unto the kingdom. But chiefly here in this conversation, Jesus is introducing and explaining God’s invisible dispositions. And then Jesus also goes on to explains the evident difficulty that visible Israel has with these invisible heavenly things.)
2. The Protestant Catholic Church has also crossed this line in the very restricted way in which they improperly defined faith.
REASON: They have mistakenly amalgamated the saving faith of 1—justifying grace with the abiding faith of 2—sanctifying grace. This confusion has essentially caused them to slip into a form of works doctrine, where some level of performance is required before the individual can be counted as a believer or be certain of their salvation. Yes, faith is an absolute necessity in the salvation process. But exactly whose faith are we defining here? Are we defining the monergistic 1—justifying faith that is wholly a gift from God? Or are we defining the synergistic 2—sanctifying faith, through which God aids all believers as they grow in His grace? The confusing difficulties here are self—evident.
3. The Protestant Catholic Church has also crossed this line again in their failure to properly identify the peoples of God.
REASON: They, because they have now come to understand the existence of God’s invisible dispositions, have attempted to force the whole of God’s peoples into this very select group. This is that very select group that represents only the invisible elect priests of God who collectively make up the body of Christ. The very same body, which is also the Kingdom of God.) Amen
————————————————————————————————————————)
Martin Bucer, Calvin's mentor, wrote the following in his 1537 liturgy for infant baptism: "Almighty God, heavenly Father, we give you eternal praise and thanks, that you have granted and bestowed upon this child your fellowship, that you have born him again to yourself through holy baptism, that he has been incorporated into your beloved son, our only savior, and is now your child and heir..." This prayer was to be offered immediately following the child's baptism and clearly expresses the conviction that God has acted powerfully and savingly in the watery rite.
(aaron— Once again, can we assume that the entire Christian Church is regenerated? Since God's first peoples Israel is the only real example relationship that God has given us, and considering the Jesus—Nicodemus conversation, I would have to conclude that that is not the case at all. I would suggest that this conclusion is also born out in First Peter 1:"10Concerning which salvation the prophets sought and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: 11searching what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow them.
[ac These passages are talking about God’s first peoples Israel, and about their arm’s length position with respect to this new thing that God was about to do here in this dispensation of grace.]
12To whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto you, did they minister these things, which now have been announced unto you through them that preached the gospel unto you by the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven; which things angel desire to look into.")
In a similar vein, the French Reformed liturgy included the pastor speaking these words to the newly baptized infant: "Little child, for you Jesus Christ has come, he has fought, he has suffered. For you he entered into the shadows of Gethsemane and the terror of Calvary; for you he uttered the cry 'it is finished.' For you he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, and there for you he intercedes. For you, even though you do not yet know it, little child, but in this way the Word of the Gospel is made true, 'We love him because he first loved us.'"
(aaron— This is certainly a wonderful liturgy! Every word expresses the precious gospel of God. This is true because of what Nicodemus has proved for us— you do not have to be "regenerated" to know God and to be a participant within God's family—God's institutional corporate peoples.)
Moving to the British Isles, Nicholas Ridley, an English reformer martyred by Roman Catholics for his Protestant faith, concluded, "Water in baptism is sacramentally changed into the fountain of regeneration."
(aaron— This conclusion of "baptismal regeneration" is the reason for much of the continued confusion and debate within the whole of the Christian Church.)
Consider also Thomas Cranmer's prayers in the Book of Common Prayer to accompany the baptism of an infant: "Grant that this child now to be baptized, may receive the fullness of thy grace and ever remain in the number of thy faithful and elect children through Jesus Christ our Lord [3]
3. Ray Sutton (in Signed, Sealed, and Delivered) explains Cranmer's language, especially its Augustinian roots: "[This] is an important statement about the way election was understood. It implies a covenantal or sacramental view of election. Baptism is interpreted to mean an acknowledgement of a person as among the elect. In a visible sense, baptism and election are one; in an eternal sense they may not be the same.
(aaron— This statement concerning "baptism and election are one" could be true only if we are considering "election" in the broader sense as it is being used in Romans 11:28. But then I fail to see the reasoning for the uncertainty found in the balance of this statement— "in an eternal sense they may not be the same"? The confusion evident here is due to the general failure to understand that circumcision, baptism, and election all have a complex definition. Visible baptism like visible circumcision is either efficacious or it is not efficacious. I believe that the visible initiatory rites of circumcision and baptism are efficacious for the calling together of God’s institutional corporate peoples.)
However, the prayer is for the person to remain among the elect. This is a prayer in the words of Augustine for 'predestination unto perseverance,' (as distinguished from 'predestination unto grace'). It also reflects that as long as one faithfully lives under the sign and seal of the covenant, baptism, he should be treated and counted as one of God's elect...
(aaron— The combining of the terms “sign and seal” into a single modifier concerning Abraham’s Covenants, confusion naturally creeps in. As it was established early on that “Baptism” has a complex definition, water baptism is the visible “sign” for the invisible “seal”—the baptism of the Holy Spirit.)
Augustine distinguished between predestination to grace and predestination to perseverance. Based on the language of the NT, Augustine spoke of all who are baptized as having predestination unto grace but not necessarily predestination unto perseverance. For Augustine, everyone receives grace at baptism. It is grace in an incipient, organic sense, but not in a final completed sense. Augustine based his view of grace on the very language of the NT.
(aaron— One must be very careful when one attempts to establish doctrinal principles using only a verse here and a verse there. Because by using this approach, we are then able to sit back and piously judge our neighbors as being either worthy or unworthy in our own eyes. This whole approach is somewhat in conflict with our current understanding of God's free and unmerited grace. The Apostle Paul, in writing most of his epistles, is exhorting active Christians to resist their natural inclinations. But before you chisel these perceived doctrinal principles in stone, you must consider them long and hard in the shining light of the gospel of God's grace.)
Grace could be received in vain (2 Cor. 6:1), and one could fall from grace (Gal. 5:4).
(aaron— What is so difficult about comparing God’s free and unmerited grace and the Law? This passage in Galatians 5:4 is simply saying that if you are seeking your justification through the works of the Law, you have fallen from God’s grace that is freely given because of Christ’s atoning work upon the cross. These passages are describing the gracious liberty of the Christian Church compared to the yoke of bondage that was Israel’s station.)
Grace is not static, it is dynamic...The church is only given to know election in terms of the sacraments, faith, and obedience...The Bible speaks about the possibility of falling from grace (Gal. 5:4), which means grace is to be understood in the context of an organic, living relationship with Christ. Grace is a relation, not a substance. It is the gift of Christ himself. It is not [static or impersonal]. Because grace is the formation of a relation, it is defectable.
(aaron— I emphatically disagree with this authors assessment! For this reason, if we are to receive Ephesians 2:8—9 at face value, this assessment on grace is impossible. Especially in the light of the Reformed understanding of our total depravity. That is, if our relationship with God was "defectable", we would all be defectors for sure.)
Just as a relation can be nurtured or negated by lack of attention, so a relation with God comes under the same possibilities. A relation with God can be cultivated and expanded, or it can be rejected and killed. [This is why] Scripture calls for persevering faith, the kind that builds upon a previously existing relation begun at baptism...The covenantal and organic position [described here] is different from the Arminian understanding of falling from grace...[In Arminianism], the sacraments were not understood as the sovereign, objective work of God, but as a witness to personal faith [i.e., to man's action rather than God's]."3.
(aaron— To go through this whole relation exercise, that has concluded that the recipient of these gifts from God holds the key to their future success or failure: "A relation with God can be cultivated and expanded, or it can be rejected and killed", seems to be completely rejecting God's sovereignty and His free and unmerited gift of grace as was previously mentioned in our Ephesians 2:8—9 example. One might find that the basic problem here involves the careless amalgamation of the principles of JUSTIFICATION with the principles of SANCTIFICATION. Ephesians 2:8—9 is defining God's monergistic JUSTIFICATION process, then Second Corinthians 6:1 is discussing God's synergistic SANCTIFICATION.)....)
[Then, following the baptism:] Seeing now, dearly beloved, that this child is regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ's church, let us give thanks unto God Almighty for these benefits, and with one accord make our prayers unto him, that this child may lead the rest of his life according to this beginning...We yield hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it has pleased thee to regenerate this infant with thy Holy Spirit, to receive him as thine own child by adoption, and to incorporate him into thy holy church..."
(aaron— Regeneration with the Holy Spirit, grafted into the body of Christ's church, and to be an adopted child of God, are all certain realities within the Christian Church. These particular actions are essentially describing God's conveyed invisible dispositions that one might receive from God during the sanctification process. But there is no assurance that every individual that undergoes the institutional rite of visible water baptism also receives the invisible baptism of the Holy Spirit. Then just because they do not immediately receive the invisible baptism of the Holy Spirit, does not mean that the Holy Spirit is not actively present in the waters of visible baptism. The two, the visible and the invisible in this case, are not intended to be the same. The function of visible water baptism [John's baptism], like the function of visible circumcision, is to effectively gather in all those whom God has called into His institutional corporate peoples. Then the function of the invisible baptism of the Holy Spirit [Jesus' baptism], like one’s receiving the invisible circumcision of the heart, is to effectively gather in all those whom God has chosen into His invisible priestly line—the Messianic Covenant line. As desirable as it might be for us to assume that every individual within the Christian Church is an elect priest of God, observable historic reality through our observation of God’s first peoples Israel would clearly prove the inaccuracy of that conclusion.)
Finally, the Reformed Anglican genius, Richard Hooker: "Baptism both declares and makes us Christians." "In baptism, besides the hand seen that casts the water, is the virtue of the Holy Ghost there, working, without hands, what here was wrought." In other words, God is not a fellow spectator at the baptismal ceremony, but the chief actor [4].
4. The means of grace, Word and sacrament, should be understood as divine works, not merely human works. Take a marriage ceremony as an analogy: Jesus said that when a minister/officiant pronounces the couple to be husband and wife, it is really God who has joined them together (Mt. 19:6). If God acts effectually through a marriage ceremony, which is not a sacrament, (aaron— in the Protestant Church, but is a sacrament in the Roman Catholic Church) how much more must he work through those ritual acts which are sacramental? Thus, when the "sacramental" Word is preached, it is really Christ himself who does the preaching (Eph. 2:17; cf. Rom. 10:14, which should read, "How shall they believe the one whom they have not heard?"). The words of John the Baptist about the baptism Jesus would give to his people (Mt. 3:11) were not true only for those who were gathered in the upper room at Pentecost in Acts 2. Every time baptism is administered in his name, he baptizes not merely with water as John did, but with the Spirit and fire. Baptism makes us sharers in what Jesus did to and for the church at Pentecost. See also 1 Cor. 12:13. Paul must have water baptism in view here since he says it is a baptism all the Corinthians received and he immediately links it with the other sacrament, the Lord's Supper. In water baptism, the Spirit incorporates the one baptized into the body of Christ.4.
(aaron— This last section highlights the very crux of this problem. The analogies used above seem to make perfect sense, but the historic reality of Christianity should also give us great pause in this matter. So if we totally bypass God's first peoples Israel as our visible example relationship, and then formulate an identification for God's peoples from only a Christian perspective, I do not believe that we will ever arrive at a correct conclusion. Once again, these confusing difficulties continue to be the result of our not distinguishing God's visible dispositions from God's invisible dispositions. Even though the two are functionally separate, they are always coexistent within God’s whole reconciliation.)
Reformed Confessional documents echo and crystallize the sentiments of the liturgical and private writings of Reformed theologians.
The Second Helvetic Confession teaches that God promises to give us Christ in the sacraments: "But the principal thing that God promises in all the sacraments and to which all the godly in all ages direct their attention (some call it the substance and matter of the sacraments) is Christ the Savior...by whom all the elect are circumcised without hands through the Holy Spirit, and are washed from all their sins."
(aaron— It is a fact, that, as a part of God's elective process, only "the elect are circumcised without hands through the Holy Spirit". Yes, God's desires has not changed from His original desire for His first peoples Israel—that all would come to receive this blessed invisible circumcision of the heart. But historic reality reveals something much different. Then, as a part of the justification process, by water baptism all of the institutionally called "are washed from all their sins". Then this amalgamation of God’s justification principles together with God’s sanctification principles is an added root cause of much of today's confusion.)
Concerning baptism, the Confession teaches, "Now to be baptized in the name of Christ is to be enrolled, entered, and received into the covenant and family, and so into the inheritance of the sons of God,...to be cleansed also from the filthiness of sins, and to be granted the manifold grace of God, in order to lead a new and innocent life...All these things are insured by baptism.
(aaron— The majority of this confessional teaching is very well stated. But the potential problem begins with the introduction of the term "sons of God". The "sons of God" is a very special group that are separate from creation and separate as well from the institutional corporate peoples of God. [Romans 8:19—23] The revelation of the "sons of God" is something that all of creation is anxiously anticipating. Similarly, the "sons of God" anxiously anticipate the forthcoming redemption of their bodies. We also find in Romans 8:14—23, that "the sons of God" and "the Children of God" are in fact synonymous terms. This is the same special group who possess "the firstfruits of the Spirit". We find that the "sons of God", as they is found in both the Old and New Testaments, always has a Spiritual connotation. [John 1:12—13] All of the corporate peoples of God are not necessarily identified as the "sons of God"— as this is born out in the special remnant of Isaiah 10 and Romans 9. Then Romans 11:5 and 7 describe Israel in terms of the "remnant" and the "rest". And since the "rest" is a very important part of God's covenant with Abraham, I believe that the book of Romans also confirms that they will play a continuing role in God's whole reconciliation. The sure promises that God has for them are substantially set forth in the New Testament.)
Continuing—For inwardly we are regenerated, purified, and renewed by God through the Holy Spirit; and outwardly we receive the assurance of the greatest gifts in the water, by which also those great benefits are represented, and, as it were, set before our eyes to be beheld." The point is clear: to be baptized is to be cleansed and regenerated.
(aaron— This last statement once again expresses the very crux of our present problem— "The point is clear: to be baptized is to be cleansed and regenerated." This is the result of the present manifestation of how God's regenerating activities might function within His Church. Then to conclude that every professing Christian is supposedly regenerated at the time of their baptism, factually results in our acceptance of "baptismal regeneration".)
(aaron— Now for us to properly understand our own position within the Abrahamic Covenant and within the covenant family, we must first take our relationship lessons from closely observing of God's first peoples Israel. So as we examine Israel’s relationship through the Genesis 17:1—27 account, with our added New Testament understanding of God's free and unmerited grace in mind, we quickly discover that that same measure of God's matchless grace was fully functional for that period when God was establishing His covenant with father Abraham. Consequently, there is really very little difference between the Christian Church and Israel in this case of being gathered into God's visible institutional corporate peoples. Like the Christian Church, everything that Israel received from God was a free and unmerited gift of grace as well. We then understand that every gift that is received in both the Old and New Testaments was totally based on Christ's propitiatory work. Ref. Romans 3:21—26
We must understand that the Genesis 17:1—27 description of the Abrahamic Covenant has a complex character and definition as well. That is, Genesis 17:1—14, 18, 20, and 23—27 defines the visible /or physical character of the Abrahamic Covenant. These would represent all those who have entered God's visible corporate peoples through God's established visible institutions—having received God's commanded visible initiatory rite of circumcision/ or baptism. And Galatians 4:21—25 would specifically define this visible portion of the Abrahamic Covenant as the Covenant of Bondage.
Then Genesis 17:15—17, 19, and 22 defines the invisible/ or spiritual character of the Abrahamic Covenant—known to us as the Covenant of Promise. Even though all of these participants within the Covenant of Promise must also come through God's visible institutions and God’s visible peoples—having also received God's established visible initiatory rites and remaining as an integral part of those same visible institutions, yet these elect ones would represent all those who have been selectively chosen into the invisible priesthood of God and are representative of God's invisible dispositions. To participate in the invisible elect priesthood of God, the individual must possess all of God's invisible dispositions—They must be regenerated, born from above, born anew /or again, have a circumcised heart, and then be identified as a Jew, a part of the Circumcision, and as a part of Israel. These are in fact the ones who will ultimately make—up the body of Christ /which, when finally gathered together in their pre—Armageddon resurrection that is described in 1Cor.15:23-24, will then constitute the completed Kingdom of God.
This is best understood from the designations that God has assigned to the various elements of the covenant: Elements that we have defined here as God's visible and invisible dispositions. For example, God's visible dispositions are Israel, the Circumcision, the Jew, the elect, baptism /and from only a Christian perspective, the Church and the Christian. Then God's invisible dispositions are Israel, the Circumcision, the Jew, the elect, and baptism. It is evident that the Old Testament visible dispositions of God are designed as visible examples and types. Designed in such a way, that they would enable us to more easily understand the invisible dispositions that are always hidden in God. That is, without God's prior establishment of visible Israel, the visible Circumcision, and the visible Jew, we would surely be at a loss to comprehend the Creator God or the complex identification that He has given to His peoples.
Then by our observation of visible Israel, we must always keep this very important fact in mind—just because you are a part of the visible corporate peoples of God through your participation in God's established visible institutions and visible rites, does not automatically make you a part of God's invisible priestly line. Understanding that this same principle would apply to the Christian Church as well—A visible Christian is not necessarily a part of God's invisible priestly line. It is especially here, with the popular Christian understanding of election and regeneration that much of today's confusion rests.
A statement of fact: Visible Israel was established as God's Old Testament visible institution, through which, by the use of God's established visible initiatory rite of visible circumcision, the visible creation had access to their invisible Creator. All that was necessary for their initiation into the corporate peoples of God, was that all of the male family members who desired entrance into the covenant, had to undergo the God established initiatory rite of physical circumcision before they could partake of the Passover. Nothing more was required of them! Because, through this one act of obedience, they, along with their entire family, gained full membership into God's institutional corporate peoples. Even a participating stranger, once they had received God's established visible initiatory rite of circumcision and participated in the Passover, would be counted as though they had been born in the land. Exodus 12:48
A second statement of fact: The visible Christian Church was established as God's New Testament visible institution, through which, by the use of God's established visible initiatory rite of water baptism, the visible creation has access to their invisible Creator.
So as we witness that their simple obedient performance of God's established initiatory rite of circumcision was all that was necessary for their being incorporated into God's institutional peoples and their subsequent participation in God’s Passover, we should, at the same time, see how difficult the New Testament Christian Church has made this institutional right of passage. As this New Testament initiatory rite is now loaded down with a great deal of unnecessary Sanctification baggage.
When considering the complex identification of God's peoples, we can observe from its very conception that all were not considered identically equal within the Abrahamic Covenant. That is, even though Ishmael was a part of the visible component of the Abrahamic Covenant and a part of the visible institutional corporate peoples of God, we are plainly told that he was not to be included within the invisible component of the Abrahamic Covenant—the invisible Covenant of Promise. It is very unfortunate that the majority of the Christian Church has devalued God's visible dispositions to the point where the visible rites are essentially worthless when it comes to God's eternal promises.)
The 1560 Scots Confession of John Knox is equally forthright: "And so we utterly condemn the vanity of those who affirm the sacraments to be nothing else than naked and bare signs. No, we assuredly believe that by baptism we are engrafted into Christ Jesus, to be made partakers of his righteousness, by which our sins are covered and remitted." The meaning is plain: In baptism, God unites us to Christ so that what is true of him is now true of us.
The French Confession makes the same point: "We acknowledge only two sacraments, common to the whole church, the former whereof is baptism, given unto us to witness to our adoption, for by it we are grafted into the body of Christ, that being washed with his blood we might be renewed by his Spirit unto holiness of life...[I]n baptism, God gives us really and in fact that which he there sets before us; and that consequently with these signs is given true possession and enjoyment of that which they present to us."
Turning to the Westminster Standards, we find this train of thought continued. The Standards teach that the sacraments "confer" grace (WCF 27.3, 28.6), that they are "effectual means of salvation" (WSC 91), and that they are required if we are to (ordinarily) escape God's wrath and curse due to us for sin (WSC 85) [5].
5. Putting together WCF 25.2 and 28.1 yields the conclusion that there is (ordinarily) no salvation apart from baptism.5.
Puritan expert David F. Wright [6]
6. Wright is Senior Lecturer in Ecclesiastical History at the University of Edinburgh.6.
summarizes: "What then about the efficacy of baptism according to the Westminster Confession? Its central affirmation seems clear: 'the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost' (28.6). It is true that a variety of qualifications to this assertion are entered...But these qualifications serve in fact only to highlight the clarity of the core declaration, which is set forth as follows in the preceding chapter on sacraments in general...The Westminster divines viewed baptism as the instrument and occasion of regeneration by the Spirit, of the remission of sins, of ingrafting into Christ (cf. 28.1). The Confession teaches baptismal regeneration" [7].
7. "Baptism at the Westminster Assembly" in Calvin Studies 80. Emphasis mine.7.
Most Presbyterians today focus on the qualifiers on baptismal efficacy in the Confession, rather than its central affirmation. Indeed, the qualifiers are often treated as negating its plain statements. While it would be going too far to say the Confession necessitates belief in baptismal regeneration, there can be no question such a view of baptismal efficacy is included in its parameters, if determined by original authorial intent [8].
8. Two more things about WCF 28 should be noted. First, section 5 indicates, "that not all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated."
This leaves us with the freedom to regard all who are baptized as regenerate until and unless they prove otherwise.
(aaron— This is what is commonly known as "presumptive regeneration". Regeneration is assumed unless shown to be otherwise. This is, I believe, a wrong minded approach that requires we take a fresh look at God's visible initiatory rites, beginning in the Old Testament. There, belonging to God’s institutional corporate peoples was facilitated by their simple obedient use of the God established elements. There was no debate going on there as to whether or not the individual was regenerated, simply because "regeneration" as we understand it through the New Testament Church was not an essential part in their initiation into a covenant relationship with God. Matter of fact, their failure to circumcise their eight—day—old infant son would result in that individual being cut off from God's peoples because God's covenant would have been broken through their disobedience. Now since God is a God of the family, I believe our initiation into covenant with God is just as simple now as it was back then. Our belonging Covenantally is still a simple matter of obedience.
I believe that the above statement fully demonstrates the high level of confusion that surrounds much of today's Protestantism:
"Most Presbyterians today focus on the qualifiers on baptismal efficacy in the Confession, rather than its central affirmation. Indeed, the qualifiers are often treated as negating its plain statements. While it would be going too far to say the Confession necessitates belief in baptismal regeneration, there can be no question such a view of baptismal efficacy is included in its parameters, if determined by original authorial intent” [8].
8. Two more things about WCF 28 should be noted. First, section 5 indicates, "that not all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated."
“This leaves us with the freedom to regard all who are baptized as regenerate until and unless they prove otherwise."
These folk are not entirely wrong in all of their conclusions here, but their attempt at micro—managing God's complex institutional covenant has gotten them into a state of some uncertainty.)
Isolated examples of apostasy should not be used to undercut the efficacy of baptism more generally.
Second, section 6 states, "The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered." As Joel Garver has pointed out, it seems entirely legitimate to interpret this in light of earlier Reformed confessional documents. The point, then, would not be that one's baptism may not take effect until long after the time of administration; rather, the sense would be that baptism's efficacy, beginning at the moment of administration, extends through the whole of one's life.
As the Belgic Confession states, "Neither does this Baptism only avail us at the time when the water is poured upon us and received by us, but also through the whole course of our life."
Likewise, the Scots Confession says, "For baptism once received continues for all of life, and is a perpetual sealing of our adoption."
The French Confession teaches the same: "[A]lthough we are baptized only once, yet the gain that it symbolizes to us reaches over our whole lives and to our death, so that we have a lasting witness that Jesus Christ will always be our justification and sanctification."
Finally, Cornelius Burges, in his fine seventeenth century work The Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants, opens with these words: "There is no ordinance set up by Christ in his church, more useful and comfortable unto a Christian, throughout the whole course of his militant condition, than sacred baptism, the laver of regeneration and of the renewing of the Holy Ghost." Later, he wrote, "I deny not future actual efficacy of baptism after the act of administration, but I only plead for some efficacy when it is administered" (112) and claimed Calvin for support of this view (cf. 159, 169).8.
(aaron— This last statement is evidence for this quandary surrounding baptism— "I deny not future actual efficacy of baptism after the act of administration, but I only plead for some efficacy when it is administered". It would appear that there were always some individuals who denied the efficacy of the initial act of infant baptism. Then the discussed evidence of this baptismal efficacy that appears subsequent to its administration is really some evidence for recognizing a possible second work of God's Holy Spirit. But this plea— "but I only plead for some efficacy when it is administered" describes the very heart of this important discussion. The plea of seventeenth century Cornelius Burges is identical to my own—That we might recognize some eternal efficacy at the time that God's initiatory rites are being administered to our infant offspring.)
Further evidence the Westminster divines did not intend to rule all form(s) of baptismal regeneration and justification out of court is found when we consult the writings of the men themselves.
Brooks Hollifield's fine work The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Puritan Sacramental Theology in Old and New England, 1570—1720 shows there was quite a bit of diversity among seventeenth century England and New England Puritans on sacramental issues.
But among the various positions of baptismal efficacy floating around, at least two noteworthy theologians held to forms of baptismal regeneration/justification. Both were chosen to participate in the Westminster Assembly and both had excellent Reformed pedigrees, though they arrived at their views independently of one another.
Cornelius Burges' 1629 work, The Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants, argues forcefully that elect infants receive, at baptism, initial regeneration and remission of sin. This "first principle" of spiritual life then matures and develops as the child does [9].
(aaron— This is a excellent statement because it could help us to further identify some of the parts to this Protestant baptismal dilemma. The author writes— "But among the various positions of baptismal efficacy floating around, at least two noteworthy theologians held to forms of baptismal regeneration/justification." And it is the latter part that has caught my attention— "forms of baptismal regeneration/justification". In that, I am not sure that regeneration and justification as it is taught in the New Testament are synonymous in the strictest sense. I am not saying that some measured effect of God regenerative activity is not present in our baptismal justification and its associated benefits, but I am saying that regeneration [the promised work of God’s Holy Spirit in the lives of the hidden elect] cannot be defined as justification [God’s gracious gift through Christ’s atoning work upon the cross that belongs to all of the visible institutional corporate peoples of God].
Is God's secret "election" something that can be presumptively assigned to the offspring of those who believe that they themselves are part and partial of the elect? It is not Scripturally viable for any individual among us to assume the regeneration of the Holy Spirit that we might possess is transferable to our offspring. Keeping this passage in mind, that many are visibly called into God's institutional corporate peoples, but then from that very large body only a few are chosen into His hidden royal priesthood. But these too, like Nicodemus, thought not regenerated/ or born from above, do also receive a measure of faith that enables them to believe in the God of Creation.)
9. Burges (with spelling modernized) writes, "Elect infants do ordinarily receive the Spirit in baptism, as the first efficient principle of future actual regeneration...It is most agreeable to the institution of Christ, that all elect infants that are baptized...do, ordinarily receive, from Christ, the Spirit in baptism, for their first solemn initiation into Christ, and for their future actual renovation, in God's good time, if they live to years of discretion, and enjoy the other ordinary means of grace appointed of God to this end." The initial/actual distinction is explained on pages 14ff in Burges' work. Burges argues his whole case thoroughly from Scripture, but perhaps the most interesting part of his work is chapters 5—8, in which he demonstrates that his position on baptismal regeneration is found in the church fathers, the Reformed Confessions, the writings of the Continental divines, such as Calvin, Bucer, Musculus, and Zanchius, and the writings of several British theologians. He distinguishes his position from the "physical/metaphysical efficacy" view of Rome on 330ff.9.
Samuel Ward "proposed that baptism regenerated infants" and argued "all infants were, without doubt, justified through baptism" [10].
(aaron— The question to be addressed here is this, can the congregation's infant children be justified through baptism without being regenerated? My answer to that difficult question is absolutely yes! The reason for my certain response to that question is because of the clear example that God has set down for us in His first peoples Israel. We can understand the efficacy of God's covenantal initiatory rites only through our careful observation of God's original establishment of His covenant with Abraham—and then through Israel's subsequent obedience in circumcising their eight—day—old infant sons. The only prerequisite for their joining to and belonging to God's institutional corporate peoples, was their obedience in performing His commanded visible initiatory rite pursuant to their participation in the Passover celebration. (Ex.12:48) The efficacy of that visible circumcision there in the Old Testament, simply came from God’s promise and their obedience in performing what God had commanded for them.
As we look at God's covenant with Abraham in Genesis 17, was regeneration an inclusive part of this visible initiatory act of circumcision? The answer to that important question is absolutely no! This is true from the Scriptures themselves, as well as from the record of those who were circumcised there that very day.
First, the Scriptures—Genesis 17:1—14, 18, 20, and 22—27 defines the visible characteristic of the Abrahamic Covenant of Grace. Then the same visible characteristic is also defined for us in Galatians 4:21—25 as the Covenant of Bondage. What we understand from these important passages, is that there was only one prerequisite established there by God for their belonging to this newly formed Abrahamic Covenant. That single requirement was that all of the males had to undergo the surgical procedure of being circumcised. By that single obedient act of being circumcised, they, as well as their families, became an integral part of God's institutional corporate peoples and a participant of the Abrahamic Covenant of Grace. Once again, regeneration, as it is defined in the John 3, Titus 3, and First Peter 1, is not an essential part of the visible component of God's covenant with Abraham.
Second, the Scriptures—Genesis 17:15—17, 19, and 21, along with Galatians 4:26—28, define the invisible characteristic of the Abrahamic Covenant—the Covenant of Promise. From these passages, we begin to understand that there is an additional invisible element at work within this Abrahamic Covenant that is independent from the visible component. Now even though there is an evident Scriptural separateness between the visible and the invisible, nevertheless, they are always seen as being coexistent within the one Abrahamic Covenant of Grace. For example, those who make—up the invisible Covenant of Promise are chosen out from among all those who have been called into God's visible institutional corporate peoples. Even though these “few” are being chosen out from the corporate peoples of God for this leadership role, they must remain an integral part of these same institutional peoples of God. [Matthew 22:14] It is my opinion that these elect priests are the only ones who are fully regenerated—born from above. [First Peter 2:9]
This is one of the more difficult understandings for us to sort through, as is evidenced by the confusion and controversy that continues within the whole Christian Church.
Once again, we must look to God's first peoples Israel as we search for our answer to this difficult understanding. I would suggest we start by looking at the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus that is recorded in John 3:
"Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2the same came unto him by night, and said to him, Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, except God be with him."
The principle point that I would make here, is the fact that Nicodemus was a believer and loyal follower of the God of Abraham. Apparently God had given Nicodemus a very small glimpse of the reality of Jesus: which caused him to secretly seek out this Prophet from God.
"3Jesus answered and said unto him, Truly, truly, I say unto you, Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Then here in verse 3, Jesus begins to explain the invisible Spirituality of this Kingdom that He was beginning to bringing to our attention. The manifested construct of the Kingdom of God was about to commence and Jesus was revealing some basic ground rules for this hidden Kingdom.
"4Nicodemus said unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?"
Nicodemus' response to what Jesus had said was certainly a natural one. His response here reveals that his comprehension of this invisible riddle that Jesus had presented, was, as many of our own responses might be even today, totally natural and earthly.
"5Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say unto you, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!"
Now from verse 5, we should understand the complexities that are involved in what Jesus is explaining. He told Nicodemus, that in order for him to enter into the Kingdom of God, he must first "be born of water", and then secondly, he must be born of "the Spirit". So now can we understand this second part as regeneration /or to be born from above, as a second work of God's Spirit in the lives of His elect peoples /or priests? I believe the answer to this question is an affirmative one.
"6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7Marvel not that I said unto you, You must be born anew. 8The wind blows where it will, and you hear the voice thereof, but know not from where it comes, or where it goes: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."
Now here we receive insight into the visible /the water /or the fleshly, and then the invisible /the spiritual. Since the spiritual ream is in fact an entirely separate dimension and completely outside of our range of possibility, our access is then limited to only that which God graciously grants to us. Jesus then compares those who are "born of the Spirit" /"born anew" to the allusiveness of the invisible wind. In that, you might have a sense of their individual presence within the Congregation but have no absolute certainty of their reality.
"9Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? 10Jesus answered and said unto him, Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not understand these things? 11Truly, truly, I say unto you, We speak that which we know, and bear witness of that which we have seen; and you do not receive our witness. 12If I told you earthly things and you did not believe, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things?"
At this particular point in time, and according to what Jesus said here in verses 9—12, I believe that one can safely say that Nicodemus was not "born anew" /"born of the Spirit" /"Born again"— and only God really knows if he ever was actually regenerated. We learned from verse 1—that Nicodemus "was a man of the Pharisees" and "a ruler of the Jews", and according to Jesus in verse 10, Nicodemus was "a teacher of Israel". My main point here is that Nicodemus was definitely a part of God's institutional corporate peoples and a believer and follower of Jehovah before he ever came to this meeting with our Lord. But anyone who has studied the Scriptures should fully understand the predicted blindness that was prophesied for God's first peoples Israel during this dispensation of God's favor. They should understand Israel's present circumstances:
Psalms 69:22—23
Isaiah 6:9—10
Romans 11:8—10; 9:33
Acts 28:26—27
Matthew 13:13—15
Mark 4:12
Luke 8:10
John 12:40
First Peter 1:10—12
Matthew 13:16—17
Luke 10:23—24)
10. Hollifield, 82, 79.10.
However, Ward went on to say the grace received in baptism was only provisional and did not guarantee eternal salvation. Those baptized in infancy who fail to persevere in faith lose these benefits and never enter into a full state of regeneration and justification. For Ward, these cases of apostasy were usually due to the child lacking "either careful, faithful parents or a proper minister, or both" [11].
(aaron— The view held by Ward would be very similar to the majority of today’s Reformed community. They generally see little or no real benefit in baptizing the infants of their Congregations. Insisting that they must do more—They must eventually make a true profession of their faith in order to seal their eternal fate.)
11. Hollifield, 85. Besides Hollifield's work (sadly out of print), see Joel Garver's essay at http://www.lasalle.edu/~garver/wcf.htm for an excellent study of the Westminster Standards and summaries of the views of Burges and Ward.11.
This survey is by no means comprehensive. Indeed, we have just scratched the surface. It is true that many of the quotations given above are qualified or nuanced in various ways. These qualifiers are necessary to prevent misunderstanding [12].
12. For example, none of the statements quoted above teach that someone is automatically saved at baptism or that each and every person baptized is eternally saved. Indeed, I know of no theologian in the history of the church who has held such extreme views. Baptism is a true means of grace, but that grace is conditioned both by God's decree and our response of faithfulness. There is no superstitious attribution of magical power to the waters of baptism.12.
(aaron— Once again I would challenge this last statement. The efficacy of God’s commanded Old Testament initiatory rite of visible circumcision is the evidence because all those circumcised male infants immediately became an inclusive part of God’s institutional corporate peoples. Through the parent’s obedience in presenting their helpless eight—day—old infant sons for circumcision, the infant son became a member of God’s covenant and God’s institutional peoples—and as we understand, their family offspring with them.)
But the core affirmations remain unchallengeable. The Reformed tradition, in its pristine form, linked baptism instrumentally to regeneration and justification, and thus, to the beginnings of salvation.
(aaron— Since the salvation event is wholly a product of God’s justification—Eph.2:8-9, it is not advisable for us to associate salvation’s Justification with Regeneration—which is a part of the Sanctification process.)
As Protestant scholasticism arose, especially in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, there was increasing pressure to play off sovereign grace against sacramentally mediated grace [13].
(aaron— Is it not conceivable that God’s sovereign grace is active and functional in the sacramental areas that He Himself established?)
13. This is not to say the rise of Protestant scholasticism was bad, only that it was not an unmixed blessing.13.
Reformed theology had to be "systematized," and sacramental theology found an increasingly awkward place among the theological loci. Indeed, B. B. Warfield, a nineteenth century Reformed giant, claimed the Reformation was a battle between Augustine's high ecclesiology (territory claimed by Rome) and his predestinarian soteriology (ground held by Protestants). But a close [xx] reading of Calvin and other magisterial Reformers shows they wanted to be faithful to the whole Augustinian project [14].
14. Augustine, perhaps better than anyone in the history of the church, held together the sovereign nature of grace and the mediated nature of grace.14.
In fact, Calvin mines Augustine heavily on the topics of election and sacraments. So, to the classic Reformed mind, the question, "Does God save or does baptism save?" poses a false dilemma. God saves through baptism; it is one of his instruments of salvation, along with the Word and the Eucharist [15].
(aaron— This last statement, as it is one that we could almost all agree on, would be a good place to stop. Simple and to the point— "So, to the classic Reformed mind, the question, "Does God save or does baptism save?" poses a false dilemma. God saves through baptism; it is one of his instruments of salvation, along with the Word and the Eucharist. "You cannot sever the one from the other”. So to say that the act of visible water baptism does not save the participating individual is doing precisely that. The important thing here is the fact that God saves, not the contrived thoughts of man.)
15. Again, all this indicates that baptism is chiefly a work of God, not man. Consider Calvin: "But as baptism is a solemn recognition by which God introduces his children into the possession of life [e.g., regeneration], a true and effectual sealing of the promise, a pledge of sacred union with Christ, it is justly said to be the entrance and reception into the church. And as the instruments of the Holy Spirit are not dead, God truly performs and effects by baptism what he figures." Elsewhere, Calvin wrote, "There is a union complementary with the thing figured, lest the sign be empty, because that which the Lord represents in sign he effects at the same time, and executes in us by the power of the Spirit...What indeed do we abrogate or take away from God when we teach that he acts through his instruments, indeed, he alone...God works...through the sacraments as instruments...The Spirit is the author, the sacrament is truly the instrument used." All these quotations (and much more of value) can be found in The Lord's Service by Jeff Meyers (133). Writing against Anabaptists, Calvin wrote, "We hold both the washing of regeneration and the spiritual nourishment of the body and blood of Christ are conferred through his hand just as if he were an angel come down from heaven" (quoted in Calvin and the Anabaptist Radicals by Willem Balke, 247). The means of grace are like the scalpel in a surgeon's hand. When the surgery is done, we praise the surgeon, not the tool he wields. Efficacious sacraments do not mean credit for salvation is divided between God and creaturely means.15.
(aaron— "Efficacious sacraments do not mean credit for salvation is divided between God and creaturely means" is a good statement for understanding the possible position of the promoters of "baptismal regeneration". The statement demonstrates the difficulty that surrounds even the possibility that "credit for salvation is divided between God and creaturely means". This thought, I believe, comes principally from their inappropriate depreciation of the God established visible initiatory rites. This depreciation is most evident by their categorizing of God's visible initiatory rites of circumcision and baptism as nothing more than "creaturely means". I wonder how something so very important as these, as God's established visible initiatory rites of circumcision and baptism, can be casts off to the side as efficaciously meaningless. Without these God established visible means for our accessing His free and unmerited grace, the Abrahamic Covenant as well as its New Covenant fulfillment would be totally inaccessible.
Then taking these saying in their most rudimentary way, we might say that the problem that we now face here, involves how and to what extent the Holy Spirit works within these visible elements. It would appear that for the general application of the Holy Spirit, the Reformed, as well as most of the other Denominations, seem to see the activities of the Holy Spirit in almost a singular way. For salvation, you are either regenerated by the Holy Spirit /born again, or you have nothing. But we all know that that would not be a correct analysis. Any reasonable study of the Scriptures will show that there are many facets to the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer at all levels. So from our beginning faith to believe in God through our complete sanctification, it is all the work of the Holy Spirit.)
Why are we so afraid of saying that God uses means to save us? And why is there such prejudice against the sacraments as means of (saving) grace? Sure, baptism is a sign. But preaching is just words —— verbal signs. If God can effect salvation through verbal signs, why not sacramental signs as well? Or why not both together, as the Bible appears to teach? [16]
(aaron— The struggle here, where they are trying to get some efficacy for the sacrament of visible water baptism, is the consequence of their deficient understanding of the efficacy of the sacrament of visible circumcision in the Old Testament. God’s saving grace, way back then as well as now, operates through our obedient use of His visible signs! Yes, the visible and the invisible dispositions of God are separate, yet they always function "together"!)
16. Sinclair Ferguson, in his excellent book The Holy Spirit, falls into just this trap (125). He has no problem taking biblical passages that speak of God's work of regeneration through the Word at face value (e.g., 1 Pt. 1:23, Jas. 1:18). But when he comes to similar passages that refer to baptism (e.g., Titus 3:5), he suddenly shifts ground and spiritualizes away the baptismal referent (195). When dealing with the preached Word, Ferguson preserves the efficacy of the means by distinguishing between the efficient cause of regeneration (the Holy Spirit) and the instrumental cause (the Word). But why not do the same with baptism? Ferguson's refreshing biblical theological approach to Scripture leads him to the edge of affirming an efficacious baptism, but then, inexplicably (apart from tradition—bound prejudices), he backs away, and remains entrenched in immediacy. For example, he continually refers to Ezek. 36 to prove the sovereignty of God's work of redemption in granting the Spirit and a new heart to his people, but continually overlooks how "wet" this chapter is (e.g., 36:25, 33; see pages 116, 122, etc.).16.
It seems a Gnostic tendency has become deeply embedded in American Calvinism [17].
17. The roots of this shift are too complex for us to delve into here. However, there is no doubt the Great Awakenings radically changed the face of Protestantism in America. Revivalism eclipsed the Reformation as the fundamental paradigm for understanding how God works in the world. Today, even many Presbyterians and other paedobaptists are largely 'baptistic' in their presuppositions about the nature of New Covenant religion. See Against the Protestant Gnostics by Philip Lee and The Failure of American Baptist Culture edited by James Jordan.17.
We want God's real saving work to be immediate, that is, apart from means or signs. But this is just another attempt to dephysicalize Christianity and we must fight it [18].
18. See James Jordan, Creation in Six Days, ch. 4.18.
God works salvation through humble, material means: a paper and ink book, sound vibrations emanating from a preacher's voice, and simple water, bread, and wine. This is the scandal of the Christian faith! But we should revel in it, not deny it.
THE BIBLICAL WITNESS
Obviously, for Reformed Christians, the ultimate test of any doctrine is its fidelity to the whole counsel of God, revealed in the pages of Scripture. What does the Bible actually teach about the efficacy of baptism? While we cannot take the time and space here to do a thorough exegesis of all the references to baptism in the New Testament (much less the Old Testament), we can point to the face value meaning of several key passages. (Please read the passages listed below carefully!) In baptism,
We are united (or married) to the crucified, buried, and risen Christ (Rom. 6:1ff), though we can be cut off (or divorced) from him if we are unfaithful (Rom. 11:17ff; cf. Jn. 15:1ff)
(aaron— I am a bit curious where this author got the term "divorced" from what is commonly translated as "cut off"? I am not saying that our unbelief cannot cause us to be cut off from our consummate relationship with God. But at the very same time, a change in our attitude can reverse the action and cause us to be grafted in again. This transitional passage is not as simple as some would have it.)
We are forgiven (Acts 2:38, 22:16; cf. the Nicene Creed)
We receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38)
(aaron— Is receiving the "gift of the Holy Spirit" and "regeneration" the same thing? I think not! Many tend to oversimplify Scripture that has a more complex meaning.)
We are cleansed (Eph. 5:26)
We are regenerated and renewed (Titus 3:5)
(aaron— Some have concluded that Titus, like Peter, was written more for the elect’s sake than for the general consumption of God’s institutional corporate peoples.)
(aaron— It should be noted that Titus 3:5 is the only New Testament passage that specifically discusses individual regeneration. Though there are other passages that discuss the same experience—To be born from above, to be born anew, to be born again, to be renewed by the Holy Spirit, and so on. Though "regeneration" is necessary for one’s entering into God’s kingdom and holy priesthood, should we understand that "regeneration" is necessary for our justification? I think not!)
We are buried and resurrected with Christ (Col. 2:11—12)
We are circumcised in heart (Col. 2:11—12)
(aaron— Once again, we must take our lead from God’s first peoples Israel. Even though God’s desire was that all of His peoples would attain to this spiritual level of having a circumcised heart, it is obvious from Scripture that they all did not. For example, Nicodemus was a leader of the Jews religion, yet was not born again—from our best understanding, he did not possess a circumcised heart. We can conclude this because the New Testament equates a circumcised heart with being born from above, born anew, or to be regenerated. Yes, all of these necessary attributes are true with respect to God’s elect priesthood. But the question to be answered is this, is every individual within God’s institutional corporate peoples required to become a part of God’s elect priesthood? According to our Old Testament example Israel, the answer to that question would be a resounding NO!)
We are joined to the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13)
We are clothed with Christ (Gal. 3:27)
We are justified and sanctified (1 Cor. 6:11) [19]
19. Many commentators read 1 Cor. 6:11 in this way: "But you received a justifying and sanctifying washing in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." "In the name of Jesus" echoes Luke's shorthand baptismal formula used in Acts and the grammar of the text suggests the Spirit instrumentally confers justification and sanctification through the washing.19.
(aaron— I would partially agree that "the Spirit instrumentally confers justification and sanctification through the washing." But I also think that we need to better define what was said here. To say that "sanctification" was conferred in baptism, we must mean just our being set apart. Where the monergistic justification is the initial work of God’s Holy Spirit in facilitating the individual’s salvation, the synergistic sanctification process must be seen as progressing on throughout the entire Christian experience of that same individual.
Although I am a bit uncertain about the practice of taking what is clearly an exhortation from the Apostle Paul for all of us to walk in a more upright way, and then to make that exhortation into a doctrine for the Christian Church.
Now this is not a denial of the many gracious benefits that God has freely given to the Christian Church, because these promises are as sure as God's Word itself. This argument is against those who would amalgamate God's visible dispositions together with God's invisible dispositions, thus blurring a necessary distinguishing line between the two and increasing the difficulty in our understanding of the complex identification of God’s peoples.)
We are saved (1 Pt. 3:20—21) [20]
20. Peter tells us baptism is not a mere outward washing ("not the removal of the filth of the flesh") but a cleansing before God ("the answer of a good [e.g., forgiven] conscience"). Interestingly, Peter also tells us "eight souls were saved through water" in Noah's ark. But this "salvation" was not necessarily permanent since it is evident from the Genesis narrative that at least one of the eight (Ham) apostatized (Gen. 9:18ff; cf. Jude 5). Thus, Peter's encouragement rooted in baptism need not lead to presumption; rather, it is calculated to drive his hearers to persevere in faithfulness.20.
(aaron— First Peter expressly defines God's invisible dispositions, and how we might best understand the construct and identity of the invisible Messianic priesthood.
I fail to see how it was determined from Genesis 9:18 and Jude 5 that "Ham apostatized"? This is simply observing salvation from a Christian perspective: Individual rather than institutional. By observing our Covenant relationship with God through God’s first peoples Israel, we must recognize the all-important principal of institution. That God has instituted the Abrahamic Covenant as a family covenant and that God is a God of the family.)
We are ordained as priests with access to the heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 10:19—22) [21]
(aaron— Here again, assumptions are being made without even looking to our Old Testament example Israel. The Christian perspective is just that—it is that all "true believers", to the exclusion of the rest, are priests of God. I would suggest that by following our Old Testament example Israel, we would arrive at a very different conclusion. It is true that all of the invisible elect, those that the Church identifies as "true believers", would be participants in the hidden Messianic priestly line—the royal priesthood that Peter describes. But now what about the rest of God’s institutional corporate peoples? Is there any place to be found for them within God’s reconciliation? Romans chapters 9 and 11, together with considerable Old Testament support, describe a complex character for God’s Old Testament peoples Israel. First, they are described as the elect "remnant" that would be participants that formed God’s royal priesthood. Second, the "rest", describe who are the elect for the fathers sake that would be numbered with the sheep. We might conclude that the "remnant" would be representative of God’s invisible dispositions, and that the "rest" would be representative of God’s visible dispositions. The important thing to remember is that all of God’s royal priesthood must possess all of God’s invisible dispositions. Yet even though they possess all of God’s invisible dispositions, they still must come through God’s visible institutions—having received God’s visible initiatory rites and participated in the use of the visible sacraments.)
21. For a complete argument that the washing in Heb. 10:22 is a reference to baptism, and fulfills Old Covenant priestly anointings, see The Priesthood of the Plebs by Peter Leithart.21.
Of course, the ultimate proof of baptism's efficacy rests in the baptism of Jesus himself. Here, we have the ultimate paradigm for understanding God's work in baptism [22].
22. Calvin argued that the "one baptism" of Eph. 4:5 referred ultimately to Jesus' own baptism and our participation in it. See Institutes 4.15.6: "Lastly, our faith receives from baptism the advantage of its sure testimony to us that we are not only engrafted into the death and life of Christ, but so united to Christ that we become sharers in all his blessings. For he dedicated and sanctified baptism in his own body [Mt. 3:13] in order that he might have it in common with us as the firmest bond of the union and fellowship which he has deigned to form in us. Hence, Paul proves that we are children of God from the fact that we put on Christ in baptism [Gal. 3:26—27]. Thus we see that the proper fulfillment of baptism is in Christ, whom also for this reason we call the proper object of baptism." This is why we are called Christians: We share in the christening (baptismal anointing) Jesus received in the Jordan.22.
(aaron— I would wholeheartedly agree with the above statement— "Of course, the ultimate proof of baptism's efficacy rests in the baptism of Jesus himself. Here, we have the ultimate paradigm for understanding God's work in baptism". But my problem with this common interpretative approach, is that I believe that they tend overlooked the most obvious—the visible. That is, these folk, because they have now glimpsed the wonders of God's invisible dispositions, have decided to completely ignored the original efficacy of visible circumcision that God established for the original formation of the Abrahamic Covenant. Now no one is arguing against the efficacy of God's invisible dispositions: Those invisible dispositions that God has set in place so as to fully accomplish His universal reconciliation are as firm as His Word itself. These are same invisible dispositions that are all born within us through His Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, we should not completely disregard God's visible dispositions simply because of the revealed presence of God's invisible dispositions, as they are always coexistent within God’s whole reconciliation.
Then as we follow their reasoning for "baptismal regeneration"—whether it be based on the baptism of Christ by John and His subsequently receiving the Holy Spirit as a dove, they are still ignoring the institutional value of the obvious—the visible.
The most obvious proof that their theory is flawed, is the historic Church itself. That is, after they supposedly prove their theory for the efficacy of baptism/ or "baptismal regeneration", they are then forced to spend considerable time and effort explaining why there might be many baptized members who do not quite measure up—who are ultimately judged as apostates who were probably never saved anyway. This theory makes Christian salvation sound very tenuous at best.)
Jesus received the Spirit in fullness at his baptism, and was declared to be the beloved Son of the Father. With appropriate qualifications, this is what God does in our baptisms as well: He pours out his Spirit upon us and declares us to be his dearly loved children [23].
(aaron— I really do like this last assessment, and I wish it were true for every one of God’s peoples. But historic reality tells us something quite different: That all are not necessarily shepherds /or priests. But if I had to venture a guess, I would say that the vast majority of baptized Christians are simple sheep who are looking for someone to guide them along the way.)
23. Standing in the background of Jesus' baptism by John in the Jordan are all the baptisms of the Old Covenant. For example, the book of Hebrews calls the various Levitical washings (e.g., cleansing after defilement from touching a corpse; cleansing from leprosy; priestly ordination; etc.) "baptisms" (9:10). Various events, such as the flood (1 Pt. 3:21), Red Sea crossing (1 Cor. 10:1—12; cf. Rom. 6:2ff), kingly anointing (1 Sam. 10:1ff), and return from exile (Ezek. 36:24ff; Isa. 44:3—4) should be interpreted in baptismal categories. If we took the time to trace these connections out, in each case we would find that the baptismal ceremonies/events had an efficacy appropriate to their place in redemptive history. For example, the flood really did cleanse the world (cf. 2 Pt. 3:5—7), and Noah is presented as a new Adam when he leaves the ark (Gen. 9:1, 7, 20).
(aaron— I do not want to be technical here, but if Noah was "presented as a new Adam" in Genesis 9, then Jesus would be called the third Adam rather than the “second”.)
The Red Sea crossing really did free Israel from the tyranny of Pharaoh. A Levitical baptism really did restore a former leper to participation in the cultic system of Israel. Aaron's ordination really granted him new standing and privileges before God and the people. Saul's anointing granted him the Spirit and kingly office, as well as making him a "new man" with a "new heart." In Ezekiel's prophecy of the new exodus, sprinkling with water is coordinated with being given a new heart. And so on. A complete biblical—theological account of baptismal efficacy would incorporate a full study of these Old Covenant rituals and occurrences and their typological significance. Unfortunately, such a study goes far beyond the scope of this paper.23.
In context, none of these passages teach baptism automatically guarantees salvation. But they do teach that God does a great work in baptism, a work that may be considered the beginnings of salvation for those God has elected to persevere to the end [24].
(aaron— I would like to be more specific with this above statement: "In context, none of these passages teach baptism automatically guarantees salvation. But they do teach that God does a great work in baptism, a work that may be considered the beginnings of salvation for those God has elected to persevere to the end".
It might read—(According to our Christian understanding), "none of these passages teach baptism automatically guarantees salvation. But they do teach that God does a great work in baptism, a work that may be considered the beginnings of salvation for those God has elected to persevere to the end".)
(aaron— The problem here as I see it, is that this Christian understanding is looking at salvation through the narrow lens that would include only God's invisible dispositions. They have mistakenly taken the special New Testament revelation and explanation of God's invisible dispositions—that culminate in this new work of God, and inappropriately tried to apply their understandings to the whole make-up of God's peoples. Their error begins with their failure to interpret these revealed truths concerning God's invisible dispositions through a close observation of God's first peoples Israel. Any achievable understanding of the complex identification of God's peoples must come first from our observation of His first peoples Israel.)
24. If we may be permitted to return to our earlier discussion of the Westminster Confession on baptism, we should note that the divines stated not all receive the same degree of grace from baptism: Baptismal grace is conditioned "according to the counsel of God's own will" (WCF 28.6). However, we must never let our course of action be governed by guesses about God's secret election; the revealed will of God in Scripture must chart our course, including how we regard our fellow baptized covenant members. Unless we have good reason to doubt the regeneration of a baptized person, we should not do so. Covenant members are "innocent until proven guilty," so to speak.24.
(aaron— This is once again referring to Baptismal Regeneration plain and simple. They assume that all Covenant members are regenerated. Or better yet, in order to be counted as a Covenant member one must be regenerated. This error is the result of not properly identifying the complex characteristics of God’s peoples.)
Some Reformed theologians will argue that the passages we have looked at are not references to water baptism at all, but to an unmediated 'spiritual' baptism that takes place apart from any outward rite or ceremony. But, in my opinion, this is special pleading. The Bible says there is one baptism (Eph. 4:5), so splitting baptism up into a physical baptism and a spiritual baptism is illegitimate [25].
(aaron— Yet John the Baptist openly discussed the two characteristics of baptism. First, his visible water baptism unto repentance for the remission of sins. Second, Jesus’ baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire. Baptism, like all of the other dispositions of God, has a complex character— having both a visible characteristic and an invisible characteristic. Additionally, Hebrews 6:2 refers to baptism in the plural—“Of the doctrine of baptisms”.)
25. Of course, I am not claiming this polemical point is the main thrust of Eph. 4:5, but it is one implication. Unfortunately, Sinclair Ferguson falls into this inner/outer (or spiritual/physical) baptism dichotomy in his book The Holy Spirit (195). The cases of Acts (e.g., 10:47) are not counter examples since they belong to a special, transitional period in redemptive history.25.
Moreover, virtually all the texts we have cited above show up in the prooftexts for the Westminster Standards as references to water baptism. While the prooftexts do not have authority, they do give us an idea of how the divines were reading these baptismal passages.
Another escape route some Reformed theologians seek to take, in their flight from sacramental efficacy, is to claim these rituals are mere pictures [26].
26. The following few pages are heavily indebted to Peter Leithart's work. One important piece can be found at
.U26./PBhttp://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/cat_sacraments.htm
In his commentary on the Westminster Shorter Catechism, G. I. Williamson writes, "The sacraments, then, are signs and seals. To understand this is to understand the sacraments' essential nature. But what is a sign? It is, in simplest terms, a picture, or symbol" [27].
27. Commentary on the Shorter Catechism 97.27.
It is standard fare in Reformed systematic and confessional theology to describe baptism as a sign. While the Scriptures nowhere explicitly call baptism a sign, circumcision is called a sign, and by covenantal transfer, this language is appropriately applied to baptism (Gen. 17:11, Col. 2:11ff).
But what is meant when baptism is called a sign? Williamson claims that baptism is a sign in the sense that it "pictures" something. In popular Reformed sacramental theology, this model is used to evacuate the sacraments of their efficacy. Nothing actually happens when someone is baptized because, after all, it is "just a picture." Presumably, God does his real work of grace apart from the sacrament of baptism. Thus, whenever the Scriptures read, "Baptism does x", we conveniently read it as, "Baptism pictures/symbolizes x." But this notion of "sign" = "picture" needs to be challenged, along with the denigration of baptismal efficacy that it entails. Baptism does not merely picture something, it accomplishes something. If God intended for baptism to be a picture, he seemed to make a poor choice of rituals. The outward rite simply does not picture what baptism is said to do [28].
(aaron— It washes!
The picture that visible water baptism demonstrates is clearly stated by John the Baptist. It was a baptism unto repentance for the remission of sins. [Mark 1:1—8] Then it is a clear representation of what Jesus propitiatory work accomplished for us all. I would also agree that it would be representative of Jesus’ own baptism: in that, we are connected to Christ through our baptismal emulation. But then this complex baptism is so much more as we try to comprehend the incomprehensibleness of the invisible baptism of the Holy Spirit. The visible circumcision of the Old Testament was the identifying Covenant mark of God’s Old Testament institutional corporate peoples. Then after Christ’s example, the visible water baptism of the New Testament is the identifying Covenant mark of God’s New Testament institutional corporate peoples. Finally, the invisible baptism with the Holy Spirit /to be born of the Holy Spirit /born from above /Born anew /born again /or being regenerated, is the only identifying characteristic for God’s royal priesthood /His holy nation /the hidden Israel of God. This visible and invisible scenario holds true throughout both the Old Testament and the New Testament dispensations.)
28. For the sake of argument, I am assuming pouring/sprinkling is the preferred mode of baptism.28.
Consider some test cases, drawn from the NT's declarations about baptism that we have already made reference to above:
In Gal. 3:27, Paul claims, "As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Baptism is an investiture ceremony. This imagery for baptism is probably drawn from the OT priestly ordination ceremony, which involved a washing with water and a clothing rite (Lev. 8). Paul sees this Old Covenant ritual transformed into New Covenant baptism [29].
29. The writer of Hebrews makes the same connection in 10:19ff.29.
But it is hard to see how putting water on someone's head "pictures" clothing with the priestly garment of Christ.
In Titus 3:5, Paul calls baptism "the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit." Baptism is the sacrament of the new birth. But it will not do to say that baptism "pictures" this new birth. I have had the joy of watching my wife give birth three times now, but never in the delivery room did I witness anything that looked remotely like a baptism. In no obvious way does baptism picture regeneration.
(aaron— I agree— "In no obvious way does baptism picture regeneration"! But it does picture regeneration /baptized in the Holy Spirit, to the extent that John the Baptist explained it by identifying the one with the other. Mat.3:11, Mk.1:8, Lu.3:16)
In Romans 6:1ff, Paul says we were united to Christ when we were baptized. Baptism is a kind of wedding ceremony, joining the one baptized to Christ in a covenantal relationship. But, again, the rite itself looks nothing like the covenant—making ceremony that it is said to be.
(aaron— We are united with Christ in the sense that we, through baptism, have participated in Christ’s own baptismal example. We follow Christ through our emulation. Then like visible Circumcision in the Old Testament, water Baptism has become the New Testament institutional initiatory rite into the Abrahamic Covenant of Grace.)
In 1 Cor. 12:13, Paul says, "by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body," namely, the body of Christ. But once again the rite itself fails to picture incorporation into Christ's body. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how any ritual could picture such incorporation.
(aaron— The incorporation here is much more. In addition to being incorporated into Christ’s body, we need first to be incorporated into God’s covenant peoples. Today’s Christian Church desperately needs an Institutional and a Covenantal understanding of God’s corporate peoples.)
In 1 Peter 3, Peter declares that God saves us through baptism. Baptism is "not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God." In other words baptism is precisely not what it looks like! It may look like the outward washing of the body, but Peter says in reality, it is the washing of the conscience before God (cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16). In fact, if God intended baptism to simply picture this cleansing of conscience, it seems drinking water, rather than having it poured on the body, might have been a better choice of rites, since it is internal cleansing that is effected.
(aaron— Visible water baptism is a visible representation of what God is doing on the inside of His peoples. We must understand that the total efficacy of all of God’s commanded rites and ceremonies is derived from the atoning work of our Lord Jesus Christ. Circumcision does not save anyone, nor does Baptism save anyone, but God saves all those He pleases through the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Our obedience to God’s commands positions us to receive the blessings that come only from God.)
I conclude from this evidence that if it is indeed legitimate to call baptism a sign, we should not think that "sign" = "picture" as Williamson claims. There may be a grain of truth in this view (i.e., the pouring of water could picture the pouring out of the Holy Spirit or the washing of forgiveness), but at most, the pictorial/symbolic function of baptism is very minimal. Indeed, this is why it is so important to keep baptism and the Word together: someone could never figure out what God is doing in baptism just by looking at the rite. The Word must accompany the sacramental action to explain what is happening.
(aaron— Once again, we are forgetting our starting point. If you truly want to understand the efficacy of visible water baptism, you must begin by trying to understand the efficacy that God established in Gen.17 for visible circumcision. Then the instructions on how we must understand the term “sign” are explained for us in Rom.4:” 9Is this blessing then pronounced upon the circumcision, or upon the Uncircumcision also? For we say, To Abraham his faith was counted for righteousness.
10How then was it counted? When he was in circumcision, or in Uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in Uncircumcision:
11and he received the [sign of Circumcision], [a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while he was in uncircumcision]; that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be in uncircumcision, that righteousness might be counted unto them; 12and the father of Circumcision to them who not only are of the Circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham which he had in uncircumcision.” The visible initiatory rite—the Covenant sign of physical circumcision is the necessary visible example of something that was previously hidden in God—the invisible seal—the circumcision of the heart. Then for the New Testament Covenant sign, Baptism must be seen as the visible initiatory rite for the New Testament institutional Covenant peoples of God. Then Baptism, like Circumcision, must also be seen as a visible sign of an invisible seal—the invisible Baptism of the Holy Spirit. The bottom line is this—Abraham was given the Covenant “[sign of Circumcision]” as a visible example of the invisible “[seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while he was in uncircumcision]”. Without the visible example—God’s “sigh” in Abraham’s flesh, it would be impossible to comprehend the invisible—God’s “seal” that was p