Postscript to this:
First of all, John Barlow writes that you ought to read. Not only is Jon insightful and pithy, but he shows that the word “fatwa” works quite well in a Presbyterian context rather than one of international Islamic terrorism. Very sad.
Also, before all the Professor’s enemies have been put under tha ban and cleansed from the land because of their defilements, you might show the temerity of reading for yourself. Rich Lusk’s podcast is a treat, but on this topic there are several great essays available online. To start, consider Baptismal Efficacy: Past, Present, and Future.
Finally, since the Prof speaks well of his colleague, Dr. Michael Horton, I think I will end this post with some linked quotations. Sadly, the linked articles or dead, but if you have access to the past issues of the magazine, it won’t be hard to track this stuff down:
In no particular order
- Among other things, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are supposed to unite us not only to Christ, but to his body. In other words, the unity of Christ’s people is at least one key fruit of these marvelous means of grace.
- Unlike the Supper instituted by Christ, this new practice [private “communion” by oneself] is private rather than public, subjective rather than objective, and does not even require the specific material elements commanded by Christ! Evidently the spiritual and moral effects are all that matter.
- Not only did the Reformers oppose Rome’s meritocracy; they fiercely opposed the opposite tendency to subjectivize the Sacraments by making them mere signs or tokens to evoke piety. For this, too, would only lead the struggling believer to look for help within himself. From the mid-sixteenth-century confessions to the Westminster Confession of 1647, the entire confessional testimony of the Reformed and Presbyterian churches defends the objective character of the Sacraments as means of grace.
- Making use of the Sacraments is not like turning on a faucet to drink water, but like being given a gift. It is not a moral quality within us that makes the Sacraments effective (as in Rome), but the objective promise, received in faith through the mighty working of the Holy Spirit. This phrase, “received in faith,” does not mean that faith makes the Sacraments effective any more than that faith itself justifies. We know that it is God who justifies us, on the basis of Christ’s righteousness and not our faith, and the same is true of the Sacraments. Sacraments remain Sacraments, just as Christ remains Christ and the Word would be true if nobody ever accepted it as such. But the reality they exhibit and confer must be embraced.
- The Scots Confession of 1560 declares, “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, and also that in the Supper rightly used, Christ Jesus is so joined with us that he becomes the very nourishment and food of our souls” (Ch. 21). “The Holy Spirit creates [faith] in our hearts by the preaching of the holy Gospel and confirms it by the use of the holy Sacraments” (Heidelberg, Q.65). The Second Helvetic Confession reminds us that what is given in the Sacraments is not merely “a bare and naked sign,” but Christ himself, with all of his saving benefits. It warns against the “sects,” who “despise the visible aspect of the sacraments,” exclusively concerned with the invisible (Ch. 19). The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England repeat their sister churches in affirming this point (Art. 25). “The sacraments become effectual means of salvation,” according to the Westminster Larger Catechism, “not by any power in themselves or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered; only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ by whom they are instituted” (Q.161).
- Moving to our day, most Reformed theologians have upheld the confessions. Princeton’s A. A. Hodge wrote, “Christ uses these sacraments, not only to represent and seal, but also actually to apply, the benefits of his redemption to believers.” Furthermore, according to Hodge, while they are not Sacraments, the church ought to retain as ordinances confirmation, absolution, marriage, and ordination.
- It is important to realize that the Calvinistic Baptists hail not from Anabaptism, but from English Puritanism. Unlike the various “sects” of the so-called Radical Reformation, the Baptists were in other respects committed to the magisterial Reformation, but separated from their Reformed churches over the issue of infant Baptism. What is odd about our day is that the more radical elements of Anabaptism, rather than even the more moderate views of the Baptists, show up occasionally in our churches. It is, therefore, astonishing that so many who go by the name “Reformed” in our day seem to deny, at least in the practical treatment of these Sacraments, the efficacy of these means of grace.
- In many conservative Reformed and Presbyterian circles, it is as if the prescribed forms for Baptism and the Supper were too high in their sacramental theology, so the minister feels compelled to counter its strong “means of grace” emphasis. In this way, the Sacraments die the death of a thousand qualifications. The same is true when we read the biblical passages referring to Baptism as “the washing of regeneration” or to the Supper as “the communion of the body and blood of Christ.” Why must we apologize for these passages and attempt to explain them away? Our confessions do not do this. Our liturgical forms (if we still use them) do not do this, but we feel compelled to diminish them these days.
- We hear quasi-gnostic sentiments even in Reformed circles these days, such as the “real baptism” that is spiritual, as opposed to “merely being sprinkled with water,” or the “real communion” with Christ in moments of private devotion. How can we truly affirm the union of earthly and heavenly realities in the Incarnation? Or how can we regard the Word of God as a means of salvation if it is but ink and paper or human speech? A subtle Docetism (the ancient gnostic heresy that denied Christ’s true humanity) lurks behind our reticence to see these common earthly elements as signs that are linked to the things they signify. Surely the Sacraments can remind us of grace, help us to appreciate grace, and exhort us to walk in grace, but do they actually give us the grace promised in the Gospel? The Reformed and Presbyterian confessions answer “yes” without hesitation: A Sacrament not only consists of the signs (water, bread and wine), but of the things signified (new birth, forgiveness, life everlasting).
- And yet, the experience of Reformed and Presbyterian churches in the odd world of American revivalism has challenged the confessional perspective. In The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant (Yale, 1940), L. B. Schenck noted, “The disproportionate reliance upon revivals as the only hope of the church…amounted to a practical subversion of Presbyterian doctrine, an overshadowing of God’s covenantal promise.” As Richard Muller has carefully shown in his Calvin Theological Journal article, “How Many Points?”, our system has been reduced to a pale reflection of its former self.
Eugene Osterhaven states, “Thus the Reformed tradition, with most of the Christian church, believes it pleases God to use earthly materials–water, bread, and wine–in the reconciliation of the world to God.”
- But does Scripture teach this? The best way to answer that is to simply read the passages, where Baptism is called “remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), and those who believe and are baptized will be saved (Mk. 16:16). Paul announced, “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). The Sacrament and faith were not separated in Paul’s mind, for apart from the latter the benefits of the former were not received although the Sacrament was performed.
- In Baptism we were buried and raised with Christ (Rom. 6:3-5). Far from viewing Baptism as a human work, Paul said “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by his grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life” (Tit. 3:5-7).
- . A. Hodge writes, “Men were exhorted to be baptized in order to wash away their sins. It is declared that men must be born of water and of the Spirit, and that baptism as well as faith is an essential condition of salvation. The effect of Baptism is declared to be purification (2 Kings 5:13, 14; Judith 12:7; Lk. 11:37-39).”
- We simply cannot say that we take a literal approach to the text while interpreting these clear passages as allegorical of a spiritual reality detached from the obvious reference to physical sacraments.
- Analogous to the relation between Christ’s human and divine natures united in one person, the earthly signs of water, bread and wine are united with the things signified: regeneration, forgiveness, and adoption. This “sacramental relation” is central to the Reformed understanding of these passages. It helps us to avoid either a ritualism that places the efficacy in the signs themselves and a spiritualism or rationalism that deprives the signs of their efficacy. So when we read that Baptism is “the remission of sins,” we embrace neither baptismal regeneration nor spiritualization. The sign is not the thing signified, but is so united by God’s Word and Spirit that the waters of Baptism can be said to be the washing of regeneration and the bread and wine can be said to be the body and blood of Christ. To say that Christ is not in the water, bread and wine is not to say that he is not in the Baptism and the Supper, since both Sacraments consist of signs and things signified.
- A Word and Sacrament orientation touches our senses, but also fastens us to the reality which they offer beyond themselves. The Word consecrates the Sacraments, not transubstantiating the substances of bread and wine into body and blood, but making these visible signs means of grace. Unlike our own clever substitutes, the Sacraments lead us beyond the signs to the Lamb. Calvin goes so far as to stress the relationship between the physical character of the elements and our own bodies, suggesting that God “testifies his benevolence and love toward us more expressly by the sacraments than he does by his word” (Institutes 4.14.6).
- The Sacraments do not give us something different from the Word; rather, both conspire to give us Christ. We have no trouble when Scripture tells us that “the Word of God is living and powerful” (Heb. 4:12), or that the Gospel is “the power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 2:16). When we say that someone was converted by hearing a sermon, we are not attributing saving efficacy to language, or ink and paper in their own right. Rather, we are claiming (whether we realize it or not) that God has graciously taken up these human things and, by uniting them to the heavenly treasures, has made them effective himself. Precisely the same is true of the Sacraments.
- A Sacrament is distinct from other important spiritual disciplines not only because it is attached to a definite divine promise, but because it is God’s activity.
- Far from opposing Christian duties, the Sacraments make them possible. In such duties (prayer, talking to others about Christ, praise, discipline), we are the speakers and actors, but in Word and Sacrament, God is the one speaking and acting. There is a place for our response in grateful praise and obedience, but we can only be thankful after we have been given something and obedient after we are grateful. As the gracious indicative makes way for the imperative in the preached Word, the sacraments give and we bring nothing of ourselves but our cry for grace.
- This two-age model (“this present age” and “the age to come”) forms the horizon of the New Testament and our own Christian experience. Jesus presents this model (Mk. 10:30; Lk. 20:34), and it is found throughout the epistles. Hebrews 6 warns lapsed believers from committing apostasy by returning to Judaism and Gentile paganism. These are people who “were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come…” (Heb. 4-5). In the ancient Church, “enlightened” was a term for the baptized, while tasting of the heavenly gift most likely refers to Holy Communion. Through these means of grace, says the biblical writer, especially “the good word of God,” the members of the visible Church have actually tasted the powers of the age to come.
- Referring to moods in the Greek, the indicative is a declaration of what God has done and of who we are in Christ as a result. It defines us. For instance, if a neighbor going on vacation were to ask, “Is Fred a good person with whom to leave my pet Iguana?”, and Fred’s friend replied, “Fred is a veterinarian,” that reply would be indicative of Fred’s reliability. Similarly, when Paul asks, “Should we continue to sin that grace may abound?”, his answer is, “Heaven forbid! How shall we who have died to sin live any longer in it.” He goes on to ask, “Do you not know that you were baptized into Christ?” In other words, it is incongruous for a person who is baptized into Christ to go on living in sin so that grace may abound. Baptism into Christ defines the believer and has given him or her an entirely new identity. It is that identity that reorients behavior…
Paul’s entire argument in Romans six rests on the fact that something has already happened. He does not say, “If you yield your body to righteousness, you will die to sin,” but rather, “For we know that our old self was crucified with him” (v.6). He does not say, “Make sure that sin does not master you,” as many believe that sin can master a so-called “carnal” Christian. Rather, he states, “For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace” (v.14)….
The objective determines the subjective, the divine announcement of what has already been done for and to the believer in Christ dictates the Christian life.
- For those of us who were raised in fundamentalist, evangelical or pentecostal sects, the experience of “rebirth” comes neither through the Word of the Gospel nor through the water of Baptism, but through a “Spirit Baptism” that is direct and immediate. The Word is primarily seen as an instrument for coaxing the individual into accepting the new birth. The new birth, especially if one judges by the testimonies of converts, is not so much the result of hearing with human ears, in human words, a declaration of things that happened in human history. In short, it is not so much the preaching of the Cross, but the preaching of “my personal relationship with Jesus,” the day when “Jesus came into my heart,” that is central. Lee again: “Whereas classical Calvinism had held that the Christian’s assurance of salvation was guaranteed only through Christ and his Church, with his means of grace, now assurance could be found only in the personal experience of having been born again. This was a radical shift, for Calvin had considered any attempt to put ‘conversion in the power of man himself’ to be gross popery.” In fact, “Rebirth in God is the exact opposite of rebirth into a new and more acceptable self, as the self-acclaimed born again Christians would see the event”
- In Baptism, we have been swept into the new creation and in the Supper we are actually fed with the body and blood of Christ as pilgrims on the way to the Promised Land, and yet, by promise already living there. How all of this actually happens, we cannot say exactly.
- The church consists not only of its officers, but of the totality of its members. It is this group of believers, priests in baptism and yet working in secular vocations, who call ministers to serve them.
“When we say that someone was converted by hearing a sermon, we are not attributing saving efficacy to language,”
Really? I would have thought that we did do that. To say otherwise wounds Barthian and neo-orthodox to me. The saving message IS something expressed in human language. It isn’t a watermark cryptographically hidden in a human message that gets to our soul.
God’s word will not return to him void. I’m suprised to hear Horton seem to deny that, unless he meant that we don’t attribute the saving erfficay to human language in the abstract (in keeping with the further example of ‘ink on paper’)
An interesting question was brought up in our sunday school class today. How come a pastor can pronounce a couple man and wife? How does a mere man get to marry people? Isn’t it God that unites? I mean what gives? The pastor can’t really do that can he?
Actually, he can’t.
He’s a legal witness to an act that the two christians enact with each other.
Even in catholic theology, matrimony is a sacrament that is performed by the bride and groom, not by the priest, though a priest has to witness it to be valid.
The priest is announcing what God and the marriage partners have just done.
Well I would not want to defend it as a sacrament, but doesn’t the pastor say “by the power invested in me?” (seemingly indicating that power has been invested in him)
Or perhaps that is civil power and I’m still way off.
I think that reference generally is to civil power.
And interestingly, Pennsylvania at least, changed things so that the minister no longer needs to state that he is performing any act on the state’s behalf, moving marriage to a more common law basis. I don’t have a cite for that, though, though I’d like to. And I’m not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
I still think the argument works because the powers are all delegated forthe sake of hearing God’s joining “from the outside.” If a minister suddenly refused to say the words, I think most couples would want another wedding.
The argument can also be made that the minister “by the power vested in me” is making a declaration, not instituting a marriage. He, by the power of his office, in this case civil but also arguably spiritual, is simply declaring to be true what God has done. He is indisputably qualified to be a witness, and therefore qualified to “witness” to the existence of the marriage — to “witness” that once the vows have been made, God has instituted a marriage.
At least, that’s how I’ve viewed it ever since it was pointed out to me that the minister doesn’t actually “marry” people at all, theologically speaking.
Pingback: Once More With Feeling » Blog Archive » Preston Graham on the sacrament of baptism