I’ve recently re-discovered an awesome theological resource, The Westminster Shorter Catechism Project. It is excellent, not least because it demonstrates the healthy diversity that has always been allowable in the Reformed Tradition until recently.
For example, consider the sources attached to Question and Answer #94:
Q: What is baptism?
A: Baptism is a sacrament, wherein the washing with water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Chist, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord’s.
Among the links we have Matthew Henry and James Fisher.
Both these men address the relationship between Baptism and Church membership. And they totally disagree with one another. According to Fisher:
Q. 36. Does baptism make or constitute persons church members?
A. No; they are supposed to be church-members before they are baptised, and if they are children of professing parents, they are born members of the visible church, 1 Cor. 7:14.
Q. 37. Why must they be church-members before they are baptised?
A. Because the seals of the covenant can never be applied to any, but such as are supposed to be in the covenant; nor can the privileges of the church be confirmed to any that are without the church.
Q. Why then do our Confession, and Larger Catechism, say that “the parties baptised are solemnly admitted into the visible church?”
A. Because there is a vast difference between making a person a church-member, who was none before; and the solemnity of the admission of one, who is already a member. All that our Confession and Catechism affirm, is, that, by baptism, we are SOLEMNLY admitted into the visible church; that is, by baptism we are publicly declared to be church-members before, and thus have our membership solemnly sealed to us: “For by one Spirit we are all baptised into one body,” 1 Cor. 12:13.
Now here is Matthew Henry:
Q. Is baptism a door of admission into the visible church?
A. Yes: There were added to the church daily, Acts 2:47.
Q. Are we thereby entered into Christ’s school?
A. Yes: Jesus made and baptized disciples, John 4:1.
Q. And listed under his banner?
A. Yes: as good soldiers of Jesus Christ, 2 Tim. 2:3
For myself, I think Henry clearly has the better argument. For one thing, First Corinthians 12.13 seems to me to support his position and contradict Fisher, even though Fisher appeals to it. His appeal appears to my mind more like a dogmatic piece of special pleading. And on his use of First Corinthians 7.14, see below.
I think more thought needs to go into the source of the discrepancy between these two men, because I think both the Bible and the Reformation Tradition have pointed to relations between God and an individual before they were initiated into his covenant.
In the Reformation Tradition we baptize both professing believers and their children. In the case of infants, I think Fisher presently is the majority opinion: it is now commonly insisted that this is done because the children are already in covenant with God. Baptism is a sign and seal of a previously existing reality.
Despite the popularity of this idea, I don’t think it can possibly be upheld as the Reformed position by any careful historical scrutiny, as Henry demonstrates. It certainly does not comport with the Westminster Standards which insist that grace is “conferred,” not confirmed, by baptism.
However, instead of engaging in a historical investigation, however profitable that might be, I will briefly argue that the Biblical teaching on circumcision and it’s similarity to baptism as covenant initiation demand a different understanding.
Just finished reading the whole thing. Thanks for this. It’s really helpful.