The Reformed Church has always rejected a doctrine of justification by baptism. The Reformed Church confesses that baptism seals or confirms our justification by does not effect it.

via The FV Doctrine of Justification by Baptism « Johannes Weslianus.

So begins a false accusation.

I don’t believe in justification by baptism either. And no one uses the term except the accuser. In fact, the term contradicts the entire known and criticized “FV” emphasis on speaking in the Bible’s own language. “Justification by works” (which I am not advocating here but using as an example!) has more Biblical rationale as a term of use than “justification by baptism.”

If one wants to insist that what is taught really means “justification by baptism” then the Westminster Standards also teach justification by baptism. (I don’t think they do, but that is where this reasoning leads).

Centuries ago, Francis Turrettin made the same distinctions that are now called “Federal Vision,” and he is respected as a Protestant theologian. In defending justification by faith alone he wrote:

Although the sacraments are external means and instruments applying (on the part of God) the promise of grace and justification, this does not hinder faith from being called the internal instrument and means on the part of man for receiving this benefit offered in the word and sealed by the sacraments [Institutes, 16.7.20].

The question is not whether faith alone justifies to the exclusion either of the grace of God or the righteousness of Christ or the word and sacraments (by which the blessing of justification is presented and sealed to us on the part of God), which we maintain are necessarily required here; but only to the exclusion of every other virtue and habit on our part…. For all these as they are mutually subordinated in a different class of cause, consist with each other in the highest degree [Institutes, 16.8.5].

Yes or no: Does faith alone justify to the exclusion of one’s baptism?

Another problem with the false accusation: why smudge together two different people? And why not actually look at the “joint statement” when making claims about a group of people? And why include a non-signatory even then?

Here are what I think are the relevant passages from the joint statement:

The Church
We affirm that membership in the one true Christian Church is visible and objective, and is the possession of everyone who has been baptized in the triune name and who has not been excommunicated by a lawful disciplinary action of the Church. We affirm one holy, catholic, and apostolic church, the house and family of God, outside of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. In establishing the Church, God has fulfilled His promise to Abraham and established the Regeneration of all things. God has established this Regeneration through Christ—in Him we have the renewal of life in the fulness of life in the new age of the kingdom of God.
We deny that membership in the Christian Church in history is an infallible indicator or guarantee of final salvation. Those who are faithless to their baptismal obligations incur a stricter judgment because of it.

The Sacrament of Baptism
We affirm that God formally unites a person to Christ and to His covenant people through baptism into the triune Name, and that this baptism obligates such a one to lifelong covenant loyalty to the triune God, each baptized person repenting of his sins and trusting in Christ alone for his salvation. Baptism formally engrafts a person into the Church, which means that baptism is into the Regeneration, that time when the Son of Man sits upon His glorious throne (Matt. 19:28).
We deny that baptism automatically guarantees that the baptized will share in the eschatological Church. We deny the common misunderstanding of baptismal regeneration—i.e. that an “effectual call” or rebirth is automatically wrought in the one baptized. Baptism apart from a growing and living faith is not saving, but rather damning. But we deny that trusting God’s promise through baptism elevates baptism to a human work. God gives baptism as assurance of His grace to us personally, as our names are spoken when we are baptized.

Again, nothing about  “justification by baptism.” But perhaps there is something else I’ve missed. Feel free to go fishing for more evidence. Happy hunting.

But in the meantime, there are the doctrinal standards of our denomination (PCA).  Some questions to ask: What  are “effectual means”? And what does “apply” mean? And what does “confer” mean?

Q. 91. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them.

Q. 92. What is a sacrament?
A. A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ; wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, and applied to believers.

COMMENT: Christ is applied to believers via sacraments. There is no “seals or confirms” but rather “represented, sealed, and applied.” Baptism is one of the “effectual means” for the effectually called. Notice the Confession states that the sacraments (and therefore baptism) are “means of salvation” and defines salvation as including adoption, forgiveness, justification etc.

Yet now a pastor in what is supposed to be a Westminster-affirming Christian denomination is now attacked as a false teacher because he described the way that believers are ordinarily given salvation as “forgiven, justified, adopted, etc. by means of their baptism.” What is the point of claiming to have doctrinal standards in one’s denomination if affirming their content gets you attacked by a “fellow” pastor on the internet?

Q. 167. How is baptism to be improved by us?
A. The needful but much neglected duty of improving our baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others; by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein; by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements; by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament; by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace; and by endeavoring to live by faith, to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness, as those that have therein given up their names to Christ; and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body.

COMMENT: Christians are supposed to look at baptism as the beginning of their new life and assurance that God has indeed begun it. Notice we are to view baptism as a means of conferring benefit. Again, there is no “seals or confirms” but rather “conferred and sealed.”

Of Baptism
5. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

6. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.

COMMENT: Baptism is to be viewed as, ordinarily (though not without exception), conferring grace, which is defined as regeneration, and/or salvation. For the record, I think this is way too strong if we are talking about regeneration as the absolute beginning of a justified state. The only reason I haven’t taken official exception is because the timing is not required to be simultaneous with the administration. Of course, salvation and regeneration could be defined more loosely, but the Confession and catechisms doesn’t leave room for that within the meanings it is using.

Of Baptism
1. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church…

Of the Church
2. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

COMMENT: Baptism inducts all those who are baptized, head for head, into the kingdom of God and of Christ, into God’s family, outside of which no one is ordinarily saved. This, in my opinion, is more pastorally useful than talking about regeneration and salvation being conferred by baptism but not at the time of baptism.

Q. 21. Who is the redeemer of God’s elect?
A. The only redeemer of God’s elect is the Lord Jesus Christ, who, being the eternal Son of God, became man, and so was, and continueth to be, God and man in two distinct natures, and one person, forever.

Q. 44. What doth the preface to the ten commandments teach us?
A. The preface to the ten commandments teacheth us that because God is the Lord, and our God, and redeemer, therefore we are bound to keep all his commandments.

Q. 101. What is the preface to the Ten Commandments?
A. The preface to the Ten Commandments is contained in these words, I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Wherein God manifesteth his sovereignty, as being JEHOVAH, the eternal, immutable, and almighty God; having his being in and of himself, and giving being to all his words and works: and that he is a God in covenant, as with Israel of old, so with all his people; who, as he brought them out of their bondage in Egypt, so he delivereth us from our spiritual thraldom; and that therefore we are bound to take him for our God alone, and to keep all his commandments.

COMMENT: Baptized Christians are to be taught (catechized) to regard themselves as the elect of God for whom Christ is their redeemer who has rescued them from spiritual slavery.

Finally, let’s look at Turrettin’s statement again:

Although the sacraments are external means and instruments applying (on the part of God) the promise of grace and justification, this does not hinder faith from being called the internal instrument and means on the part of man for receiving this benefit offered in the word and sealed by the sacraments [Institutes, 16.7.20].

The Westminster Standards don’t spell this out, but I notice they seem to have a similar idea in their statements. In baptism Christ is applied by the Spirit:

Q. 91. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them.

Q. 92. What is a sacrament?
A. A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ; wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, and applied to believers.

Compare this with paragraph 4 of Chapter 11, “Of Justification,” where the role of the Spirit is described:

God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.

Seems like you have the same two means, internal and external.