Another Westmonster Obsession post on baptism (with additional note)

[Note, I’ve noticed I swing from one definition of “regeneration” to another. This was a mistake in communication but I’ll leave it as is. If “regeneration” means the initial gift of true faith, I regard that as given normally to elect covenant children long before they are born. Baptism is “rebirth” into a new society–the visible church, the house and family of God. Those who aren’t elected to eternal life to never believe in a saving way and thus are never regenerated by the Spirit in that sense. If you search other things I’ve written you might find where I’ve explained this issue. I’ll do so again or repost some material, maybe.]

Being a PCA minister, I teach the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession and Larger and Shorter Catechism and in the Book of Church Order.

So I teach that, ordinarily God confers the forgiveness of sins and all other blessing of the New Covenant in baptism, because in baptism Christ is applied to the believing recipient.

I’ve written elsewhere on why infants count as professing believers in the Church and why we have every reason to expect our children are regenerate and thus correct recipients of baptism. I’ll perhaps rehash that again in another post.

But again, God normally forgives sins and grants new life in baptism. Baptism is a sign. When Jesus spoke to the paralytic the sign he used was his own spoken word. But God doesn’t speak from heaven. Rather, the words of love and fatherhood God spoke at Jesus’ baptism are interpretive of the act so that its meaning is known. Each person baptized is performatively declared to be God’s son, reconciled to the Father, with the forgiveness of sins which that relationship requires. See Galatians 3.23-4.7 and many other passages such as the response to Peter’s first recorded sermon:

Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Of course there are cases in which the unbaptized are still forgiven! If a man has genuine faith, and providential death occurs before  his  baptism, he is still going to heaven. The thief on the cross would be one example. Elect infants dying in infancy would be another.

We don’t do theology by exceptions.  Normally, God forgives sins and grants new life in baptism. And in affirming this point am also affirming that the abnormal sometimes happens–that baptism is not always necessary for forgiveness.

Any literate person with a working knowledge of the Westminster Standards (which would be someone “ordinarily” outside the PCA, I am sometimes tempted to think) would immediately recognize the principle that I have articulated.

From the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 28, paragraph 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.

Why is this statement put in the Westminster Standards? Obviously because ordinarily or normally one is saved and regenerated through baptism as God’s public act: As paragraph 6 affirms:

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.

After all, Baptism is the sacrament of initiation. And what do sacraments do? According to Shorter Catechism question #92:

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.

And of course, all of this fits into what the Westminster documents say about the institutional church. In chapter 25, paragraph 2 we read:

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.

“Ordinary” here should remind you of the word, “Normally” I used above. For, according to Chapter 28, baptism is the means by which one formally enters the institutional Church. It is “for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church.” And, if outside the church there is “no ordinary possibility of salvation,” then we can deduce that there is also “no ordinary possibility of the forgiveness of sins.” Within that institution, however:

Unto this catholic visible church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and doth, by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.

I think it is interesting that there is no question in either Westminster Catechism on how effectual calling is to be improved by us. But we do have the following question and answer.

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.

I think Baptists and other non-Reformed Evangelicals might object that this “sounds” too Roman Catholic.” Well, so does my teaching on the Trinity. So do Lutheran theologians on baptism. Are they Roman Catholic? Believing in God is Roman Catholic and atheists still go to Hell for disagreeing with that dogma. The bottom line is that the Reformed Faith disagrees with Roman Catholicism where it is wrong and agrees with it where it is right. The fact that some statement “sounds” Roman Catholic to a non-Reformed Evangelical, or to any that falsely presume to call themselves Reformed, means nothing.

4 thoughts on “Another Westmonster Obsession post on baptism (with additional note)

  1. Andrew Voelkel

    Mark,
    Could you advise the ways in which the FV view of Baptism is similar and/or different from the view set forth by Richard Pratt in his article “Baptism as a Sacrament of the Covenant”.
    (article available online at http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Baptism/Covenant-Paedobaptism/)

    Here are some excerpts:

    Unlike Baptists and Anabaptists who tend to speak of baptism only as an “ordinance” or a “memorial,” Calvinists have characteristically spoken of baptism not only as an ordinance but also as a sacrament or a mystery, a rite through which God applies grace.

    Although the Reformed vocabulary of “sacrament” was adopted from Roman Catholicism, the basis for recognizing sacraments as means of grace was inferred from Scripture. With specific regard to baptism, it is worth noting that the New Testament never describes baptism as something ordinary or natural; it never speaks of baptism as a mere symbol. The language of “sacrament” was sustained by Reformed churches precisely because the New Testament ties baptism so closely to the bestowal of divine grace.

    …New Testament passages at least seem to indicate that baptism is much more than a symbol. In the language of the Bible, spiritual realities such as rebirth, renewal, forgiveness, salvation, and union with Christ are intimately associated with the rite of baptism….

    Reformed theology concurs with Scripture that there is more than meets the eye in the rite of baptism. Spiritual realities occur in conjunction with baptism, but the Scriptures do not explain in detail how baptism and divine grace are connected. So, Reformed theology speaks of the connection as a “sacramental (i.e. mysterious) union.” It is in this sense that Reformed theology rightly calls baptism a sacrament.

    On the other hand, Reformed theology understands the connection between baptism and grace in ways that distinguish it from those who identify divine grace too closely with the rite. In contrast with Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and a variety of Protestant churches which speak of baptismal regeneration or of the necessity of baptism for salvation, Reformed theology separates baptism from the bestowal of divine grace in certain respects. …

    the Westminster Confession of Faith 28.5 makes three denials that distinguish the Reformed view from those that too closely identify baptism and salvation: … First, baptism and “grace and salvation” are not utterly inseparable. Second, it is possible for a person to be regenerated or saved without baptism. Third, not everyone who is baptized is certainly regenerated. Nevertheless, these denials are followed immediately by an affirmation of the “efficacy of Baptism,” but in terms of divine mystery…

    In the Reformed view, baptism is efficacious; divine grace is “really…conferred, by the Holy Ghost” through baptism. Even so, the Confession declares that this bestowal is mysterious because it is ordered entirely by the freely determined eternal counsel of God. Grace is conferred “according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.” The bestowal of salvation to those who have received the rite of baptism remains hidden in the mysteries of the divine counsel.

    To sum up, Reformed theology holds that baptism is a sacrament and not a mere symbol. At the same time, it distinguishes itself from traditions which too closely associate the rite and divine grace.

    Reply
  2. mark Post author

    I’ve heard Pratt before on this matter and he is excellent. I would ask him, if I had the chance, if we could add another layer to the mystery by considering what John Murray called “covenantal common grace.” “Grace” is used univocally throughout the quotations as “special grace.” I think that can cause confusion and lead in a hyper-calvinistic direction.

    (Of course, trying to include other distinctions can also be confusing so I may understand why he decided to leave things where he did.)

    Reply
  3. Andrew Voelkel

    I suspect that Pratt would affirm that covenantal layer of the mystery. In a discussion on the work of the Holy Spirit, The Third Millenium Ministries Curriculum (associated with Pratt) does introduce a concept called “Covenant Grace”, saying:

    We’ll talk about the Holy Spirit’s administration of three types of grace: common grace, covenant grace, and saving grace. …

    Common grace is the forbearance that God shows and the benefits that he gives to all humanity, regardless of their faith. …

    In many places in Scripture, we can see a second type of grace administered by the Holy Spirit that is sometimes called covenant grace.
    Covenant grace consists of the forbearance and benefits that God gives to everyone that is part of his covenant people, even if they are not true believers. In the Old Testament, Israel was God’s covenant people because the whole nation was under God’s special covenants with Abraham, Moses and David. In the New Testament, God’s covenant people are the visible church which consists of people associated with the church even if they are not true believers. God’s covenant grace is even more abundant and forbearing than his common grace. …

    …everyone that is part of the church is regularly presented with the gospel and the opportunity to repent and be saved. And they share in those blessings that God grants to the church as a whole. In fact, unbelievers in the church even benefit from the spiritual gifts of the church, as we learn in Hebrews chapter 6 verses 4 through 6. This is why Hebrews chapter 10 verse 29 says that unbelievers in the church insult the Spirit of grace through their unfaithfulness….

    Reply
  4. mark Post author

    That’s good! I do think it is helpful to point out that “common” means potentially common to both elect and reprobate. It doesn’t always mean common to everyone. Hawaii and baptism are common grace, but not for everyone.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *