In sum, confessionalists are content with the Shorter Catechism’s description of the Christian life when it answers the question, “What does God require of us that we may escape his wrath and curse due to us for sin?”

A. To escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin, God requires of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, with the diligent use of all the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption.

That is not all that fancy or elaborate a way of putting the Christian life but it has enough work for even the best of Christians. To trust Jesus daily and believe God’s promise that Christ is for me and that God is not faking it in the gospel, to repent daily of sin, and to attend weekly to the means of grace and order my affairs so that my attention is focused on the day of rest – that is a pretty full plate. Why pietists want to pile on is a mystery. It seems down right glutinous.

via Old Life Theological Society » Blog Archive » Having His Confession and Feeling It Too.

[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.

Imagine a child is looking at a wrapped gift sitting under a Christmas tree. It is from an uncle to whom the child is hostile. He looks at the gift suspiciously, and then announces he will not open it. It either holds nothing or else holds something worthless. It certainly couldn’t contain anything that would compensate for being in the uncle’s debt.

So what should a parent say to convince the child to open the present.

• “Oh, if only you will believe, you will receive wonderful grace!”?
• You’ve misjudged your uncle. He loves you. He is quite capable of giving you more than you can ask or think!”

The second option does not even mention words like “trust” or “faith” or “believe” and yet both options call for faith and the first one does so quite lamely.

If you want someone to trust God, then extoll God’s trustworthiness, not the alleged power of faith. “God is faithful,” Paul wrote the Corinthians (First 1.9).

The reason Paul had to speak of faith was because some were denying that all believers were equal in their status before God. Something more than being a believer is required, they said.

Outside of that sort of context, extolling faith can become utterly superstitious (c.f Trinity Broadcasting Network).

Giving the impression that one makes the sacraments efficacious by believing or imagining may be as superstitious than the errors such impressions are designed to prevent. Here’s a better way:

I know it is a common belief that forgiveness, which at our first regeneration we receive by baptism alone, is after baptism procured by means of penitence and the keys (see chap. 19 sec. 17). But those who entertain this fiction err from not considering that the power of the keys, of which they speak, so depends on baptism, that it ought not on any account to be separated from it. The sinner receives forgiveness by the ministry of the Church; in other words, not without the preaching of the gospel. And of what nature is this preaching? That we are washed from our sins by the blood of Christ. And what is the sign and evidence of that washing if it be not baptism? We see, then, that that forgiveness has reference to baptism. This error had its origin in the fictitious sacrament of penance, on which I have already touched. What remains will be said at the proper place. There is no wonder if men who, from the grossness of their minds, are excessively attached to external things, have here also betrayed the defect,óif not contented with the pure institution of God, they have introduced new helps devised by themselves, as if baptism were not itself a sacrament of penance. But if repentance is recommended during the whole of life, the power of baptism ought to have the same extent. Wherefore, there can be no doubt that all the godly may, during the whole course of their lives, whenever they are vexed by a consciousness of their sins, recall the remembrance of their baptism, that they may thereby assure themselves of that sole and perpetual ablution which we have in the blood of Christ (John Calvin, Institutes, IV, 15, 4).Nineteenth Question: The Efficacy of Baptism
Does baptism… take away past and present sins only and leave future sins to repentances? Or does it extend itself to sins committed not only before but also after baptism? The former we deny; the latter we affirm against the Romanists.…

II… [T]he Romansists teach… “The virtue of baptism does not reach to future sins, but the sacrament of penitence is necessary for their expiation.” Thus, the Council of Trent expresses it: “If anyone shall say that all the sins which are committed after baptism are either dismissed or made venial by the recollection of faith of the received baptism alone, let him be anathema (session 7, Canon 10, Schroeder, p. 54)….

XII. …However, we maintain that by baptism is sealed to us the remission not only of past and present, but also of future sins; still so that penitence (not a sacramental work and what they invent, but that which is commanded in the gospel) and especially saving faith is not excluded, but is coordinated with baptism as a divinely constituted means of our salvation (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 3).

I was asked this yesterday at Presbytery in casual conversation and realized I have no idea. I know the Nicene Creed (“one baptism for the remission of sins”) is appealing to Ephesians 4 with Acts 2 and Peter’s call for repentance in the first sermon of the Church. But I have never researched if there is any contemporary evidence for some agreed upon theory about the hows and whys and whens of baptism and the remission of sins. I simply have no information about what the average Christian at the time of Nicea believed about baptism and forgiveness and all things related.

I do know that during the Reformation there was a debate about the forgiveness of sins and baptism between the Protestants and the Roman Catholics. Since it is commonly believed the Lutherans and the Reformed disagreed with each other about this issue, I’ll limit my remarks to what was held as being the difference with the Roman Catholics on the part of the Reformed.

John Calvin explained it this way:

I know it is a common belief that forgiveness, which at our first regeneration we receive by baptism alone, is after baptism procured by means of penitence and the keys. But those who entertain this fiction err from not considering that the power of the keys, of which they speak, so depends on baptism, that it ought not on any account to be separated from it. The sinner receives forgiveness by the ministry of the Church; in other words, not without the preaching of the gospel. And of what nature is this preaching? That we are washed from our sins by the blood of Christ. And what is the sign and evidence of that washing if it be not baptism? We see, then, that forgiveness has reference to baptism. This error had its origin in the fictitious sacrament of penance, on which I have already touched. What remains will be said at the proper place. There is no wonder if men who, from the grossness of their minds, are excessively attached to external things, have here also betrayed the defect, not contented with the pure institution of God, they have introduced new helps devised by themselves, as if baptism were not itself a sacrament of penance. But if repentance is recommended during the whole of life, the power of baptism ought to have the same extent. Wherefore, there can be no doubt that all the godly may, during the whole course of their lives, whenever they are vexed by a consciousness of their sins, recall the remembrance of their baptism, that they may thereby assure themselves of that sole and perpetual ablution which we have in the blood of Christ (John Calvin, Institutes, IV, 15, 4; emphasis added).

The Council of Trent actively assaulted the Reformed on this very point. The condemning sentence reads:

If anyone says that by the sole remembrance and the faith of the baptism received, all sins committed after baptism are either remitted or made venial, let him be anathema.

Of course, many times in Trent one finds only a charicature of Reformed Doctrine being condemned. But in this case, the Reformed identified this cursing as a cursing of true doctrine. This basic position was still considered orthodox and Reformed as late as the time of Francis Turretin:

Does baptism… take away past and present sins only and leave future sins to repentances? Or does it extend itself to sins committed not only before but also after baptism? The former we deny; the latter we affirm against the Romanists.… II… [T]he Romansists teach… “The virtue of baptism does not reach to future sins, but the sacrament of penitence is necessary for their expiation.” Thus, the Council of Trent expresses it: “If anyone shall say that all the sins which are committed after baptism are either dismissed or made venial by the recollection of faith of the received baptism alone, let him be anathema (session 7, Canon 10, Schroeder, p. 54)….

XII. …However, we maintain that by baptism is sealed to us the remission not only of past and present, but also of future sins; still so that penitence (not a sacramental work and what they invent, but that which is commanded in the gospel) and especially saving faith is not excluded, but is coordinated with baptism as a divinely constituted means of our salvation (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 3).

So the difference between the Reformed and the Romanist seems to be that the Roman Catholics limited baptism’s efficacy more than the Reformed thought was right. Also, the Reformed saw no conflict between faith and baptism whereas the Romanists seemed to divide these things so that faith became understood as insufficient for salvation.

Now the reason why God authorized men to use a rite of this nature, involving immersion or washing or sprinkling with water and received at the hands of the official ministers of religion, as the means of obtaining the washing away of their sins and hence also as the regular mode of initiation to the service of God, is to be found in his purpose to confirm and stimulate to greater vigor in them by this procedure the first and foremost principle of our salvation, namely, faith in the remission of sins, that is, in our unmerited justification. For God himself formed us in such a way that whenever we are seriously promising or conferring invisible realities our natural inclination is to do so by means of signs perceptible to the senses. The same procedure can be observed among all peoples in important transactions of every kind, for it is in this manner that treaties are concluded, kings installed, marriages contracted, and sales executed.

Consequently, as far as this use of symbols is concerned, God deals with us in terms of our own practice, as he is accustomed to do in other respects as well. And since the whole of the covenant he has made with us and our entire salvation (which is his primary consideration in all his dealings with us) have their beginning and basis in our persuasion that he pardons our sins, in his wisdom he has willed to confirm and stimulate our faith in this pardon principally by his own symbol, and particularly at the time when men consecrate themselves to his service in a special way. For on that occasion they reflect more closely on their own unworthiness and his goodness, and as a result more fully forsake self and dedicate themselves to him for a life of complete holiness and a true readiness to serve the needs of all men.

His purpose, however, to present the remission of sins through the agency of public ministers of religion was not determined solely by the fact that it is appropriate for physical symbols to be conferred at the hands of men. It was also his aim by this means to knit his own more closely together and to each other, and to bind them more securely to submission to religious instruction and admonition in the congregation. This should result from their realizing that the men from whom they received the counsels of salvation and to whom they must cleave as fellow members in the same body are able to shut or to open heaven to them, and to retain or to remit their sins. The Church of God, of course, has always possessed this power, and God has never failed to make use of its exercise for the salvation of his own whenever the Church has languished in spirit and the light of knowledge.

It should now be clear from what we have said why God has required his Church in every age to use baptism and in this manner to introduce men to his service.

Source: Martin Bucer, “Baptism,” Martin Bucer, Courtenay Reformation Classics IV, pp. 287, 288.

I recently saw a textbook that attempted to explain John’s baptism in terms of what “water” represented. This won’t work. John didn’t baptize with “water” in general; he baptized with the water of the Jordan.

The Jordan River was the official Eastern boundary of the Promised Land. Even though the Israelites were permitted to take territory on the east side, the Jordan River was understood to mark the east side of the official promise to Abraham. Joshuah led the people of Israel into the Promised Land through a miraculous crossing in which the waters piled up so that they walked on dry ground. At that point they also resumed circumcision, which they had not practiced for a generation.

So coming out to the wilderness and being baptized by John was significant. Among other things, it helps explains why John is identified with Elijah. As I wrote many years ago:

we are explicitly told that John the Baptist is not literally Elijah (John 1:21), but that he fulfills the prophecy that Elijah will precede the Messiah (Mal 4:4-6; Matt 11:14; 17:10-13; Mark 9:11-13; Luke 1:17). But why Elijah and not some other prophet? Why is Elijah singled out as John’s primary prototype? Vos gives some account for this, saying that Elijah is tied to repentance, but this, in my opinion, does not go far enough. Something makes Elijah unique among prophets to be the type of John the Baptist and to foreshadow his role in preparing the way for Jesus.John the Baptist as the Final Moses

Let’s start with some seemingly random observations about John the Baptist. Notice that John confronts a king (Matt 14:3; Mark 6:17; Luke 3:19) and stays in the region of the Jordan (Matt 3:5; Luke 3:3) in the wilderness (Mark 1:4) across from the Promised Land (John 1:28; 10:40).

Now a few of these details do remind us of Elijah. He too confronted an evil king (1 Kin 17:1; 21:17-19) and spent a lot of time outside of Israel proper (1 Kin 17:3, 9). But he also did more. He called down plagues on the Land (1 Kin 17:1), called down fire on his sacrifice (1 Kin 18:38), was fed by angels in the wilderness (1 Kin 19:4-7), and met God at Mt. Sinai (1 Kin 19:8-14).

I don’t think it is too hard for people who know their Bibles at all to begin thinking about Moses when they notice these things. Moses confronted Pharaoh and called down plagues on Egypt. Also, he’s the first person in the Bible to call down fire from Heaven onto an altar (Lev 9:24).

So far, this has been pretty sparse, but I do think that Elijah stands out among Old Testament prophets as a new Moses. No one else I know of was met by God at Mt. Sinai. It is a unique marker in the Bible. Incidentally, both Moses and Elijah end their careers by ascending-Moses up a mountain to die and Elijah in a fiery chariot. In both cases, this happened across the Jordan from Jericho (Deut 34:1; 2 Kin 2:4-8).

There is more to the connection between Moses and Elijah and John, however, when we consider their successors.

Jesus the Greater Joshua

Elisha accompanied Elijah when he crossed the Jordan from Jericho (2 Kin 2:4-8; 15). When he ascended into Heaven, Elisha was granted a “double portion” of his spirit (2 Kin 2:9-11). Elisha then walked through the Jordan on dry ground (2 Kin 2:14)

Centuries earlier Joshua walked through the Jordan on dry ground, leading the Israelites into the promised land to conquer Jericho (Josh 3:14-17; 6). Just as Elisha was Elijah’s successor, Joshua was Moses’ successor. Furthermore, before Moses had ascended to his death, he laid his hands on Joshua so that he “was filled with the spirit of wisdom” (Deut 34:9; Num 27:18-23). Moses also prophetically gave Joshua his new name, which had originally been Hoshea (Num 13:16).

The similarities between Elisha and Joshua also show interesting redemptive-historical contrasts. Elisha, too, marched through parted waters to Jericho. But he miraculously healed the water there so it was fit to drink (2 Kin 2:19-22).

Now in the Gospels, Jesus goes to the Jordan to be baptized by John, and there the Spirit comes upon Him visibly (Matt 3:13-17). Like Moses and Elijah before him, John says that he must become lesser as Jesus becomes greater (John 3:26-30). Just as Joshua entered the Promised Land, leaving Moses behind, and just as Elisha re-entered the Promised Land with a double-portion of the Spirit, so Jesus as the true successor to Moses and all the prophets begins His ministry after being baptized by John (see Matt 11:7-15). Jesus is the true Joshua, going into Israel conquering and to conquer–though here we see an even greater transition from wrath to grace since Jesus conquests were over demons and disease by His word and Spirit, not over people by fire and sword as was done by the first Joshua.

Baptism as ReEntry

The association between John and Moses, Jesus and Joshua will help us understand the meaning of John’s baptism. The Israelites originally entered the land by a baptism in the Jordan and into Joshua (Josh 3:14-17; compare 1 Cor 10:2 & note Josh 5:1-12). The significance of John’s choice of the Jordan River as a place to baptize should not be minimized. It was not a convenient place from which to reach people. The journey to the Jordan-border of the Holy Land must have had some sort of meaning. Why else was John a desert dweller?

People coming to be baptized by John in the Jordan were re-entering Israel. Confessing that they had failed as covenant-keepers, they were getting a second chance before the Day of the Lord.

Once we understand the implications of being baptized in the Jordan, we can extrapolate for Christian baptism that does, indeed, use water in general without reference to a particular river. Once we see the implications of John’s baptism we see that Christian baptism is a boundary marker. It delineates that a person has been officially transferred into the Kingdom of Christ. Inside the Church, we find new life and salvation and reconciliation. For outside the visible Church, there is ordinarily no possibility of salvation. Excommunication, for example, is treated as a handing of a person back to the accuser–Satan–in the hopes that he might repent and return. As Paul writes to the Corinthians:

For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

Outside the Church is the domain of darkness but inside the Church is the Kingdom of light under Christ. Since God has established an actual society to be the new city of  God, it only makes sense that he has established a means for officially ushering those who seek refuge in him across the border from the world to the church.