# The Efficacy of Baptism?



## Rayn (Oct 10, 2013)

1. In what sense is baptism a means of grace? By this phrase do Presbyterians mean it is an instrument by which God confers salvation (like the word)? Does it create faith (justification/regeneration) or merely sustain and strengthen it (sanctification)? I'm curious also as to the relationship between baptism as a means of grace and as a sign and seal. Some baptists I speak to have a purely memorial view of baptism but use the language "means of grace" to emphasize that for as much as the gospel is communicated through baptism, it may strengthen our faith. Presbyterians seem to have something different in mind, I'm just not quite sure what. 

2. In light of our common conviction concerning the nature of election and atonement, how can baptism function as a seal when even those who aren't elect receive it? I know that often times Reformed people will use the sacraments as a means of assurance (this seems to be what WCF 27.1 is getting at when it says that the sacraments confirm our interest in Christ), but I don't see what assurance baptism can afford us if we deny that it regenerates.

3. Related to these questions is the timing of baptism's efficacy. All NT examples, specifically the book of Acts, record repentance/faith and then baptism. Does this not disprove that baptism confers grace, especially the remission of sins, and is it not the very same point Paul makes in Romans 4 concerning the rite of circumcision?

Thanks for any help, and respond to as many or as few as you like in any fashion you like. I have been trying to understand this like crazy and have spent who knows how many hours reading first the scriptures, then the confessions, then literature recommended by the local PCA pastor, and finally other books and blogs, not least of which are R. Scott Clark's stuff. I agree with the covenantal connections but in terms of what the sacraments accomplish, I'm having a hard time.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Oct 10, 2013)

I guess my first question would be how familiar are you with covenant theology? Do you understand the principle of how God relate to his people through covenants? If you understand this principle then you should understand that children of believers (covenant member) are included in this covenant on the ground of the faith of the parents and their dedication to teach them in God's precepts. 

You have to understand that even if reformed paedobaptist believe in unconditional "election" this doesn't mean unconditional "covenant". The covenant of Grace is conditional, you need to respond to the Gospel with faith. This covenant condition can only be fulfilled by the regeneration of the spirit which is God's work alone, but this does not change the fact that the covenant is conditional. If a covenant member fails to fulfill the condition of the covenant then he will suffer the consequences.

Think about your citizenship, I was born in Canada as citizen since my parent are citizens and received my paper after my birth. To live freely as a Canadian citizen I have to fulfilled the condition of not breaking the law of the land. If I do break the law I will suffer the consequences, but it doesn't mean I'm not a citizen until I can prove that I have not broken any of the laws of the land.

So to answer you question how is the baptism a mean of grace, I would say that if you compare with the analogy of citizenship, being a citizen of a certain country give you the benefits available to this class of people. If you become a traitor to that country or break it's law these benefits will be revoked. Therefore baptism is a means of grace since it associate you with the covenant community and you have access to the benefits given to the member of this covenant. If you break it's condition your privileges will be revoked.

For your second question I would point to my explanation about "election" and "membership to the covenant of grace" are not necessarily identical.


----------



## KMK (Oct 10, 2013)

Are you looking specifically for Presbyterian answers?


----------



## sevenzedek (Oct 10, 2013)

> the sign



Do you believe the sign points to the recipient in any way; or does it only point to God's promises of the gospel?


----------



## Rayn (Oct 10, 2013)

Fogetaboutit said:


> I guess my first question would be how familiar are you with covenant theology? Do you understand the principle of how God relate to his people through covenants? If you understand this principle then you should understand that children of believers (covenant member) are included in this covenant on the ground of the faith of the parents and their dedication to teach them in God's precepts.



This isn't my intended scope here, although we may inevitably get into it. Suffice it to say I've read Robertson's "The Christ of the Covenants" and Horton "God of Promise," two different flavors of covenant theology but they'd agree on the basis of the inclusion of children in the covenant of grace.



Fogetaboutit said:


> You have to understand that even if reformed paedobaptist believe in unconditional "election" this doesn't mean unconditional "covenant". The covenant of Grace is conditional, you need to respond to the Gospel with faith. This covenant condition can only be fulfilled by the regeneration of the spirit which is God's work alone, but this does not change the fact that the covenant is conditional. If a covenant member fails to fulfill the condition of the covenant then he will suffer the consequences.



Horton argues that there is a distinction between the basis and administration of the covenant. The basis of the covenant is unconditional (and made with the elect only, it seems) but the administration of the covenant often includes Esau's and Ishmael's, and uses conditional language. I'm fairly sure he seems to have in mind at least the conditional language of many of the NT Gospel promises when he refers to the covenant's administration. Along these same lines R. Scott Clark has argued, refrencing his beloved scholastics, that the substance of the covenant is made with the elect only and is unconditional, while the external administration of that covenant is breakable and made with all external church members. From this perspective, the baptist error is that they confuse the basis and administration of the covenant in their ecclesiology. 



Fogetaboutit said:


> So to answer you question how is the baptism a mean of grace, I would say that if you compare with the analogy of citizenship, being a citizen of a certain country give you the benefits available to this class of people. If you become a traitor to that country or break it's law these benefits will be revoked. Therefore baptism is a means of grace since it associate you with the covenant community and you have access to the benefits given to the member of this covenant. If you break it's condition your privileges will be revoked.



You seem to be speaking primarily of external benefits, but I don't think that's what the Larger Catechism has in mind when it says, "The sacraments become _effectual_ means of salvation" (Q. 161) or the WCF when it says that there is a sacramental union between the sign and thing signified. Sometimes I've even seen Reformed theologians refer to baptism as the "bath of regeneration" for that matter, though of course they don't mean that regeneration is inseperably annexed to baptism. 



Fogetaboutit said:


> For your second question I would point to my explanation about "election" and "membership to the covenant of grace" are not necessarily identical.



This is true, but this simply raises the question of how can baptism actually function as a seal? If by seal we mean something similar to a king's stamp on a letter containing information of a ceasefire, a seal is supposed to authenticate that the king himself is the author, and that the message is true in the case of the recipient. If baptism is a seal then, it can only be a seal to them that believe. Again, it raises the question of how baptism can actually provide any objective means of assurance for the Christian if it only presents conditional promises, since the benefits ultimately depend, not on the promise of baptism itself, but on one's reception of it. 



KMK said:


> Are you looking specifically for Presbyterian answers?



I'm most interested in Presbyterian answers but curious also about more covenantally oriented Baptists. I've read T. Schreiner in "Believer's Baptism" dispell with making a water/spirit baptism separation when we read Romans 6, and I'm curious how that fits with the timing of conversion, seeing as the Spirit is undeniably given when in regenerated. I thought most baptist simply held that baptism was showing forth something that's already happened, although Schreiner basically says that distinction creates an exegetical train wreck for Rom. 6.

I have more to respond to other posts, but I have work shortly and I'll do so later. Grace, mercy, and peace to you!


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 10, 2013)

Rayn said:


> 1. In what sense is baptism a means of grace? By this phrase do Presbyterians mean it is an instrument by which God confers salvation (like the word)? Does it create faith (justification/regeneration) or merely sustain and strengthen it (sanctification)? I'm curious also as to the relationship between baptism as a means of grace and as a sign and seal. Some baptists I speak to have a purely memorial view of baptism but use the language "means of grace" to emphasize that for as much as the gospel is communicated through baptism, it may strengthen our faith. Presbyterians seem to have something different in mind, I'm just not quite sure what.
> 
> 2. In light of our common conviction concerning the nature of election and atonement, how can baptism function as a seal when even those who aren't elect receive it? I know that often times Reformed people will use the sacraments as a means of assurance (this seems to be what WCF 27.1 is getting at when it says that the sacraments confirm our interest in Christ), but I don't see what assurance baptism can afford us if we deny that it regenerates.
> 
> ...



If Circumcision could be blessed to its unconverted recipients, Baptism can be blessed to its unconverted recipients by the Holy Spirit and the Word of God.

E.g. Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings. (Jeremiah 4:4)


----------



## KMK (Oct 10, 2013)

Rayn said:


> I've read T. Schreiner in "Believer's Baptism" dispell with making a water/spirit baptism separation when we read Romans 6



I have not read Schreiner's book, but if this is the case, it puts him in the minority of covenantal Baptists.

Spurgeon on Rom 6:3,4



> If any person can give a consistent and instructive interpretation of the text, otherwise than by assuming believers' immersion to be Christian baptism, I should like to see them do it. I myself am quite incapable of performing such a feat, or even of imagining how it can be done. I am content to take the view that baptism signifies the burial of believers in water in the name of the Lord, and I shall so interpret the text. Baptism-A Burial


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Oct 11, 2013)

Rayn said:


> Horton argues that there is a distinction between the basis and administration of the covenant. The basis of the covenant is unconditional (and made with the elect only, it seems) but the administration of the covenant often includes Esau's and Ishmael's, and uses conditional language. I'm fairly sure he seems to have in mind at least the conditional language of many of the NT Gospel promises when he refers to the covenant's administration. Along these same lines R. Scott Clark has argued, refrencing his beloved scholastics, that the substance of the covenant is made with the elect only and is unconditional, while the external administration of that covenant is breakable and made with all external church members. From this perspective, the baptist error is that they confuse the basis and administration of the covenant in their ecclesiology.



I think it's important to differentiate which covenants (or at least which aspect of the covenant) you are talking about. The covenant of Redemption is made with the elects only (invisible church), but the earthly administration of the the covenant (covenant of Grace) includes member of the visible church which can include non-elects. Since you were speaking of the earthly physical sacrament (water baptism) I made reference to the earthly administration of the Covenant.



Rayn said:


> You seem to be speaking primarily of external benefits, but I don't think that's what the Larger Catechism has in mind when it says, "The sacraments become effectual means of salvation" (Q. 161) or the WCF when it says that there is a sacramental union between the sign and thing signified. Sometimes I've even seen Reformed theologians refer to baptism as the "bath of regeneration" for that matter, though of course they don't mean that regeneration is inseperably annexed to baptism.



Yes I made reference to the external benefits since we were discussing the external seal (water baptism). If we are to properly determine the proper recipient of the earthly seal we need to understand the difference between the external earthly administration and the internal covenant. I know these two are closely linked and I didn't mean to try to completely separate them but we need to start with the basics before trying to flesh out the details.



Rayn said:


> This is true, but this simply raises the question of how can baptism actually function as a seal? If by seal we mean something similar to a king's stamp on a letter containing information of a ceasefire, a seal is supposed to authenticate that the king himself is the author, and that the message is true in the case of the recipient. If baptism is a seal then, it can only be a seal to them that believe. Again, it raises the question of how baptism can actually provide any objective means of assurance for the Christian if it only presents conditional promises, since the benefits ultimately depend, not on the promise of baptism itself, but on one's reception of it.



Again water baptism is the seal of the external earthly covenant (visible church), spirit baptism/regeneration is the seal of the internal covenant. Yes water baptism points to the internal seal but it is not the internal seal in and out of itself. Water baptism can provide assurance when you understand that God uses means to bring his elect to salvation, one of these means is the inclusion and discipleship in the visible church.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 13, 2013)

Rayn said:


> 1. In what sense is baptism a means of grace? By this phrase do Presbyterians mean it is an instrument by which God confers salvation (like the word)? Does it create faith (justification/regeneration) or merely sustain and strengthen it (sanctification)? I'm curious also as to the relationship between baptism as a means of grace and as a sign and seal. Some baptists I speak to have a purely memorial view of baptism but use the language "means of grace" to emphasize that for as much as the gospel is communicated through baptism, it may strengthen our faith. Presbyterians seem to have something different in mind, I'm just not quite sure what.


First, we need to know what "grace" is, before we can make sense of "the means of grace." Yes, grace may be defined as "unmerited favor," however, that is far too generic a phrase to do us much good. God's giving us grace _from him_ is really nothing other than giving _himself_ to us. To have fellowship with God is _gracious,_ not only by way of condescension, but over against the _demerit_ of our sinful condition. We not only do not deserve his looking on us in love; we positively deserved wrath.

The "means of grace" are the divinely appointed means by which God _communicates_ himself to his people in love. He relates to them by sharing himself, and this is done chiefly by the Word of his grace, the promise of his favor. He communicates _intelligibly,_ that is, he accesses the minds of his people. And, because we are embodied creatures, he makes use of our *bodies* (i.e. the senses) also to _communicate_ to us. He does not only do this via the ear-gate, that is by the hearing of the Word--which is indispensable and primary, and no one would deny it. But also he communicates through the *sight* of his appointed signs, the *feel* of them (wetness, texture), the *taste* of them (bread, wine); the *smell* of them. We call the sacraments "sensible signs" because they were designed to communicate to the senses.

I'm speaking here as a Presbyterian. The sacrament of baptism has a word of promise attached to it, a gospel word; that is whoever believes in the things that baptism intimates will be saved. Faith is the instrumental cause of salvation (not the water, not the words of institution, not the church that performs the work); Christ and his saving work, which is testified to in baptism, being the object of faith, is the ultimate efficient cause. Our point is that God _actually communicates_ to his elect people in the means of grace. He speaks in the audible Word; he also speaks (wordlessly) in his appointed signs.

Over time, those signs grow in signification to those who have 1) experienced them, 2) believed in what they teach, and 3) repeatedly encounter them in the life of the church, even if as in the case of baptism that repetition is not by personal reentry; but by "improving" one's own baptism especially on the occasions of other's baptisms. We would say in like manner, those children who are non-communicants at the serving of the Table are nonetheless capable of spiritual benefit, if they by faith make use of the meal eaten by others for their own preparation to partake at a later time.

Just as children become conscionable *hearers* of the Word through long-term exposure and habituation to the discipline of preaching, so too they become trained to the rhythm and meaning of the sacramental life of the church by constant exposure to it, by observant-participation, leading to active-participation in due time. It is not simply that these children are made wholly to wait for the benefits of the meal, and they receive everything about the meal all at once, after they are admitted to the Table (and nothing beforehand). For we do not receive a *different Christ* in the sacrament than we receive in the Word: either in the reading and preaching of it, or in the Words of institution and in the explanation of the meal. It is simply that children require maturity for full engagement in these things, to which they should aspire by faith.

But to return to the infant who is baptized--is the _rite_ itself efficacious for him? We distinguish in the first place between the elect and the nonelect. The nonelect do not experience any saving efficacy of holy things, which are only accessible by faith, which faith they never have for they are never given it (the gifts and calling of God being without repentance). In the second place, we distinguish between the grace being "offered," "really exhibited," and "really conferred" to those unto whom such grace belongs (elect). It is not inconceivable that to some such persons, the time of administration is actually that time when all these things took place, even to an infant. But it is not necessary for it to be so. Holy Spirit may defer the beginnings of his effectual work, or seem to do so. The reality is that his work is entirely out of our view. But if he was in time past disposed to call some persons to faith even in the womb (e.g. John the Baptist) or upon the mother's breast (e.g. David), we are in no position to judge when, where, or how his work is begun and carried on.

On the other hand, he has appointed both the Word and the sacraments as means by which he makes himself known. In consequence, there is a duty believers have to just hold onto the promises attendant. Now baptism was never intended to function apart from the church, an integrated ordinary-means institution in which all the means work in tandem and in harmony. So there is a sense in which that beginning of the Spirit's work, symbolized by baptism, is understood to commence as soon as the little one can be taken to the house-of-instruction, where he will spend the rest of his Sabbaths being nurtured to maturity and beyond. This combination of means found there is "effectual" unto the elect's salvation.

As to the thing itself, the application of water--What can it possibly convey to such a tiny person, who has such limited capacities? I'm no child psychologist; I don't know what his limitations are. I do know this: I cannot expect that child to rationally apprehend my words spoken with regard to him that day. Then again, I also don't expect him to rationally apprehend anything his mother says to him either; but it would never occur to me to tell the mother that she was "wasting her breath" talking to the child, and expressing her love for him. SOMETHING is being communicated to the child by his mother's voice!

And more than that. She is communicating to the child in a dozen wordless ways also. She holds him tenderly. She brushes his cheek. She tucks him in. She responds to his cry. She proffers her breast. She pours out her milk. She changes his diaper. She washes his body. EVERYTHING she does is communicating love to that child. In fact, I will go so far as to say that all of those wordless means of communicating are, under the present conditions, doing a thousand times more effective communication to that child than one unintelligible (to him) word.

Likewise, when I hold a child to baptize him, I am acting as the Lord's servant (who took the same up in his own arms to bless them). The content of my words, while they should be of comfort to the parents and those present for the service, will at best be a rumbling of sound to the child himself, reminiscent of his father's voice. If the sound of my voice communicates anything of spiritual benefit to the child, it is a miracle; but not substantively different from what would happen on the occasion of an adult baptism. Because only the Spirit can make such words effectual to anyone. But again, if you ask me what medium in this baptismal event has the greatest natural power to communicate to the child, I would say it was the tactile application of the water to his skin.

I'm not terribly concerned to define what exactly the watery medium could convey to the mind of the child. I suppose, at the very least it communicates a form of _interest_ in this person, after the manner of a parent's communication. "I'm interested in you, so interested that I reached out and touched you, I caressed you with this water." Who is the "I" in this speech? Ultimately, it is God, through his ministerial servant. But again, it may be that the specific, intended communication to an elect person is deferred until later in history. And yet, the outward performance of the rite is properly given at its appropriate time. The vital thing is that the outward witness and the inward reality should be in alignment, and it is the duty of each baptized person to be concerned that it does so in his case.

I recognize that for both unbelievers (e.g. atheists) as well as some believers, the notion that God might appropriate this moment to convey some aspect of his grace, his favor, *himself* to an elect child, in an age-appropriate way, is just too much to accept. Besides, baptism is viewed by many people as chiefly being the testimony of the believer unto the world and toward God concerning the state of his own soul. Baptism is not viewed by those to the "left" (on a spectrum) of the Presbyterian/Reformed tradition according to our understanding, which is that baptism is principally a word from God toward man in general, and in particular to the one being baptized.

Baptism, in the Presbyterian/Reformed tradition is a witness--a witness to something objective, something that is true irrespective of the quality of faith in the person being baptized. It is a statement above all about Christ and his gospel. It is saying that he has been judged in the place of sinners. It is saying that he offers cleansing to sinners. Christ declares, "All who would be saved must come to me, helpless and hapless, filthy and condemned. I promise to save anyone who trusts in me alone for grace. And I will claim you, and put my name on you, as I do on this occasion."




Rayn said:


> 2. In light of our common conviction concerning the nature of election and atonement, how can baptism function as a seal when even those who aren't elect receive it? I know that often times Reformed people will use the sacraments as a means of assurance (this seems to be what WCF 27.1 is getting at when it says that the sacraments confirm our interest in Christ), but I don't see what assurance baptism can afford us if we deny that it regenerates.


What baptism are you saying "regenerates?" That's the Spirit's work, right? Baptism isn't a seal to the nonelect. That's Holy Spirit's internal work, and not something that is apprehensible to anyone other than by faith. The believer should be able to make use of the information that he is so sealed to his comfort. As to what the ungodly might do presumptively with such a declaration, they behave presumptively with all the promises of God, appropriating them without warrant, and so bringing greater condemnation on themselves. Certainly the promise of the seal in baptism says nothing unequivocally to the faithless.




Rayn said:


> 3. Related to these questions is the timing of baptism's efficacy. All NT examples, specifically the book of Acts, record repentance/faith and then baptism. Does this not disprove that baptism confers grace, especially the remission of sins, and is it not the very same point Paul makes in Romans 4 concerning the rite of circumcision?


It is not the Reformed position that the rite of baptism "effects" an internal cleansing, or "does something" like changing a person's status by marking the record of their sins or sinful state clear. It isn't that _kind_ of ritual. It is a let it be "on earth, as it is in heaven" sort of statement; but our experience of heavenly reality is simply unattainable apart from faith. Let there be faith, and the whole ultimate reality is yours even now, "on earth." 

I think you still need to distinguish between the historic occasion of a baptism, and the divine appropriation of that occasion to bear witness to his spiritual accomplishment, objectively and subjectively. The timing of a divine and efficacious work on an individual participant may anticipate the historic exhibition of that work, or it may be deferred later from the same occasion. There is a real, _sacramental_ connection between these two things (the work of the Spirit and the work of the church). And it is faith's use and interaction with the sign that brings him into blessed and beneficial connection with the thing signified. That is the moment when man experiences the favor/grace of God, or God himself in his act of self-disclosure. Man makes use of the means provided; by faith he experiences through them the blessings they were meant to communicate.

As for Rom.4, Paul is illustrating a particular point having to do with justification, and he is prioritizing faith over against ritualistic confidence. Abraham has his blessing from God even without the ritual of circumcision. Which rite he then makes use of by that same faith that justified him. Those who afterward received the same sign, indeed who were "born" to it, nevertheless had the identical duty to believe in the heavenly reality indicated by the sign just as much as their father Abraham did. Paul's actual point in Rom.4 is to make use of the relatively unique timing of Abraham's circumcision (except for adult converts), coming after his justification, to prove the point that the Gentiles too should see in Abraham a father-figure, who was not dependent on a ritual (work) for obtaining God's favor. His faith brought him into favor, not his ritual, and so may the Gentile's faith have the same effect apart from ritual.

It isn't Paul's point here to declare that no Jew who had been circumcised at the beginning of his earthly life had experienced any benefit from a sign--the purpose of which was to inculcate faith. Abraham is the father of the faithful, whether of the uncircumcision (v11) or of the circumcision (v12) who all walk according to the faith of the same father.

Reactions: Love 1 | Edifying 1


----------

