# Galatians 3:27 - credobaptist proof text?



## DaveJes1979 (Oct 12, 2006)

"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ"

A credobaptist pointed out this verse as a prooftext for the baptism of professing believers only. Being a paedobaptist, I hadn't ever considered that particular verse as a pro-credo text before.

How would you guys respond to that? I think the implication of my credo friend is that baptism presumes union with Christ (putting Christ on) which is by faith. So faith must have been present. 

But if someone has been baptized, and not "put on Christ" by faith, then how do you explain the "as many of you as were..." language? I'm not sure how to answer that.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 12, 2006)

It's the typical error of conflating the sign of baptism with the thing signified.

I've been very critical of Reformed Baptists because their arguments always end up along these lines:

1. Only the elect are in the New Covenant
2. Therefore we only baptize the Elect

They don't like this over-simplification but they'll write tomes establishing the perfection of the New Covenant and that there is no possible way that any but the Elect would be in the New Covenant as some sort of argument for credo-baptism.

The further premises of their formula must be:

3. We know we only baptize the elect because they make a profession.

Again, an over-simplification but I honestly cannot, for the life of me, figure out how they assume that their presumption that only the Elect are the New Covenant leads to any conclusions about who to baptize - AT ALL.

Press your friend. Agree with his conclusion and ask him: "So everyone in your Church is Elect then because they were baptized?"

In fact, their standard of New Covenant membership can lead them to only one logical conclusion: _They have no earthly idea who they are in Covenant with!_

Why?

1. Only the Elect are in the New Covenant.
2. Only God knows who the elect are.

Ergo, they go to Church with a ton of people but cannot ascertain who they are in Covenant with. They cannot ascertain who is a part of the Body.

Frankly, for all the intelligence of many of these men who teach this, the fact that they miss these simple absurdities baffles me.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 12, 2006)

If you are united to Christ (which is the meaning of the term "baptized into Christ--just as baptism into Moses meant union or identification with Moses; union is a major signification of baptism) then you have indeed "put on Christ."

But it is ridiculous to assert that a false professor who is adult baptized (by whatever mode) has actually "put on Christ," right?

So, Paul's statement isn't saying anything directly about who should be baptized at all, only that if you have truly been baptized, union with Christ is depicted. When the Spirit works regeneration, that which baptism signifies is actually effected. Not everyone who is baptized is (or will be) regenerated.


----------



## DaveJes1979 (Oct 12, 2006)

SemperFideles-

Thanks much for the response. But in this particular case, my "friend" (see the "Dating Reformed Baptist..." thread) is just trying to figure this out from the Bible the best she can. I'm not going to pounce on her as I would an RB who should know better. 

The thing is that I don't know how effective it is to bring in too many extraneous categories here (since this text doesn't deal directly with "the New Covenant", etc.). To put it another way: I need to show her from this passage that "baptism" here is referring to "the thing signified" and not the sign. I'm not sure there is decisive evidence here.

I think your arguments are sound - but I'm saying that it doesn't answer the specific text that she wants to see. 

And the logic here is, I admit, plausible - Paul says that the same set of people who have been "baptized" have also "put on Christ" (union w/ Christ, which previous verses tell us is "by faith").

So this "prooftext" is really trying to show the relation between the baptismal rite and the active faith of an individual, not trying to hash out premises #2 and #3.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 12, 2006)

Understood. In the case of doctrines, however, you can point out that one cannot simply form a doctrine of baptism and the Covenant from a single verse. It's not as if we must form the entire principle of Covenant signification and true union from Gal 3:27. the fact that other verses speak of people falling away who were "...never of us..." and repeated passages that demonstrate that people may be in the visible Covenant though not have true union with Christ, militate against a wooden reading of this text.

Bruce, as usual because he's much smarter than I, answered well. The phrase used is "baptised into Christ". The rite of baptism, while signifying the union with Christ, is not the union. It is a sign and a seal of the thing signified. The minister performing the baptism declares or announces the promise of God and applies the sign to the individual but the baptism itself is not the union. The sign points to the union and cannot be separated from the spiritual reality but it is still not the spiritual reality itself.

Read WCF and Heidelberg on Baptism. I go back to those very often. This is a very useful thing to keep straight in your head because, as Dr. R. Scott Clark has pointed out, the Federal Vision folks make a similar error of conflating the sign with the thing signified. He refers to them as crypto-Baptists. Both groups make the similar error of conflating the sign and the thing signified.


----------



## MW (Oct 12, 2006)

In chapter 4 of the same book we have the son of the freewoman being regarded as a citizen of heaven from birth.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> In chapter 4 of the same book we have the son of the freewoman being regarded as a citizen of heaven from birth.


A perfect example. Isaac had true union with Christ and received the sign (circumcision) that pointed to that union and sealed the promise to him.

Esau received the sign that pointed to union but never believed because he never had true union with Christ.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Oct 15, 2006)

> 1. Only the elect are in the New Covenant
> 2. Therefore we only baptize the Elect
> 3. We know we only baptize the elect because they make a profession.




Rich,

Once again you’ve worded by simple clarity the crux of the issue and given me a fresh look at it. 

First, how does this, then, differ from Roman Catholicism? Seriously, I’m not being polemical, I just don’t know how else to word the question. My science background always has me looking more at the “principle” at hand rather than the taxonomy given it. This is similar to what I read an ex-Jew now Christian theologian saying (can’t recall his name right now). In simple essence he stated that the same mistake made by Rome is made by the Credo Baptist. Namely that a one to one relationship is made with baptism and its recipient. Rome thinks of the 1:1 in that those baptized by her methods are 100% and, theoretically at least, the credo thinks of the 1:1 in that those baptized by her methods are 100% (at least in theory). The method for Rome is the simple ex opera operato and the method of the Credo is variants of quizzing the professing candidate. 

Ironically, this one to one relationship imports baptism in both camps back to rely upon the church itself as infallible, over and above Scripture, in its basis rather than the promise of God instrumentally given through the means of the fallible earthly church.



> 1. Only the Elect are in the New Covenant.
> 2. Only God knows who the elect are.



I agree with this completely but this is the frustrating point when it’s discussed, it’s like a blanket covers up this idea when it is pressed. Scripture is clear in that God alone knows who the elect are, yet according the credistic paradigms we are to “detect” them by secondary means, I suppose perfectly, so as to baptize perfectly. Yet, when we fail to baptize perfectly, Simon Magnus, we must conclude that we’ve been commanded to do a thing that we have absolutely no means to fulfill. One either then must “ratchet down” on detecting by secondary causes who can be baptized to reduce “rebaptisms”, ala more reformed Baptists; or one must submit to rebaptizing every time the wind blows, ala the less reformed Baptists. Either way baptism becomes a meaningless mockery and charade as it looses its basis in the Word of God, God’s Word or if you will that Word Generated and Originated in God.

Here in lies one of the key differences as to why baptism is infinitely valuable versus a view that actually demeans it though it seeks to raise it, given only to professors:

If baptism is only given to a “worthy” recipient, 100% having faith and so professed, it looses its infinite value. Why? Because it is only given to that which can “purchase” it, that is has faith. But if baptism is given to those unworthy, with or without faith at the time of receiving, then it is infinitely valuable. Why so? Because it goes out on its own infinite value rooted in God’s promise regardless of the hypocrisy of the receiver to take hold of it. This is what Paul alluded to concerning the same of circumcision, it’s not as if the Word of God failed. It is not as if the promise is not real when given specifically to you in Baptism, God does not lie. But if one rejects it, one is the fool of fools.

One may retort, “then why not give it to all adults whether or not they profess”? But this question reveals circular reasoning and presupposes the definition of ‘believers only’ in the first place. It presupposes the very problem in order to ask the question and is a hidden form of rationalism (man trying to rationalize the worthiness of the receiver rather than giving as God has said to give). This is why Calvin referred all such questioning back to circumcision, in essence, “you rationalizing, ask God why He said so”. If one denies “believing adults only’ in the first place the question can never arise. The answer is simple, God instructed give it to adults coming in and their children, who are we to fix how God gives His gifts?

And the thought behind the adult in ANY Baptist church being baptized, if honestly pressed and honestly answered having truly examined one’s heart is the same, ‘I’m worthy to receive this baptism because I have expressed faith, some how. Some how I qualify even if I thank God that He did it and I’m not like those who have not done so’. No? Then compare the thoughts of your heart in thinking about your own baptism to that of an infant who received a baptism. We often do not see that when we deny that an infant has indeed been baptized by God through His church and by the imperfect hands of a pastor that we are in fact persecuting them. We do not see that due to this doctrine we are in fact laughing at their faith just like Ishmael. We do not see that when an infant grows to adulthood and having been baptized, and during their adult life they have always trusted in Christ for their sins and their baptism given them as Gospel before they were able to express this, that when we require of them some new invented mode and rebaptism that this is persecuting, laughing at their very real faith and casting dispersion upon the promise of God delivered in baptism and received by the recipient. 

At the end of the day it is not a small issue at all. No one protestant considers Rome’s view on baptism lightly, and neither should they credo baptism. Because it is the difference between affirming the Gospel and deny it. And that is NOT to be polemical about it for sometimes the Gospel stings greatly upon us it always does.

Ldh


----------



## Philip A (Oct 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by DaveJes1979_
> To put it another way: I need to show her from this passage that "baptism" here is referring to "the thing signified" and not the sign. I'm not sure there is decisive evidence here.



Howdy Dave!

You might be able to show her by analogy with another passage - take her to the place where Paul says the same thing about circumcision, in Romans 2:28-29:

_...nor is circumcision outward and physical... circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the spirit, not the letter..._

Paul says that circumcision is not outward and physical... Oh really? It clearly _was_ outward and physical, and _not_ a matter of the heart, by the spirit, for most of the Pharisees. The only way that this passage can be understood without contradicting other parts of scripture is if he is talking about the thing signified, _not_ the sign.


----------



## Herald (Oct 22, 2006)

SemperFideles said:


> It's the typical error of conflating the sign of baptism with the thing signified.
> 
> I've been very critical of Reformed Baptists because their arguments always end up along these lines:
> 
> ...



Rich, as a credo I have never disputed that only God knows who the elect are. In fact, paedo's don't know who the elect are either. We can assume or be pretty sure, but in the end only God knows. For me the issue is one of eclessiology. Does baptism replace circumcision as a covenant sign, and if it does does it continue into the New Covenant (btw, I do not buy into the "refreshed" covenant. New means new.). So while I am a credo, I do understand where the real debate rests.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 22, 2006)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Rich, as a credo I have never disputed that only God knows who the elect are. In fact, paedo's don't know who the elect are either. We can assume or be pretty sure, but in the end only God knows. For me the issue is one of eclessiology. Does baptism replace circumcision as a covenant sign, and if it does does it continue into the New Covenant (btw, I do not buy into the "refreshed" covenant. New means new.). So while I am a credo, I do understand where the real debate rests.



Bill,

I'm heartened that you don't use the argument. As I pointed out when I used to engage in lenghty debates here, _that_ can be the only valid argument for the practice.

I'm merely pointing out that the typical argument on the credo side does rest on the "perfection" of the New Covenant. I'm friends with Dr. White and, years ago when I was relatively new to my Covenantal understanding, I wondered to him how he rejected the historical Reformed position on the subject. He made this same argument. Greg Welty makes this argument as well.

My point is that it is an elaborate discussion on the perfection of the New Covenant and I believe paedobaptists make a mistake when they try and defeat the credo-baptists point-by-point on their understanding of portions of Jeremiah and Hebrews. While they are certainly in need of correction on those points, it really obfuscastes the absurdity of the conclusion drawn in the matter and this is where paedobaptists ought to focus their critique.

Again, I'm glad that you don't make such arguments but the "friend", in this case, is echoing the sentiment. In the past, when I used to critique the vocal credo-baptists on this issue they would dispute that their argument rested on the whole "perfection of the New Covenant" issue when they gristled at my simplified "We only baptize the Elect" label for their view. If it is not at the crux of the matter for credo-baptists then why do they keep bringing that issue to the fore in the discussions? If the conclusion drawn is folly then maybe they ought to abandon that portion of their argument.


----------



## gravertom (Oct 22, 2006)

Larry Hughes said:


> At the end of the day it is not a small issue at all. No one protestant considers Rome’s view on baptism lightly, and neither should they credo baptism. Because it is the difference between affirming the Gospel and deny it. And that is NOT to be polemical about it for sometimes the Gospel stings greatly upon us it always does.
> 
> Ldh



Larry, could you clarify what you mean here?

Do you mean to say that credo baptists have another gospel?
Do you equate the gospel and baptism as one and the same thing?

If so, it would seem you might be mistaking the sign for the thing signified as well.


1Co 1:17 - 
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 


It seems to me that this text would imply that baptism is distinct from the gospel, and not as important as the gospel. Also, I don't recall any anathemas in the NT for those who do not correctly administer baptism.

If I am misunderstanding something here, please let me know.

Thanks!

Tom


----------



## ServantOfKing (Oct 23, 2006)

I have been struggling with this passage for a couple weeks now and actually came on the board today to ask for help with it! Verse 29 confuses me more than verse 27 though. In verse 27 when we see the "thing signified" as being baptized into Christ and clothing ourselves with Christ, we always have to look back to grace and realize that our salvation is not us or what we do, but all the work of Jesus. But thinking about baptism and, in this passage, who the descendants of Abraham are, it says "And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to the promise." I can most definitely see how a credobaptist might use this to say that the biological lines don't matter anymore but that it is faith in Christ which matters. And then I can see their argument for credobaptism. Help? Please?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 23, 2006)

ServantOfKing said:


> I have been struggling with this passage for a couple weeks now and actually came on the board today to ask for help with it! Verse 29 confuses me more than verse 27 though. In verse 27 when we see the "thing signified" as being baptized into Christ and clothing ourselves with Christ, we always have to look back to grace and realize that our salvation is not us or what we do, but all the work of Jesus. But thinking about baptism and, in this passage, who the descendants of Abraham are, it says "And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to the promise." I can most definitely see how a credobaptist might use this to say that the biological lines don't matter anymore but that it is faith in Christ which matters. And then I can see their argument for credobaptism. Help? Please?


Ashley,

The problem arises from understanding the meaning of this passage when it is taken as a Scriptural snippet apart from the rest of the long argument in Galatians that Paul is making beginning in Chapter 1. It is a common practice for those who wish to establish a credo-baptist view to rip certain texts out of context and make them say something that Paul never intended them to say. You may wish to read my critique of Greg Welty who does just this: http://www.solideogloria.com/L./a_c..._of_galatians_in_from_circumcision_to_baptism. In fact, I've even seen John Piper take a snippet such as "circumcision is nothing" to establish that our children have not special place.

First, let's deal with what Paul is actually establishing in Galatians. Some Pharisee believers have influenced many in the Galatian Church that the Gentile believers are not truly part of the Covenant until they become circumcised and take on the requirements of the Law, including all its provisions. They even claim that Paul once taught this but has "softened" his message as of late to gain approval by Gentiles.

You can understand how early Gentile believers might have envied the Jewish believers. Gosh, Calvary Chapel folks still do and modern Jews are completely apostate. All the Apostles were Jews and to the Gentile believer there must have been this sense of amazement at this ancient and rich culture that has been entrusted with the Word of God for all this time. Add to this the fact that it took a while for the Jewish believers to understand that the unclean ones, the "dogs", have now been included among God's people. Look how hard it was for Peter to understand. There is obvious tension and separation and was even the impetus for the creation of the diaconate (and those were Hellenist Jews at least).

Anyway, you have this whole "Gosh I wish I was a Jew" combining with "You've got to be a Jew" thing going on. Paul even notes that Peter stumbles into this and Paul rebukes him to his face for it. When I taught through this passage some months ago I became very emotional at this part of Galatians when I reflected upon what Peter, a leader in the Church, had "preached" by his actions when he removed himself from the Gentiles. I had trouble containing my emotions while I was teaching my students because it was very heart-wrenching thinking of what he was saying about the Gospel of Christ in that separation. One wonders how much more emboldened some Judaizers might have become had Paul not rebuked him. Gosh, I just LOVE Paul! He's such a man!

Anyway, Paul throughout Galatians is demonstrating that this who Judaizing thing is a *heresy*. It is a false Gospel. Galatians 1-5 literally adds point upon point upon devastating point. He leaves the Judaizing position bleeding all over the floor and then stomps on it some more. You need to see Galatians 3 as a continuation of that theme.

When Paul reaches Galatians 3 he has already devastated the Judaizing argument but he's in the middle of killing it some more. At the beginning of the Chapter he notes that a promise was made to Abraham and that he received grace through faith and not by the keeping of the Law. This promise was everlasting and could not be annulled by the Law or God would have broken His word. He notes that the Law was added for a season and act as a tutor or schoolmaster to cause God's people to long for the Messiah. It was like a prison that should have caused them to long for deliverance. They were in a minority status waiting for their majority to be found when Messiah would come.

Christ came then and, in addition to delivering those who awaited him, came to fulfill the promise made to Abraham as the Seed. All who have faith in Christ would be sons of Abraham as they trusted in the Seed in ths same way Christ did. The Law was an interlude.

Verses 26-29 just conclude the idea that has come before it: all who trust in Christ are Abraham's seed: Jews, Greeks, males, and females. The Judaizers are thinking that the blessing is in the keeping of the Law. They're saying: "Believe in this prison house..." They are not looking at the Abrahamic Promise but at Sinai - the portion that Paul says was added upon the Abrahamic Covenant, not to replace it, but to prepare Jews for its fulfillment.

If you can get this idea in your bloodstream then it really helps you to remove the confusion that so many dispensationalists have when they see the words "circumcised" or "flesh" or "Law" used in Galatians, Romans, and elsewhere. Paul is always condemning a self-righteous "I am justified by keeping the Law" Jew who has completely missed the whole point of God's redemptive plan. Paul has no problem with the physical act of circumcision per se _except_ when a Jew starts using it as an emblem of saying "you now have to keep the Law to be accepted before God." Those people have completely missed Christ.

My fingers are getting tired. I'll just close with a few other observations about what Paul never implies in this language.

Many see in this an idea that family solidarity in the Covenant has been abolished. Instead, again, of seeing in these passages a polemic against bad Covenenant theology (justification through law keeping) they misinterpret passages about "the flesh" as saying that God no longer includes families in His Covenant promise. Nothing of that sort is ever implied. In fact, language of family inclusion is reiterated in many places in the New Testament but they are re-interpreted in a torturous fashion by people who have pre-determined that God saves us one-by-one now like so many random blueberries in the huge pancake of humanity.

Show me a passage where Paul is saying that "there is not benefit in circumcision" or talking about "the flesh" or some other thing and it is clear, in all cases, that he is not saying that our kids have no part of the Church.


----------



## Puddleglum (Oct 24, 2006)

Rich - thanks, that makes sense.


----------



## Wannabee (Oct 27, 2006)

These are some interesting thoughts. However, it seems that this is being made way too confusing. As a credo, I would never use this verse to substantiate anything in regard to baptism as a sign. It simply doesn't fit.

What Paul is referring to here is the reality that baptism signifies. To be baptized into Christ is to be clothed in Christ. Verse 26 makes it clear that all who are being referred to here are actually saved through faith. This makes it impossible for verse 27 to refer to physical baptism, be it infant or believer. The believer is immersed in Christ, taking on a new identity in the body of Christ. He is clothed with Christ. Romans 6:3-5 helps sort this out as well.
The following verses bear this out. It doesn't matter what your background is. It doesn't matter what your ethnic, social or economic status is. It doesn't matter if you know the whole of Scripture and can recite every single verse from memory. It doesn't matter if you were baptized as an infant, an adult, or both. You are not saved outside of faith. You are not saved unless you have been baptized into Christ, shedding the old man and putting on the new. You must be baptized into Christ and clothed in Him to be saved.
V 28, all of those who are baptized in Christ, clothed in Him, are one in Christ Jesus.
V 29, This is what it is to be of Abraham's seed in truth, heirs according to the promise.

For either side to use this text is pressing their theology into the equasion and not allowing the text to speak for itself.


----------



## gravertom (Oct 28, 2006)

SemperFideles said:


> Many see in this an idea that family solidarity in the Covenant has been abolished. Instead, again, of seeing in these passages a polemic against bad Covenenant theology (justification through law keeping) they misinterpret passages about "the flesh" as saying that God no longer includes families in His Covenant promise. Nothing of that sort is ever implied. In fact, language of family inclusion is reiterated in many places in the New Testament but they are re-interpreted in a torturous fashion by people who have pre-determined that God saves us one-by-one now like so many random blueberries in the huge pancake of humanity.
> 
> Show me a passage where Paul is saying that "there is not benefit in circumcision" or talking about "the flesh" or some other thing and it is clear, in all cases, that he is not saying that our kids have no part of the Church.



What do you mean by family solidarity? It doesn't mean all the children of all believers will be saved, does it? How are people saved, other than as individuals?

Abraham did not see all of his children saved. Lest one object that Ishmael was not Sarah's child, isn't the argument from the NT that even one believing parent justifies calling the children Holy? 

Isaac saw division in his family, Eli did not see his off spring saved in "family solidarity" either, nor did David.

The NT Family does not seem to be better off.

Matthew 10:34-37 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 

Matthew 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. 



As far as individuality goes...

John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 

Ac 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 

Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; 

Does Family Solidarity mean that God usually saves clusters of blueberries, but sometimes some of the clusters have a berry or two fall off? The cluster is still made up of individual berries. 

Wasn't the chief benefit to the Jew that they had the oracles of God? The special access to the word of God is important, because "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word".

I don't believe that Credo baptists say that Children have no place in the church. Do the children of baptists sit in church, receiving no benefit from the word preached? To say that someone does not have every part is not the same as saying they have no part. Unless one advocates paedocommunion, baptized children who are not yet communicants do not fully participate either.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 28, 2006)

gravertom said:


> What do you mean by family solidarity? It doesn't mean all the children of all believers will be saved, does it? How are people saved, other than as individuals?
> 
> Abraham did not see all of his children saved. Lest one object that Ishmael was not Sarah's child, isn't the argument from the NT that even one believing parent justifies calling the children Holy?
> 
> ...



Strange that you ask me to qualify and then you tell me what I mean by what I did not say.

Are you interested in what I mean by family solidarity or do you just mean to pontificate?


----------



## gravertom (Oct 29, 2006)

Yes, I would like to understand what you mean by family solidarity.

Sorry if I came across as pontificating.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Oct 29, 2006)

Tom,

No problem at all.



> Do you mean to say that credo baptists have another gospel?”



Not in their preaching but in the sign, yes. That we already know is possible concerning circumcision and of course Rome’s use of baptism.



> Do you equate the gospel and baptism as one and the same thing?





> If so, it would seem you might be mistaking the sign for the thing signified as well.



No, in fact I’m holding it up as distinct sign/thing signified. Baptism does communicate the Gospel by the Words attending it, that’s why under trial from the devil the Christian can appeal to it, not because in and of itself it is something but to what it promises. And trusting in Christ alone to which it points and finds its basis IS truly saving faith. Paul and Peter both appeal to baptism in such a fashion numerous times. In short baptism was never to be made an instrument to cause doubt in Christ but to strengthen faith in Christ (this goes all the way back to circumcision as well) when and especially under duress and trial from the world, flesh and the devil. That’s the point of a sacrament pointing to Christ. However, if it doesn’t point to Christ and to secondary causes then it is at best profane and hence nothing. 

If the sign is changed from the thing signified then the two are confused and/or divorced by some means. Rome makes baptism in and of its self efficacious, like taking a bath but without the Gospel. Credistic paradigm’s effect is the same because baptism becomes redefined upon another basis namely faith itself (a secondary effect of the Gospel, faith comes by hearing…) or worse a tertiary effect (fruits of faith). The point being is that in both cases when “looking” at baptism that is not pointing to Christ’s Cross, the Gospel, it is a profane view of the sacrament. If it doesn’t point to Christ immediately by the Word then it is nothing to the one looking at it.

If you examine the psychological effect of Rome’s and Credistic baptism paradigm’s upon the believer you will find its effects very similar. Baptism becomes a thing “they do” rather than a thing “God does” through His authority and command upon the church. When this happens this particular sacrament becomes effectively nothing to them, it is lowered to nothing. Then, over time, groups develop “other means of grace” or as Rome called them “indulgences” all designed to cool the troubled conscience of the believer. Over time and generations the logical extension of these man made inventions, rather than the mandated command of God, grow more and more elusive in their ability to help the troubled conscience of the believer. Like a projectile only a degree off at the beginning after about 5 miles it’s entirely eschew of target. Thus, it is of no surprise what-so-ever that alter calls and other protestant indulgences arise in out growths from this theology.

A man is given Christ by the Word of Gospel and the Sacraments, God has not promised it elsewhere. Only there can the poor troubled conscience find peace all else is shifting sand. If its nothing more than a bath, then when one is troubled in conscience, rightly or falsely, by the devil he has no where to turn but to Rome’s machinations of grace. Similarly, in credistic churches, depending upon their level of other ‘reformed’ doctrine or lack thereof, arise protestant indulgences such as alter calls and rededications, rebaptisms, wrestling with God in prayer until one feels grace. Lost is the pointing of the heavy burdened soul to Christ. One may answer, but we do give the Gospel Word afresh to them. But Satan is not so foolish as to stop there. He will ask poor soul, “Yes, the Gospel is true but how do you know it is for you given you have no evidence to behold?” See troubled soul will NEVER see evidence even if it stares him in the face, for he knows the Law of God is perfect and holy and nothing he does ever meets it. This the devil draws as a sword against him and says, “see you have none”. And if the devil can make him/her doubt that the Gospel is “FOR THEM”, not that it is false, but just not for them, then he wins. Because the Gospel is not the Gospel unless it is for you, its just Good News to another but not to you. Normally baptism, if pointing to Christ and God’s promise, would serve as the Sword of Spirit here and slay the devil. As Luther said, “Yes but I have been baptized”. Baptism answers the ‘how do I know it, the Gospel, is for me’, and thus strengthens faith in Christ and cheers the soul to move on. But if the devil can stop this by redefining it, then he can throw the deadly dart of, “how do you know it is for you, it sure looks like God has abandoned you you struggle so much”. Thus, if baptism is taught to rest in the existence of faith itself, pointing to faith, the instrument and not the Gospel OR if baptism is taught to rest or point to or affirm tertiary at best evidences and “other signs” such as fruits - when fruits fail or one cannot see them without the taint of sin that attends them all or when faith itself is assailed, that kind of view of baptism is a utterly useless as Rome’s and really nothing more than the same thing as a bath. If baptism points to secondary evidences then it is useless because the question relating to saving faith and assurance can always arise, “how do you know it is for you?” And after looking at one’s fruit, “how do you know it is pure enough, numerically enough, all is sin tainted, how do you know…” 

Baptism like the Supper and the Word are only strong weapons against Satan if they remain objectively established. That is in the name and Word of God. And if they are objectively established by God in His name and Word, then they very well cannot be false even if the worse hypocrite takes them. But if they are based upon the man himself, then they are nothing at all. The credistic paradigm thinks it puts baptism higher by awaiting for faith or evidence of faith or profession of faith in order to establish its validity and reality. But in truth this infinitely diminishes it. It is NEVER higher than establishment and validity and reality upon the naked name and Word of God regardless of who receives it. 

If the King puts his cloak on a pig like me, it’s still the royal cloak of the King and of great value covering me the pig. But if I must be something first then wear a cloak, then it is truly nothing. Baptism is to put on Christ, if someone throws it off later it’s their hypocrisy and their condemnation is worse. And to put on another cloak (rebaptism) based upon something within me, secondary/tertiary evidences, when the King gave His cloak, His name, before hand even while I was a hypocrite to it, is to mock the cloak even further by the second cloak.

Baptism is still a sign and seal from God based upon His name and not upon some work “in me”. To make it a sign and seal on evidences is to not make it the biblical sign and seal. A sign communicates, it is not an empty sign or a deceptive sign, Calvin points this out.

Blessings,

Ldh


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 29, 2006)

gravertom said:


> Yes, I would like to understand what you mean by family solidarity.
> 
> Sorry if I came across as pontificating.



I was severely tired and jet-lagged. My apologies for snapping last night. It doesn't excuse it.

I mean by family solidarity that God's promise is to "...you and your children...." We place the Covenant sign on our children because God promises to save all those who put their trust in Him. Will all children of believer's trust in Christ? No but neither do adult professors who are baptized into the Church.

As Larry indicated, baptism has more to do with God's promise and less to do with our agreement with that promise. As indicated earlier in the thread, there is a tendency to conflate and confuse the sign (baptism) with the thing signified (union with Christ). The two cannot be separated but they need to be distinguished. God promises in the sign of baptism, by way of ministerial announcement, to save. As surely as you see the water purifying the flesh, so surely has God promised to save all those who trust in Him.

The sacrament also joins the member to the visible Church and the visible Covenant. This is where I use the term family solidarity. The big question is this: Does God merely save a parent and then wait to allow a chld membership in the Body life of the Church until he proves himself worthy of true inclusion or is that child a member as a result of the Covenant headship of the parent? I believe the latter. Children are accounted to and no apart from the parents. This does not necessarily mean they are saved but that they are reckoned to and the responsibility of the parent. It is a quite foreign idea to the Scriptures that the children stand apart from the parents in any matters.

You note that Baptists bring their children to Church. Yes they do because, naturally, they cannot leave them at home to fend for themselves. Quite inconsistent to their theology they even train those that, by their nature (according to their understanding) should be hostile to the things of God. They pray with them, make them sit under the preaching of the Word, etc. All of this, however, is done with the unspoken assumption that the children have no _real_ part of the visible body until they include themselves by way of profession.

In contrast, God promises and demonstrates that He is God to both us and our children. Children are not brought into the body life of the Church so that we might pretend to treat them like members but wait on their faith to make them members. Rather, they are nurtured and fed within the Church as babes in the faith. They are members because we are members of the Covenant just as Noah's entire family was brought through the Flood.

We also are not sinfully permitted to base our decisions of Covenant inclusion upon the hidden decree of God. "Well, perhaps my child is not Elect and I should wait until I know...." When, precisely will that be? The hidden things will always belong to the Lord. We baptize on the command that God is the God of our children. We labor according to the Word of God concerning training our children in the things of the Lord. We pray and teach as God's ordained means. We treat our children as if they are believers not presuming upon the election of God but based on the command of God. The whole of Proverbs as instructions from a father to a young son become quite meaningless when we lose the idea that our children are immature members of the Covenant that need to be instructed in the Way of Truth.

Thus, family solidarity is recognizing that my children are given to me by God to raise in the fear and admonition of the Lord. They are not just any children but children born to the household of faith. They were not born to John and Cathy Buddhist or Rick and Tracy Atheist. The children of unbelievers are not in the same status and state of tremendous blessing that my children, by the Grace of God, have been given through no work of their own. They will be prayed for, catechized, preached to, and enjoined in a way that the child of an unbeliever does not receive. They are my inheritance, my very great reward. They are not merely people that are littler than I that I have no stock in spiritually but they are _my charge_ to raise in the fear and the admonition of the Lord.

I have much more I could say but I have to run...


----------



## gravertom (Oct 29, 2006)

Thanks Larry and Rich. Those posts were truly helpful to me.

I came to this board because of some controversies I have been struggling with lately. I have been forced to look into these issues again, and have found my understanding of them to be shallower than they should be.

Also, I can get into ruts thinking about the implications of ideas, and imputing to certain statements more than was meant. I apologize for doing that.

Thanks to both of you for your patient and kind spirit!

Tom


----------

