Paedo-Baptism Answers Baptismal Efficacy

[EmuBird]

Good morning, everyone —

I’m posting this here in the paedo answers section, as I don’t want to muddy the waters (no pun intended) with credo/paedo debate and discussion. Please move this if this isn’t the right place.

I’m already decided on my position regarding paedobaptism and have been reading more from the reformers and early confessions (Scots confession, Geneva Catechism, etc) on the subject to grow my knowledge. In my study on this, I’ve stumbled upon the subject of baptismal efficacy, which to my newly-Presbyterian ears sounds incredibly close to a Lutheran view of baptismal regeneration. The WCSC Q91 calls the sacraments “effectual means of salvation.”

Calvin’s Geneva Catechism says the following:

328. Q: Do you think that the water is only a figure to us?
A: It is such a figure that the reality is conjoined with it, for God does not promise us anything in vain. Accordingly it is certain that in Baptism the forgiveness of sins is offered to us and we receive it.

Would I be correct in interpreting this (as well as WCF Chapter XXVIII VI) as essentially saying: “Water baptism, being so closely tied with the regeneration/remission of sins/work of the Spirit that it signifies, will effectively save an elect, baptized person, though it can, and is not normatively tied to the moment in time when the sacrament is applied.”

I find this very difficult to wrap my head around. It seems that if the above statement is true, then the Reformed view really only differs from the Lutheran view in that it is effectual only for the elect and is not tied to a particular moment in time.

 

[PreDustined]

I would agree with you, though I know the reformed mostly just want to stay away from calling baptism dome kind if magic that makes you regenerate. The reformed view seems very close and I think we can mostly talk the same way as the lutheran, but as long as we put faith being the thing that connects us to the thing signified in the sacrament of holy baptism, if there is no faith then baptism foes not save or regenerate but it does for the elect.

 

[erickinho1bra]

Good morning, everyone —

I’m posting this here in the paedo answers section, as I don’t want to muddy the waters (no pun intended) with credo/paedo debate and discussion. Please move this if this isn’t the right place.

I’m already decided on my position regarding paedobaptism and have been reading more from the reformers and early confessions (Scots confession, Geneva Catechism, etc) on the subject to grow my knowledge. In my study on this, I’ve stumbled upon the subject of baptismal efficacy, which to my newly-Presbyterian ears sounds incredibly close to a Lutheran view of baptismal regeneration. The WCSC Q91 calls the sacraments “effectual means of salvation.”

Calvin’s Geneva Catechism says the following:

328. Q: Do you think that the water is only a figure to us?
A: It is such a figure that the reality is conjoined with it, for God does not promise us anything in vain. Accordingly it is certain that in Baptism the forgiveness of sins is offered to us and we receive it.

Would I be correct in interpreting this (as well as WCF Chapter XXVIII VI) as essentially saying: “Water baptism, being so closely tied with the regeneration/remission of sins/work of the Spirit that it signifies, will effectively save an elect, baptized person, though it can, and is not normatively tied to the moment in time when the sacrament is applied.”

I find this very difficult to wrap my head around. It seems that if the above statement is true, then the Reformed view really only differs from the Lutheran view in that it is effectual only for the elect and is not tied to a particular moment in time.

From what I understand, Lutherans believe:
1. Baptism saves at the moment of baptism by forgiving original sin, granting saving faith and the gift of the Holy Spirit at once
2. One must use the faith given to them at baptism to remain saved or else they can fall away from the grace of salvation

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Reformed position is:
1. Baptism is sacramentally tied to internal baptism (i.e. "washing" of regeneration of the Holy Spirit)
2. Baptism is an ordinary (read "ordained" or "prescribed") means of Grace in that the saving grace of God is actually conferred to the elect via this sacrament
3. The grace that baptism confers is not tied to the moment of the baptism (the grace may come before or after baptism)
4. Baptism is only an effectual means of salvation if it is met with faith at some point in someone's life
5. Unlike Lutherans, not all who are baptized are saved and all individuals who are saved by their baptism will never perish (though there are baptized reprobates in Hell just like there are circumcised OT apostates in Hell)

 

[jwright82]

Doctrine - Frequently Asked Questions - The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Frequently asked questions about LCMS doctrine.

www.lcms.org

Here's a good website on a confessional Lutheran church denomination (LCMS) on baptism.

 

[EmuBird]

From what I understand, Lutherans believe:
1. Baptism saves at the moment of baptism by forgiving original sin, granting saving faith and the gift of the Holy Spirit at once
2. One must use the faith given to them at baptism to remain saved or else they can fall away from the grace of salvation

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Reformed position is:
1. Baptism is sacramentally tied to internal baptism (i.e. "washing" of regeneration of the Holy Spirit)
2. Baptism is an ordinary (read "ordained" or "prescribed") means of Grace in that the saving grace of God is actually conferred to the elect via this sacrament
3. The grace that baptism confers is not tied to the moment of the baptism (the grace may come before or after baptism)
4. Baptism is only an effectual means of salvation if it is met with faith at some point in someone's life
5. Unlike Lutherans, not all who are baptized are saved and all individuals who are saved by their baptism will never perish (though there are baptized reprobates in Hell just like there are circumcised OT apostates in Hell)

This makes sense. And right, I don’t mean that the positions are exactly the same, but they are far more alike than I had previously realized. I’ll have to think through this a bit more, as the idea is very difficult for my former-Baptist mind to accept.

 

[jwright82]

Question & Answer: The Orthodox Presbyterian Church

We're the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Our purpose is simple: to bring glory to God through our churches and individual lives to make known to the world the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ

www.opc.org

Maybe this will help.

The section on Law and Gospel is a little misleading. See "The Book of Concord" for a better Lutheran view of that distinction.

 

[jwright82]

Baptismal Regeneration and Ex Opere Operato | Modern Reformation

Contemporary Reformed theologians, ministers, and congregants often misunderstand their early modern ancestors on the issue of baptismal regeneration. Such misunderstanding has come from two different sides of contemporary Reformed theology. On the one hand, there are those who claim that even...

www.modernreformation.org

Here. Done with break, back to work.

 

[erickinho1bra]

This makes sense. And right, I don’t mean that the positions are exactly the same, but they are far more alike than I had previously realized. I’ll have to think through this a bit more, as the idea is very difficult for my former-Baptist mind to accept.

Believe me, brother, I am right there with you. It took me a loooong time to accept as a hardcore MacArthurite dispensational Baptist it so feel free to shoot me over any questions so we can learn together!

 

[MW]

It seems that if the above statement is true, then the Reformed view really only differs from the Lutheran view in that it is effectual only for the elect and is not tied to a particular moment in time.

That is a massive difference. It means there is nothing in the sacrament which "effects" the thing signified. In the words of the Shorter Catechism there is no virtue in the sacrament itself. All the virtue and efficacy depends on the word of institution, the promise of blessing, the working of the Spirit, and the reception of faith. The sacrament itself does nothing but signify and seal the benefit. In the case of the elect who have come to faith the sign and the grace are joined together, and for them there is sacramental efficacy. And it is in this sense alone that we understand the New Testament to speak of baptism "saving" us.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

That is a massive difference. It means there is nothing in the sacrament which "effects" the thing signified. In the words of the Shorter Catechism there is no virtue in the sacrament itself. All the virtue and efficacy depends on the word of institution, the promise of blessing, the working of the Spirit, and the reception of faith. The sacrament itself does nothing but signify and seal the benefit. In the case of the elect who have come to faith the sign and the grace are joined together, and for them there is sacramental efficacy. And it is in this sense alone that we understand the New Testament to speak of baptism "saving" us.

Yes. Matthew echoes the view of the Sacraments found in our Confession.

The Lutheran view makes the baptism regenerative simply by the baptism itself.

The Reformed view does not make the Sacrament merely a sign, but the administration signifies the reality of the grace with the Word, and it is the work of the Spirit to grant the faith (now or in the future) that seals the benefits.

It is, therefore, not Lutheran, nor is it merely a bare sign.

 

[EmuBird]

That is a massive difference. It means there is nothing in the sacrament which "effects" the thing signified. In the words of the Shorter Catechism there is no virtue in the sacrament itself. All the virtue and efficacy depends on the word of institution, the promise of blessing, the working of the Spirit, and the reception of faith. The sacrament itself does nothing but signify and seal the benefit. In the case of the elect who have come to faith the sign and the grace are joined together, and for them there is sacramental efficacy. And it is in this sense alone that we understand the New Testament to speak of baptism "saving" us.

Thank you for this — I think I understand. This makes more sense to me, as I fail to see how any “higher” a view of the sacrament is not baptismal regeneration/baptismal regeneration lite.