Baptismal Efficacy continued…

Thanks for your input, disagreements, and words of caution concerning my previous post.  It definitely keeps me more level headed and not be quick to jump on the band wagon of the next book I read.  I understand that some of these things are controversial, and certainly would not teach them as though they were true to Scripture.  This blog is where I explore these topics and wrestle with tradition.  And every blogger needs good friends to keep him on the straight and narrow.  Thank you for that friendship.  

With that said, I want to go back to my original question of whether Lusk’s view of baptism is consistent with the reformed tradition.  Assuming that WCF XXVIII:1,6 is an accurate reflection of Scripture’s teaching, listen to what it says:

Westminster Confession of Faith XXVIII

I.  Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. (The larger catechism includes adoption and resurrection unto life in the list).

VI. 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 belongs unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time.

Looking at WCF XXVIII:1, ingrafting, regeneration, adoption, remission are directly tied to baptism.  And XXVIII:6, speaking about efficacy, says that the grace is really conferred by the Spirit.  There is no mention of faith here.  That’s not to say that the confession denies the necessity of faith for salvation or Christ alone.  After all, it is Jesus the resurrected king, who by the Spirit makes this ordinance efficacious.  And who is to say that infants don’t have faith?  Since saving faith is a work of the Holy Spirit in the heart, could the Spirit not confer it early on?  What came first, regeneration or faith?  I’m not planning on a trip back to Rome, but just wondering whether the reformed church has moved away from its grand tradition out of a fear of Rome.  In Catholic teaching, there is certainly the danger of exalting the sacraments to where it becomes idolatrous.  But the opposite extreme is also to be avoided.  And that is, the relegating of the sacraments to mere signs that they are devoid of any spiritual benefit.  Both are to be rejected, and I think the Confession does just that.

Baptismal Efficacy

Question: How do you know yourself to be a son of God in fact as well as in name?

Answer:  Because I am baptized in the name of God the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. (Calvin’s Strasbourg catechism)

  

Rich Lusk provides fascinating insight into John Williamson Nevin’s assessment of baptismal efficacy.  I would be interested to hear what you think about it.  Here is what he says:

“According to Nevin, children of Christian parents were not conceived or born as Christians in the full sense; rather they were made Christians at the font… Prior to baptism, the children of believers were entitled to all the rights and privileges of the covenant promise, but those blessings did not actually become their true possession until baptism.  Grace was bestowed not naturally, through conception by regenerate parents, but supernaturally and sacramentally, through the new birth of baptism.”

 

Wow.  Does that sound consistent with our Reformed Tradition or too close to Rome?  What do you think?

Paedobaptism: An Analogy

In his book, The Baptized Body, Peter Leithart makes an interesting analogy between baptizing infants and talking to infants.  The point he makes is that parents establish relationships with their children through symbols.  They speak to them, hug and kiss them.  In the same respect, God establishes relationships with our children through the symbol of baptism.  If the analogy is accurate, then the objection that infants should not to be baptized because they do not understand the symbol does not hold.  In other words, as Leithart says, “[Even Baptists] speak to their children, that is, they employ symbols, not because they think the infant understands all that is being said or because they expect an immediate response.  They speak to their child so the child will learn to understand and talk back.  So too, we baptize infants and consistently remind them of their baptism and its implications so they will come to understanding and mature faith.”

Calvinism

In Sunday school, we are studying reformed theology, specifically the five points of Calvinism represented by the acronym TULIP.  My conversion to Calvinism began the summer before my junior year of college and was complete by the end of the following summer, with limited atonement being the last and most difficult pill to swallow; that was six years ago.  Now as I’m teaching my class about Calvinism and defending its five points, I find some of the things coming out of my mouth not sitting well with me anymore.  Maybe I swallowed the pills too quickly.  Let me make an aside.  I am still a five point Calvinist.  As a philosophical and theological system, it’s basically right.  However, on a more biblical and historical level, some nuance is required.  Here’s what I mean.  The problem I have is with how we understand covenant and election.  Who does the Bible include under the label “elect”?  Traditionally, the elect are those unconditionally chosen by God, for whom Christ died, to whom life is given by the Spirit, and whom God will preserve to the end.  Calvinism is a theological system that is rigid and makes a lot of sense.  My contention, though, is that the Bible is less rigid and more historical when it speaks concerning “the elect”.  That is, the church is the elect; this entity which exists in time and space, made up of baptized people.  This historical community is what the Bible calls the body of Christ, for whom Christ died, who received a measure of grace from the Spirit, and ultimately made up of some who will not persevere to the end.  This, I believe, is a more biblical view of the church.  Rather than ignoring the covenant community for the sake of “the elect”, it defines the elect in terms of the covenant.  This is just a brief summary of my thinking.  A lot more could be said.  I will try to post other relevant materials in the future.

The Baptized Body

I have begun reading Peter Leithart’s newest book, “The Baptized Body“.  In this book, Leithart deals specifically with the issue of baptismal efficacy, a topic which he touched upon briefly in “Against Christianity“.  The question at the center of the book is, what does baptism do, if anything?  I hope to dedicate a few blog spots to the issues this new book presents and their relevance for the church.