In 2007, R. Scott Clark, history professor at Westminster Seminary California pens a piece on the origins and character of what has come to be known as "Federal Vision" or "Auburn Avenue" Theology. This is an excellent primer on one of the most serious threats to the Gospel in the Reformed community:

For Those Just Tuning In: What is the Federal Vision?

by R. Scott Clark

 

In talk radio the host is supposed to “re-set” the show at regular intervals. He is to remind listeners to which show they are listening and on what network or station. One reason why the host does this is because some listeners are just tuning in. Some people are “just tuning in,” as it were, to the Federal Vision (FV) controversy and this might be a good time to re-set the show.

The FV is 33-year old movement that originated, at least in this episode, with the Rev Mr Norman Shepherd who was then teaching systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia). In 1974 he defined faith, in the act of justification, to be “faith and works.” It was not that, in justification, faith is “receiving and resting” and works are evidence and thus a sort of vindicatory justification of the claim that one believes. Nothing so nuanced or Reformed. Rather, he flatly claimed that there are two parts to faith in justification. When that created a predictable uproar, he modified his language to “faithfulness.” At the same time he, and others, was about revising covenant theology. In baptism, he wrote, we are all united to Christ and receive the benefits of Christ temporarily and conditionally. What is the condition of retaining them? Faithfulness!

READ MORE HERE

Of Baptismal Regeneration, Paedocommunion, and Intinction.

Last night, while reading "Children at the Lord's Table: Assessing the Case for Paedocommunion" by Cornelis P. Venema, a connection between three issues aligned for me for the first time. Venema's book lays out a case against allowing children to partake of the Supper before they have professed faith. Within the PCA [Presbyterian Church in America], three controversies have been raising their head lately, all from the same group of people: agitating for intinction (dipping the bread in the wine to partake, rather than separate actions), paedocommunion (allowing children from birth up to partake of the Supper before making a credible profession of faith), and a variation of baptismal regeneration (saying all baptized children are regenerate/believers by virtue of their baptism). These three items are all foreign to historical Reformed and Biblical Theology, so I wondered why do "Federal Vision" types seem to hold all three?

Venema traces the emergance of the idea of "baptismal regeneration" in the late 300s, and then observed about the emergance of the practice of infant communion this:

"[In ancient eastern churches] the baptized member is immediately given the body and blood of Christ by 'intinction' (dipping of the bread into the wine). Unlike the Roman Catholic church, the Eastern church teaches that the mystery of the Eucharist must be communicated in both elements, is administered by intinction, and is given to infants upon their baptism and chrismation." [pg 19]

It then all made sense. If one believes a baby is always regenerated by baptism, they then are undoubtably a believer. If they are a believer, they take the Lord's Supper, and if they take the Lord's Supper and cannot yet drink from the cup, you need to dip it for them.

Thus is one example of how one error in theology (baptismal regeneration) can distort many other areas, and this without mentioning how it distorts the idea of union with Christ and justification, which then become benefits bestowed without faith - an idea at enmity to the gospel. The more you know, the more clear it is that "Federal Vision" is another system entirely and not merely a variation of Reformed Theology. It is a hop skip and a jump away from Rome, and has no place in evangelical churches, let alone Reformed Churches.

Covenant Infant Baptism

In thinking and reading again on Baptism lately, I remembered one of the better explanations and defenses of the biblical teaching on infant baptism (in a short bite-sized form) was Rev. Matthew Bradley's series on his blog on the "Sign of Baptism." I link below to the relevant blogs:

The Sign of the Covenant OR Why We Baptize Our Covenant Children (Introduction)

The Sign of the Covenant (Part One: One Covenant People of God)

The Sign of the Covenant (Part Two: TheNature of the Community)

The Sign of the Covenant (Part Three:The Sign)

The Sign of the Covenant (Part Four: Our Children in the Covenant)

The Sign of the Covenant (Part Five: The Sign Transformed)

The Sign of the Covenant (Part Six:Some Objections)

Five Smooth Stones: The Historical Case for Infant Baptism

Introducing Baptism in Worship

An introduction I have used for Baptism in Worship:

This morning we have the great privilege, and the commanded duty, to admit ____ of our covenant children into the membership of this particular church and the whole visible church.

When we say “The visible Church” we mean the full number of those who profess faith in Jesus Christ and their children. This is distinct although greatly overlapping with what we call the invisible church which are the number of those who are regenerate, professing and possessing the true faith.

Admitting some to the visible church does not necessarily mean we confess that we know them to be members of the invisible church.

So how, this morning, do we admit our covenant children into the visible church?

The covenant God made with his people carries with it signs and seals. God first gave a command to apply the sign of the covenant to those who are members in Genesis 17, where the Lord declares:

Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.

Gen 17:10-12 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised.

God established an everlasting covenant with his people. This everlasting covenant is decreed to last, eternally.

We are told this sign and seal was pointing to the author of the covenant and His righteousness he would give.

Romans 4:11 [says Abraham] received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.

Abraham first displayed faith and was given the sign. Isaac, his son was given the sign at eight days before observable faith. The same sign, pointing to the same thing, the righteousness that is available by faith, received from Christ who was righteous in our place, received by resting in his work.

Now you may have noticed today we are not bringing forward subjects for circumcision. Jesus, beginning his ministry, instituted Baptism by his example in coming to John the Baptist for Baptism.

When Peter gave his first sermon, telling Jewish believers, who had as their established practice circumcision and had brought their children for circumcision, were told what Christ had changed in the covenant by his coming, Peter instructed them in Acts 2:38-39: "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. For the promise is for you and for your children.” Echoing Genesis 17, and echoing the lesson he learned from Jesus that to children also belong the kingdom of God, and we are not to hinder them being brought to Jesus.

The Apostle Paul tells us we are still considered in a spiritual sense to be circumcised saying in Colossians 2:11-12 “In him [Christ] also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism.” And we are also instructed in 1 Corinthians 7:14 that the children of believing parents are considered covenantally holy, set apart.

God instructed his people through Abraham to give the sign of the covenant to believers and their children under the sign of circumcision. Today, God retains his command to give the sign of the covenant to believers and their children under the sign of baptism. Paul tells us in Galatians that if we are in Christ we are sons of Abraham, heirs to the same promise in Genesis. God was not lying when he called it an everlasting covenant.

But just as we think back to Abraham’s sons, Isaac and Ishmael, both circumcised, but only one of the true faith. As we think of Isaac’s sons, Jacob and Esau, both circumcised but only one of true faith – we are instructed that there is nothing magical in the sign of the covenant.

The sign calls one to faith to receive the righteousness that is offered – a righteousness that is said by our Confession to include, and are pictured in baptism as:

1) Regeneration

2) Remission (or forgiveness) of sins

3) Newness of life

4) Ingrafting into Christ

Yet the sign points to a righteousness that must be received by faith. We know faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ, and just as one can sit under the preaching of the word and never be given faith, so one can be under the waters of baptism and not receive the benefits baptism signifies. So, when we bring children to the fount, we bring them with the solemn task ahead of us, of raising them in the nurture and admonition of the LORD. The parents take a pledge to do so, the congregation looking on also pledges to assist and remembers their own baptism, and the duties and benefits it signifies.

We collectively vow to involve ourselves in the raising up of faithful covenant children - to do so by godly example. We do so by instruction in God’s Word. We do so by regular prayer for their souls. We do so by surrounding them with the worship of God, corporately on the Lord’s Day every week and privately in our Family Worship and devotions.

As a wedding ring reminds us of the vows we made on our wedding day, so this baptism reminds us of the vows we make, ourselves or on behalf of children, who we pray will one day make the same profession and vows as their parents.

As we celebrate and observe the sacrament of baptism today, I invite you, the congregation, to think of two things, FIRST: your baptism. The great promises God holds out to you, that are to be received by faith, to be reminded of God’s pledge of faithfulness to you. And the Second, to acknowledge your responsibility as members of this congregation to assist in the teaching of the faith to the next generation, speaking often of the Lord, and his goodness towards you in the presence of these little ones as they grow.

To the Parents, this charge is given. That you

1) teach your child to read the Word of God;

2) You are charged to instruct your children in the principles of our holy religion, as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, an excellent summary of which we have in the Confession of Faith, and in the Larger and Shorter Catechisms for your use in direction and assistance, in the discharge of this important duty;

3) You are charged to pray with and for your child;

4) And you are charged to set an example of piety and godliness before your child; and endeavor, by all the means of God’s appointment, to bring up your child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

Remember Acts 16:31 "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

What's first, the Baptismal or the Table?

A question that comes up in both credo- and paedo-baptist communities is "Should a person be baptized before taking Communion [the Eucharist]?" This might be represented visually above as: "Does one need to come to the baptismal fount before one comes to the Table?"

This question comes up in both Baptist and paedo-baptist communities when baptism is delayed, for age, Catechesis or a special season of baptism, such as Easter. It comes up in many Episcopal Churches with open communion, where everyone, even unbaptized people are welcomed to take the Eucharist. The situation in all places arises: If a person has faith and seems to understand what the significance of the Supper is, why have them wait or deny them the Supper merely because they are unbaptized?

Many times this is left in the realm of personal conscience, which one can see in places where the question is asked, usually the answer most preferred is "As long as you're doing this from your heart and you love Jesus, you're okay. "

Against such an answer, suggesting a rigid priority may seem "legalistic" or nit-picky. However, I believe there are good Biblical, Confessional, Catechetical and Historical reasons for only allowing baptized Christians to partake of the Eucharist.

Historical/Confessional

Historically, the earliest and consistently repeated answer of the Church throughout history has been to delay partaking the Eucharist until after Baptism. One of the earliest documents of the Church, outside the Bible, was the Didache which was a manual of sorts for accepting new converts into the Church. The instructions make very clear:

Didache 9:5: "Let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptized."

The reasoning may sound rather harsh: "for the Lord has also spoken concerning this: 'Do not give what is holy to dogs.'" (9:5) This merely points out that the Eucharist is considered the meal of the Church, and one was not considered a part of the Church, and so not a Christian, until Baptism. There are no instances in the first millenium of the Church where partaking of the Eucharist was allowed before being baptized.

This is way the major Reformation faiths always place teaching about Baptism before the Lord's Supper. Baptism is seen as initiatory rite, and the Supper as a rite of fellowship. Before one joins the community, one cannot have fellowship with that group. To have fellowship is to be a member, and baptism is the rite of membership for someone to be in that community.

Biblical

The Scriptures display a heavy weight towards Baptism necessarily coming before Communion. Firstly, Baptism precedes the Supper in notable places in Scripture's teaching and narrative. In Acts 2, Peter offers Baptism (2:38) before we have an account of the first Christians breaking bread (2:42). The Gospels record the Baptism of John before the Last Supper. Paul speaks of acknowledging Baptism (1 Cor 10:2) before the Supper (1 Cor 10:3 and following). This is logical, for we must be united to Christ (Rom 6:4) before we can participate in him (1 Cor 10:16).

But why? What's the big deal?

The Scripture's main way of explaining the sacraments is through the story of redemption of Israel. We are told of the baptism Israel experienced in the sea (1 Cor 10:2). We are also told of Israel eating manna in the wilderness, pointing to the Supper (John 6). It is simple observation to observe that Israel experienced baptism in the sea before eating the manna. Israel did not eat manna from God before the sea. And I think this is the most important point for how the sacraments teach us about the reality of the Christian life and salvation.

Catechetical

Israel did not need food from God before the sea, for their slave owners in Egypt gave Israel food. The episode of the baptism in the sea for Israel irrevocably severed the connection between Israel and their slave owners. After the baptism in the sea, although Israel often wanted to go back and were unthankful to their Redeemer God from Egypt, Israel no longer could take food from their former slave owners.

For us to insist on Baptism before the Supper requires a high sense of what Baptism is. Baptism in the early church often included a ritual of exorcism and a question to the person presented for Baptism, "Do you renounce Satan and all his works?" This is because Baptism was an important entry into the church and break from the world of Satan, just as crossing the sea was an important event for Israel as forming of a common people of the baptism and breaking from the world of Egypt.

This is why Baptism ought to proceed the Supper. Baptism should be an instrument of teaching entry into the covenant and community of faith (Acts 2:38-39) and the Supper should be an instrument of teaching the lasting need of continual sustaining by God (Psalm 104:14-15; John 6). To allow eating the Supper before Baptism teaches a dual loyalty and dual mastery the Scriptures do not. One cannot eat the manna from God while under the slavery of Egypt. One also cannot eat the food of Egypt after being redeemed by God. If baptism teaches the need of new birth, and the Supper the need of spiritual feeding, one must be born before one can eat. To allow the Supper before Baptism teaches that one can be enslaved to Satan and receive the saving benefits of God. In other words, it confuses the person who eats while unbaptized for it does not conform to Jesus who taught one must either be for or against him. "No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. " (Luke 16:13) One cannot be identified with Egypt and eat the manna of God. One cannot be slave to Satan, and receive the blessings of God. One must be identified as a slave to God in order to receive His benefits. One must be in covenant with God in order to receive the benefits of that covenant.

That is why I believe, like the picture above, one must go to the baptismal before one can go to the table. It is not a matter of legalism or nit-picking, but a matter of what Scripture teaches and what we teach with the catechetical tools that God gives to us with Baptism and the Supper. Do we teach a dual loyalty to two slave owners? Do we teach service, loyality and identification to Sin, Satan and what Egypt represents can continue at the same time as receiving taking what identification with God, Christ and His Righteousness gives us?

Or, do we teach that God fully redeems us from our former slave owner, though a Stockholm Syndrome may still exist, we identify and receive our sustenance from our Redeemer and new Master, Jesus Christ? The matter should not be too difficult, however, for if we determine that a person is ready for the sacrament of the Eucharist, then they are certainly ready for the sacrament of Baptism. Just let them be born before they eat, and let God be their slave master before they take food from Him.

Hymn: Christ's Baptism of the Church

Christ comes to claim his bride the church with water and the word (Eph 5:26). This hymn is an exploration of the truth of Ephesians 5:26, 1 Cor 3:11, among other texts. I chose it related to baptism for the first stansa which is Ephesians 5:25-26 in poetic form. This is by Samuel Stone, an Anglican minister in the nineteenth century.


The Church's One Foundation

1. The church’s one foundation
Is Jesus Christ her Lord,
She is His new creation
By water and the Word.
From heaven He came and sought her
To be His holy bride;
With His own blood He bought her,
And for her life He died.

2. Elect from every nation,
Yet one over all the earth;
Her charter of salvation,
One Lord, one faith, one birth;
One holy Name she blesses,
Partakes one holy food,
And to one hope she presses,
With every grace endued.

3. Though with a scornful wonder
Men see her sore oppressed,
By schisms rent asunder,
By heresies distressed,
Yet saints their watch are keeping;
Their cry goes up, “How long?”
And soon the night of weeping
Shall be the morn of song.

4. The church shall never perish,
Her dear Lord to defend
To guide, sustain and cherish,
Is with her to the end
Though there be those that hate her,
And false sons in her pale
Against a foe or traitor,
She ever shall prevail

5. Mid toil and tribulation,
And tumult of her war,
She waits the consummation
Of peace forevermore;
’Til, with the vision glorious,
Her longing eyes are blessed,
And the great church victorious
Shall be the church at rest.

6. Yet she on earth hath union
With God the Three in One,
And mystic sweet communion
With those whose rest is won.
O happy ones and holy!
Lord, give us grace that we
Like them, the meek and lowly,
On high may dwell with Thee.

What Baptism is...and is not

Modern times have seen a decrease in the priority placed on the sacraments and especially baptism within Protestant churches. We have a fear of being Roman Catholic, where we perceive a faith in the sacraments as man's deeds performed before God, rather than a trust in Christ. The Lord's Supper becomes a sacrifice, performed for meritorious gain. And baptism becomes a work performed to "Christianize" someone by religious performance and ceremony.

In reaction, the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have seen a de-emphasis on sacraments. Many churches only occasionally have the Lord's Supper, perhaps quarterly, perhaps only in an evening service, and without much ritual and an explanation of what the supper is NOT. Some churches do not perform baptisms anymore, or perform them outside of the church for the benefit of the person connecting their experience of conversion immediately with baptism.

Such a situation led Peter Leithart, a profoundly intelligent scholar, to write a small (and problematic) book called "The Baptized Body." So much time had been spent saying what baptism doesn't do, Leithart wanted to ask "What does Baptism do to the baptized?" What Leithart wants to know is what baptism objectively does to every single baptized individual.

Leithart's conclusion thesis is that baptism admits the baptized to the visible church, and that that visible church is the body of Christ, and therefore, every baptized individual:

1) Is united to Christ as a member of his body

2) Is married to Christ as part of his Bride

3) Is granted a share in the cross

Leithart always wants these consequences to be part of the effect of baptism. The problem is these things are not granted by ritual ceremony. This belief is called "ex opere operato" or "in the doing of the doing," or "by the very act." However, I would contend that these benefits require reception.

Calvin compared baptism and the promises given in it (the offer of the gospel) to pouring water over vessels. If the vessels have an opening of faith, the promises and grace fill the vessels. If the vessels have no opening, then the vessels are merely drowned in water. The gospel effects of baptism occur for the elect, not the non-elect.

Leithart does admit that cursing and judgment can occur after baptism, but he applies to those who are united, married and sharing in the cross by baptism. Does baptism first perform a positive work (union with Christ) then condemning (in their apostasy)?

The comparison of baptism to the word here may be appropriate. Under the preached word, does the preached word always have the desired effect of softening and conversion? Does everyone who hears become converted? Or does the same word go out, and to some it is received and to others it is rejected? The same Spirit accompanies the word to both people, one to soften, the other to harden. Yet the preached word does not first ALWAYS convert and then in some later harden. So too, baptism does not ALWAYS unite and marry the recepient then only to condemn some later.

We do well to restrict the invisible church, the true elect, as known only to God and as the recepients of the benefits of baptism as the Westminster Confession does (25:1) and assign to the visible church the status of mixed community or kingdom that encompasses both elect and non-elect in the church as Scripture also does in Matthew 13 (and the WCF does in 25:2).

So what does baptism do? It always serves as entrance into the visible church. Yet, what else it does depends on what the Spirit desires to do through it. To those who are granted faith, baptism is seen as the place where the promises of God were extended, and the laver of regeneration exhibited. To those who reject the faith, baptism is the place where they rejected the offer of substitution in the baptism that Christ spoke about:

Luke 12:49-50: "I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished!

For the faithful, Christian baptism is their being united with Christ and His baptism, while for the unfaithful, their baptism of judgment and fire still awaits. Void of faith, their baptism did not unite them to Christ, through Whom salvation from the baptism of judgment is offered. Yet, for the faithful baptism is their salvation in Christ, since for them the baptism of judgment was already suffered by Christ on their behalf.

The Lord assures the faithful:

"Fear not, for I have redeemed you;
I have called you by name, you are mine.
When you pass through the waters, I will be with you;
and through the rivers, they shall not overwhelm you;
when you walk through fire you shall not be burned,
and the flame shall not consume you."

-Isaiah 43:1-2

The Ordinary Means: The Word and Baptism

There are countless definitions that have been given of baptism. We may, however, categorize them as one of two varieties. One defines baptism as something like:

"Baptism is an act of faith and a testimony that one has been united with Christ in his death and resurrection, that one has experienced spiritual circumcision. It is a public indication of one's commitment to Christ." (Millard Erickson. Christian Theology. pg 1110)

The first way is how Erikson defines baptism, as an act done by the believer, confirming the believer's experience and publicly commiting to Christ.

The second variety, however, defines baptism quite differently:

"We don’t think of baptism as something we do, but rather as something God does–at least in the ultimate sense. While the recipient physically gets wet, God washes the elect too with the Holy Spirit unto regeneration in effectual calling." (Preston Graham, pastor)

The second way is how Graham defines baptism, as something God does to the believer. But how does the Bible speak of baptism? I would like to here argue (and though it should be clear, argue I must) that Ephesians 5:26 gives us a picture of the Scriptural understanding of baptism:

Ephesians 5:25b-27: Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

So how does Christ wash his Bride?

Paul gives husbands a rich object lesson for their love for their brides in Ephesians 5, saying they must love their wives as Christ loved the church. Yet, when Paul gives this picture, he includes “washing of water with the word.” What does this washing refer to?

John Gill emphatically says it is “not baptism, which is never expressed by washing” but is “the blood of Christ.” This answer has a huge problem reconciling that fact that Paul here specifically mentions “water” not blood. Images exist for washing in Christ’s blood in Heb 9 and Rev 7:14, but these will specifically mention blood and not water. To eliminate any thought of baptism is bold but unfounded. Also, Gill’s comments that baptism is “never expressed by washing” defies the way Scripture uses the word “baptism,” which is used to mean “washing,” in both Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:4 where the disciples are reprimanded by Pharisees for not washing (baptizing) before eating.

Another possibility that has recently been posited is that Paul means an ancient form of “bridal washing.” Commentator Harold Hoehner cites an occasionally practiced rite of washing that a bride performs before a wedding in Greek culture. This, however, would be a poor metaphor, as the husband is said to do the washing in Ephesians 5:26, but the ancient marriage rite would not be done by the husband, for the bride does this to herself before the wedding. (S. Safrai “Home and Family” in The Jewish People in the First Century. Historical Geography, Political History, Social Cultural and Religious Life. Ed S. Safrai and M. Stern. 1987 Volume 2, pg 758)

I would submit that the washing in Ephesians 5:26 is baptism, and even credo-baptists need not react immediately against such a proposition. Indeed not all credo-baptists do, as John Piper to his credit comments on the verse saying, “The water of baptism is a representation of that spiritual washing. Notice that the cleansing from sin in verse 26 comes from the self-sacrifice of Christ in verse 25. So it is with baptism.”

The commentators Gill and Hoehner share a common prejudice they bring to the text. Hoehner explicitly states he rejects that Ephesians 5:26 refers to baptism because “the rite of baptism does not cleanse one from sin.” (Hoehner, Ephesians. 753) Both Gill and Hoehner bring to the text an assumption about baptism, rather than letting the Scriptures tell them whether “the rite of baptism” cleanses from sin, and in what sense it would do so. If we can recognize the washing in Ephesians 5:26 is baptism, we can learn a great truth about baptism from the text.

The word used for washing in 5:26 is “λουτρῷ”. The only other time the word λουτρῷ is used is used is in Titus 3:5, in refering to the washing of regeneration. However there is a variation used 1 Cor 6:11 and Acts 22:16, which uses the variation ἀπελούσασθε. This variation is also used in regards to baptism in Acts 22:16, where the command is given to be “baptized and wash away your sins.” The word λουτρῷ would also come to have a variant that would be used for a baptismal fount, letting us know how the church received Paul’s use of that word (if the explicit connection by early church writers Cyprian and Marius Victorinus aren’t enough.). But just thinking logically, where is the one place where water would be associated with any member of the church? The only time a church member would come in contact with water in a religious context would be in baptism.

How are we to understand Baptism as washing then? Does the physical act of baptism cleanse the church of sin? This is where careful attention to Paul’s wording of “washing of water with the word” becomes very important. The sacrament is only effective by means of the word. No word = no sacrament. This is not because the words become an incantation where a magic act occurs, but because the outward sign points to and teaches with the word the inward reality that accompanies the sign.

Scripture makes a distinction between the inward reality and the outward sign. Paul had already mentioned the inward reality of “sanctification” in 5:26, so the outward reality of washing with water is natural. As Calvin says: “Having mentioned the inward and hidden sanctification, he now adds the outward symbol…that pledge of that sanctification is held out to us by baptism.” (John Calvin on Ephesians 5:26 in Commentaries, on Galatians and Ephesians. pg 319)

If one were to ask Peter what baptism does, we see his answer in 1 Peter 3:21, that yes “Baptism saves,” but, “not as a removal of dirt from the body.” It is not the waters that cleanse, but the spirit through the word. In other words, the mere act of water touching skin does nothing of itself, but baptism is effectual “as an appeal to God.” The appeal is to the promises of God made in baptism that create a good conscience, not an appeal to God in a self-created good conscience. The washing is something God in Christ through the Spirit does, God is the Effecter, baptism is Christ washing the bride, not the bride washing herself.

Paul so richly tells us the relationship between sign and reality in Romans 2:28-29, when speaking about circumcision, the sign under the old covenant: “For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.” There were many times when the Israelites confused sign and reality, yet, throughout the Old Testament, never was the physical act of circumcision resended. The physical was important, necessary and commanded, yet the inward that accompanies the outward was the reality.

In Ephesians 5:26, the image of washing points to baptism. The wording of washing and the use of water as a symbol that points to the reality, as well as sealing that reality by action. To divorce the two completely tells more of an attempted reading of one’s own theology into the passage than what the passage actually means. The reference is not an acknowledgment of some magical power in the water of baptism, but a testament to the sanctifying nature of the love of a husband for a wife, and of Christ for his church which is figured, exhibited, and conferred when accepted by faith in baptism. Baptism ultimately is something God does for the benefit of the baptized, not something the baptized does for the benefit of other people.

In such a way, baptism is a means of grace for the church. In it, the word is made visible, and the act that the word promises is displayed. Baptism is the place of washing, where Christ washes His bride, those receiving (and not giving something) in faith, in the word of His promise.

[But this may still leave questions as to specifically what Baptism does...]

Three signs

Explaning what a "sign of the covenant" is can be difficult and confusing. After a storm in Dallas, I saw a rainbow and began to think about the similarity of the rainbow as a sign along with circumcision and baptism. The similarities may help us understand what a sign is.

The Rainbow: In Genesis 9, God makes a covenant with Noah. God promises never to destroy the earth by water again, and gives Noah a sign. This sign points to God' promises, (Gen 9:14-16) not anything in Noah. The purpose of the sing for Noah is as a reminder of God's promises.

Circumcision: In Genesis 17, after God has promised many things to Abraham. To assure Abraham of His promises, God gives him the sign of circumcision. Paul tells us that circumcision is a "sign of the righteousness that comes by faith" (Rom 4:11). The sign is not of what Abraham does, but of God's righteousness to keep his word and promises to Abraham. Not Abraham's righteousness, for "the Lord is our righeousness" (Jer 23:6). Not Abraham's faith, but the righteousness that comes by means of faith.

Baptism: The image of Baptism is throughout the Bible. God promises many things to His people, including: his ingrafting into Christ (Rom 6:5; Gal 3:27), of regeneration (Tit 3:5), of remission of sins (Mar 1:4), and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life (Rom 6:3, Rom 6:4). Like circumcision, baptism points to the promises of God, a righteousness that comes by faith, it does not point to faith but the righteousness.

What do these three signs together tell us of signs in God's covenant? The Rainbow points to the promises of God. Circumcision points to the promises of God. Baptism points to the promises of God. So the next time we reflect on our baptism, see the baptism of another, or think of what to say to someone about their baptism, let us remember that baptism is not about the person or what they can or did or do, but about God, what He did in Christ for them and does by the Spirit in them and the promises He makes to the believer, promises of His righteousness to be received by faith.

Feeling the love from my Baptist brothers...

What does John Calvin have in common with a Neo-Nazi and a Unitarian Universalist? None of them would be allowed communion at Mark Dever's church. Seems paedo-baptism ranks up there with universalism and racism with Dever. But for what it's worth, R. Scott Clark was not offended writing:

I’m not offended. Mark is a good friend, a very good scholar, and a churchly gentleman. God bless him and may he embrace the faith of Abraham with us. I stand ready to baptize his children any time he wishes.

Are Roman Sacraments Valid?

The Roman Church is considered by Reformed and Lutheran Confessionalists to be a "false church." Exactly what it means to be a false church remains a little cloudy. Indeed, such a designation exists for Paul as a church that does not preach the gospel. But what else does that entail? Most Protestant Churches have still recognized the sacraments of the Roman church as valid sacraments. Why is this if Rome does not preach the gospel? Martin Luther offers an explanation:

"Although the city Rome is worse than Sodom and Gomorra, nevertheless there remains Baptism, Sacraments, the Words of the Gospel, the Holy Scriptures, the Ministry of the Church, the name of Christ and the name of God . . . Therefore, the Roman Church is holy, because she has the holy name of God, the Gospel, the Baptism, etc. If these things exist among a people, the people is called holy. Thus also our city Wittenberg is a holy city, and we are truly holy because we are baptized, have received the Holy Communion and have been taught and called by God. We have the work of God among us, the Word and the Sacraments, and these make us holy."

- Martin Luther, Lectures on Galatians 1535, Luther's Works, trans. by Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1963), vol. 26, pp.24-25.

Images of Baptism: Understanding Modes

Towards mutual understanding:

Everyone agrees that Baptism is a sign. The London Baptist Confession lists baptism as signing: “death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.” The Westminster Confession adds “a sign and seal of the covenant of grace” and “of regeneration” to that list. Each time baptism is performed, often all those items are not visited, but certain signs may be communicated by the very mode of baptism. Traditions will use different modes, and each communicates a different truth about the sign of baptism. Before those practicing other modes dismiss immersion, they should understand the biblical image communicated therein. Also, those practicing immersion should understand the biblical images communicated in pouring and sprinkling:

Immersion:
Immersion is the exclusive mode of baptism for Baptists and certain Orthodox. The image communicated is one of burial and resurrection with Christ. (Col 2:12) The image here communicates a wonderful picture of repentence, turning from sin that once was sweet, and now is bitter to Christ who is now sweeter. Such pictures can help the Christian know the inseparable relationship between faith and repentance in the death and rising, just as Romans 6:4 says:

“We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”

Pouring:
Many other traditions, including Anabaptists, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Reformed and others will allow pouring as a mode of baptism. This mode was also used in the early church, as evidenced in the early church manual the Didache, (7.3) a document perhaps as old as the New Testament writings. The image here communicated is one of pouring out of the Spirit.

The book of John uses the image of water for the Spirit throughout the book, explicitly stated as such in 7:38-39. In Titus, God is said to wash us (using the word for washing associated with baptism in Acts 22:16) saying God saved us, “by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly.” (Titus 3:5-6) Images of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit also exist in Acts 2:17-18, 33.

Sprinkling:
Other Reformation traditions will use sprinkling as a mode of baptism. Leviticus 16 instructs the priest to sprinkle blood on the mercy seat on the ark of the covenant to “make atonement for the Holy Place,” becoming a perfect type of Christ’s atonement, where he acted both as High Priest and as the sacrifice. When making this connection with the mercy seat in Hebrew 9, the explicit identification of baptism with sprinkling is made in Hebrews 9:10, 13.