Romans 6 and Baptism « Green Baggins

Romans 6 and Baptism

September 24, 2006 at 6:44 pm (Church-Baptism, Federal Vision, NT-Romans, New Perspective on Paul, Roman Catholicism)

First, a word about sacramental language. Oftentimes in Scripture, what is said of the sign actually refers to the thing signified (WCF 27.2). This is often missed in FV discussions, and in many discussions of Romans 6. For what Romans 6 is talking about is the thing signified by baptism, not so much the sign. This is evident, because the benefits described here are elsewhere attributed to the time-point of faith. For instance, faith-union with the risen Christ is described as being united with Christ in His resurrection in Colossians 2:5 together with 3:1 (and the entire passage in between is talking about the state of faith, not of baptism). Philippians 3 is even more clear: to be found in Him (vs 9) is functionally equivalent to faith in Christ (vs 9-10), which is functionally equivalent to participating in Christ’s death and resurrection (vs 10-11). Now, I do not want to draw too sharp a distinction between the sign and the thing signified. Certainly, faith and regeneration can happen at the time-point of baptism. But I would argue that if it does, it is because faith is also present. Therefore, baptism all by itself, that is, the sign all by itself does not confer the blessings. This is clear from the language of the WCF 27:3, wherein there is a promise of benefit to worthy receivers. That implies by necessity that there is no promise of benefit to unworthy receivers. That follows logically and indisputably. As a matter of fact, baptism becomes condemnation to unworthy receivers. Of course, it is understood that we are all unworthy receivers of baptism, and can only be made worthy by God, just as faith also is a gift. The point of my argument here is that sacramental language (of ascribing the thing signified to the sign) does NOT mean that the thing signified actually occurs at the time point of the sign. It occurs when the baptism is improved, which can be simultaneous, but does not have to be. It should also be noted that faith is clearly in the context of Romans 6 in 5:17, where receiving the free gift of righteousness has to be defined by the time-point of faith. Then also, the main point of Romans 6 is sanctification, as is clear from verses 12ff, which no longer speak of baptism. Baptism then has a function in sanctification. I trust no one would deny this. However, in order for baptism to have its effect, it must be joined with faith, as 5:17 demonstrates.

I should also say a word about Galatians 3:27, which has also been quoted as saying that baptism puts us into union with Christ. Again, this is sacramental language that must also be interpreted in the immediate context. The immediately preceding verses all mention faith in its two-fold definition: the references in verse 23 and 25 refer to THE faith, as in the Christian religion in its eschatological revealing. That definition of faith, however, is closely connected to the personal definition of faith, which we see in verses 24 and 26, where we are said to be justified by faith, and that we are said to be sons of God (note especially the plural here) by faith. So faith most certainly qualifies the statement about baptism, since verse 27 is explicitly connected with what comes before by the particle gar. Baptism (the thing signified, not the bare sign) is then defined by faith. So, contrary to Todd Harris’s assertion (which was given without any exegesis at all), neither of these passages encourages the FV, but they both support the traditional Reformed view of baptism in its relationship to faith.

9 Comments

Jo said,

February 7, 2007 at 7:41 am

The only baptism that is right is the one adults do, noet kids baptism, is that your point? then I agree.
greenbaggins said,

February 7, 2007 at 10:18 am

I’m not quite sure what you are asking here. Could you elaborate just a bit? Thanks.
lil_hanhy_ said,

February 23, 2007 at 7:19 am

do you have any information about high priest.
lil_hanhy_ said,

February 23, 2007 at 7:58 am

i’m only 11. so i don’t know what and i don’t know anyone on this website/blog
greenbaggins said,

February 23, 2007 at 9:32 am

Lil_Hanhy_, Welcome to my blog. If you would like to know more about me, then go to the bottom left of the blog on “about.” For info on “high priest,” just type that into the search engine, which is found at the bottom of the archives section on the left of the blog. I suggest you use quotation marks around “high priest.” That way, you will find the entire phrase.
tim prussic said,

March 23, 2007 at 4:47 pm

It’s funny. Reading this post reminds me of discussing sacraments with my Pentacostal and Baptist friends. They’d simply argue that Rom 6 and Gal 3 were “spiritual” baptism and the “water” baptism simply pointed to the “spiritual” reality. I’d always prefered visible signs of invisible grace. I’d always preferred Christ and all his spiritual benefits being signified and sealed by the Spirit using this external and visible means. (See my article on Calvin’s doctine of Infant Baptism: http://www.wrs.edu/journals/volume_14-1.htm) Now, GB doesn’t want to cleave the sign from the thing signified - good. What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder! The “traditional Reformed view” of the sacraments is a bit difficult to get one’s hands around. Its high view of the efficacy of the Holy Spirit through the sacraments isn’t quite so easy as a distinction ‘twixt sign and thing signified. Not to knock that distiction, it’s helpful and, I think, biblical.
Further, GB wrote, “Certainly, faith and regeneration can happen at the time-point of baptism. But I would argue that if it does, it is because faith is also present.” This is interesting as for faith to “happen” at the time-point of baptism, fatih would have to also have to be present. Maybe that’s just unhappy wording, I don’t know. For regeneration, does faith have to be present? I don’t think this is unhappy wording, it seems like a common misconception. Maybe it is just infelicitiously worded. GB will make it clear, I hope.
greenbaggins said,

March 23, 2007 at 4:54 pm

Hello, Tim. Welcome to my blog. Of course, the wording needs a bit of clarification there. What I meant to say was this: regeneration can occur at the time point of baptism. It doesn’t have to, but it can. Regeneration happens in God’s own timing. But regeneration will never happen without faith being the immediate result. Regeneration and faith go together, not necessarily regeneration and baptism.
tim prussic said,

March 26, 2007 at 3:59 pm

Thanks for the clarification, there, GB.
I think I understand you comments, but I don’t know that I agree entirely. I don’t see any reason that faith has to be an immediate result of regeneration. I would say that it always follows, but not immediately (speaking in terms of time). There is, I think, great scriptural evidence that the two are inseperably linked, but it’s quite possible that one could be regenerated and wait for quite a spell (an unhappy one, to be sure) before the Spirit works faith. This seems to be Edwards’s experience in the Great Awakening - which led to great revivals, but the Awakening was just that. Folks were made sensible to their horrible position under the wrath of God, but didn’t have faith to flee to Christ. Anyway, probably not much of a bone there to pick.
On the other hand, I do see a direct link ‘twixt baptism and regeneration, albeit a sacramental one. Baptism is, among other things, the sign and seal of regeneration, of life from the dead, of a new and a fresh beginning in holiness. If the Spirit uses both word and sacrament to exhibit and confer the grace signified in them, then there’s an important link between baptism and regeneration. That said, I certainly believe that God is sovereign in when he works through his appointed means. I also believe that he’s free to work apart from those means, but I think he’s pleased to use them ordinarily.
I don’t think my position is anything more or less than what’s confessionally Reformed, do you?
GB, thanks for having the blog and thanks for the welcome! -Tim
Federal Vision Index « Green Baggins said,

March 30, 2007 at 10:20 am

[...] Romans 6 and Baptism [...]

Green Baggins