Sacraments are signs and seals. As signs, they function like road markers that point to a city. “Minneapolis this way,” a sign might say. The sign is connected to the city, assuming that no one has tampered with the sign. It points in the right direction. Baptism says “salvation is in Christ; go this way, and repent and believe.” That function is slightly different, depending on whether the sign is administered before faith (in the case of infants) or after faith (presumed faith, in the case of adults).
As seals, they function as God’s statement “This person is engaged to me” (in the case of baptism), or “This person is in fellowship with me” (in the case of communion). With regard to baptism, we can give a further analogy: baptism functions like an engagement ring. The person is spoken for. But engagements can be broken. Baptism is not the wedding ring: that is faith. But it is like an engagement ring.
27.2 of the WCF is absolutely essential to understand, when surrounded by the debates in the PCA and elsewhere: “there is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.” This means that sometimes the Bible uses the term “baptism” when it means to talk about the thing that baptism signifies. Romans 6 and Galatians 3 are good examples of this, as has been argued in a previous post and comments. The WCF is just as careful to avoid the “empty sign” theology of Zwingli, as it is to avoid baptismal regeneration. Since no one really disputes the former, I will focus on the latter. Indications that baptism does not automatically confer union with Christ: 27:3 “The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them…the word of instituation, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.” Emphasis mine. More on this in the next WCF post on baptism. Someone will probably immediately quote 28.6 to me, which says this (usually truncated by FV advocates): “Yet notwithstanding, by the right use of the ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred, by the Holy Ghost.” What is missing, of course, is the very next essential qualifying statement: “to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time.” I have highlighted the importance of these two phrases: this grace does not belong unto those of the non-elect. And, the grace of baptism is conferred in God’s own time (it is not limited to the time when baptism is administered).
greenbaggins
glwjohnson
jeffhutchinson
davejes1979
reformedmusings
Reed Here
Andrew Webb
Baptism Blog Digest - The Sacraments said,
November 10, 2006 at 3:48 am
[...] 27.2 of the WCF is absolutely essential to understand, when surrounded by the debates in the PCA and elsewhere: “there is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.” This means that sometimes the Bible uses the term “baptism” when it means to talk about the thing that baptism signifies. Romans 6 and Galatians 3 are good examples of this, as has been argued in a previous post and comments. The WCF is just as careful to avoid the “empty sign” theology of Zwingli, as it is to avoid baptismal regeneration. Since no one really disputes the former, I will focus on the latter. Indications that baptism does not automatically confer union with Christ: 27:3 “The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not … Very nice article. And author’s blog is interesting tooLink to original article [...]