Baptism Now Saves, part 2 « Green Baggins

Baptism Now Saves, part 2

July 23, 2007 at 8:41 am (Federal Vision)

I sent an email to Douglas Wilson asking if he is desirous of continuing the debate. I believe that since June 28th, which was the first post on the sacerdotalism chapter, and July 2nd, which was the second post on that chapter, and July 12th, which was my first post on the baptism chapter, Wilson has had adequate time to respond. I think that if those who are benefitting from this exchange between a critic and a proponent of FV are desirous of keeping this a two-way street, some pressure will need to be exerted on Wilson to continue on his side. I plan on finishing the book review. I am not sure why Wilson has not continued the debate. But lack of time can hardly be the reason, especially since he has posted on the Federal Vision here. I do not mean to bully Wilson in any way. If he is not desirous of continuing the debate, then that is certainly his prerogative. At the same time, I think it odd that he has been clamoring for debate, and yet now does not seem to want it. Was it because I came down hard on his (mis)take on Warfield? I make no attempt to read his motives. I am somewhat puzzled, I confess. Maybe Wilson will be so good as to clear it up for us.

That being said, let us continue on to the rest of the chapter “Baptism Now Saves.” He makes the point that there is a sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified. We must be very careful here. It is true that “this sacramental union is so tight that it is fully appropriate to refer to one reality in terms of the other” (p. 102). However, the qualifier must also be added: the metonymy of which the Standards speak also implies the distinction between the sign and the thing signified, such that sacramental language means that the reality may be primarily in view, or the sign may be primarily in view. I was glad to see Wilson say this: “Consequently, the analogy of faith requires us to say that water baptism without saving faith is worse than useless” (p. 102). This indicates that Wilson, at least, does not believe that faith and baptism inevitably go together. Wilson’s position is that baptism is always efficacious, but that the efficaciousness may be to judgment, and not to salvation. The difference (presumably) would be saving faith.

I think Wilson is on a dangerous track with pp. 103ff., however. I do not believe that the WS teach baptismal regeneration. This discussion all comes down to what we mean by “signs and seals.” WCF 28.1, for instance, tells us that baptism is efficacious as a sign and seal. In fact, 28.5 so qualifies 28.1, that we MUST come to the conclusion that the sign and seal are not equal to the thing signified or the thing sealed. This is non-negotiable. Now, Wilson does say this:

Of course there are baptized covenant members who are not individually regenerate. They are the ones who reject what God is offering to them in their baptism. They therefore fall away from the covenant and not from election (p. 104).

This leaves us in a difficult position. He wants to say that the WS teach baptismal regeneration. And yet, he says that without saving faith, baptism does no such thing. The key to understanding Wilson’s position is undoubtedly this statement on p. 105: “Contrary to Warfield, baptism is efficacious. But the efficacy of the sacrament is not tied to the moment when it is administered. By means of baptism, this efficacious grace is conferred on the elect at the appropriate time, the time of conversion, and it is the applied grace of their baptism.” This statement raises a number of interesting points. First of all, he would seem to disagree with the interpretation of the WS that interprets the phrase “not tied to the moment of its administration” to mean that the grace starts at baptism, but then continues on throughout life (as Jeff Meyers holds, for instance). Wilson holds to a more “delayed reaction” interpretation of the phrase. In this, I would certainly side with Wilson. Indeed, as carefully read and qualified (I don’t at all like the language of baptismal regeneration, as it carries an enormous weight of baggage), Wilson’s position seems to be in accord with the Standards on baptism. Here are the points of agreement I have with Wilson on baptism: 1. Baptism joined with faith saves. 2. The time-point of faith coming to the believer can be called the improvement of baptism. 3. In this sense, we can speak of the time-point of conversion being the applied grace of their baptism. Another way of saying it is the improvement of their baptism. So far we agree. Where I would disagree is in Wilson’s lack of qualifications regarding the signness and sealness of baptism. Also, I would describe faith-union as the time point of the marriage, not baptism. I would describe baptism as the engagement ring (see the Strawbridge book on infant baptism), not the wedding ring. My disagreement with Wilson on the proper interpretation of Warfield has already been documented.

12 Comments

David Weiner said,

July 23, 2007 at 9:46 am

Lane,

You say you agree with Wilson on the statement “Baptism joined with faith saves.” Aren’t there numerous other words that could replace ‘baptism’ here and still have the sentence be true? Thus, rendering the statement extremely weak.

You also agree with “The time-point of faith coming to the believer can be called the improvement of baptism.” Meaning there is ‘no time-point of faith’ without prior baptism?
greenbaggins said,

July 23, 2007 at 10:51 am

David, I’m not sure why substituting “word joined with faith saves” makes “baptism joined with faith” weaker. Baptism is a means of grace. It acts like the Word of God does. Salvation can be described in more than one way.

As to the second statement, I think that faith can come before, during, or after baptism.
David Weiner said,

July 23, 2007 at 11:11 am

Lane,

Because any word will do. therefore all words are superfluous. You only need the part about faith to make the point.

And, if the time-point of faith can come before baptism how can it be considered an improvement of baptism? Isn’t ‘baptism’ again just superfluous to the statement?
Ronnie said,

July 23, 2007 at 12:15 pm

David,

It is not true that any word will do with faith. Faith only comes by hearing the word of God. The Sacraments are not real sacraments without the word of God and they are a visible representation of the same word of God. The preached word and the sacraments are means of grace.

Baptism is not superfluous because it comes after faith, unless you want to argue for baptismal regeneration, because the individual has already been regenerated. Baptism ordinarily confirms and strengthen our faith so it is much more than a superfluous act, but instead it is an gracious aide to us in the life.
NHarper said,

July 23, 2007 at 11:36 pm

Lane,
What happened to “Sola Fide”? Your statement “baptism joined with faith saves” negates sola fide. Where in Scripture does it say that faith is an improvement of our baptism? You are elevating baptism way above its assigned place in Scripture.

Baptism is an outward sign and seal of an inward spiritual reality. It is not the same or equal to the spiritual reality. The red hexagonal sign with the word “stop” on it is not the same thing as actually stopping at an intersection and looking both ways to be sure there are no cars before proceeding ahead. Crossing an intersection safely is not an improvement of the stop sign. Having a stop sign at an intersection can only improve a person’s chance of survival if the person heeds the warning given by the sign.

The ritual of baptism does not apply grace to a person’s conversion. God alone is the source and giver of grace. When the grace of God is applied to a person through faith, baptism serves as an outward sign of that inward spiritual reality. Without the reality of the applied grace of God, baptism in and of itself serves no purpose. It is an empty ritual.

Baptism as the sign of the covenant does not need any improvement - as if it is somehow insufficient. When our covenant children are baptized, they are fully incorporated into the covenant community. Baptism as a sign helps to point covenant children to true saving faith in Christ. In due time when true conversion occurs, the spiritual reality of the grace of God through faith may be applied to our covenant children.

Whether the time-point of conversion comes before, during, or after baptism, faith alone brings forth the reality - not the baptism.
Terry W. West said,

July 24, 2007 at 9:57 am

N Harper,

I believe the WCF is clear that baptism is more than a bare sign.

VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] 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 belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.[17]

It seems to me that the language used by Lane is very confessional.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West
R. F. White said,

July 24, 2007 at 10:03 am

Lane,

NHarper raises some fair questions, it seems to me. I recall that Turretin’s discussion of “baptism now saves” is helpful.
greenbaggins said,

July 24, 2007 at 12:00 pm

Let me be clear. I am using sacramental language when I say “baptism plus faith saves.” What I mean is that what baptism signifies (union with the crucified and risen Lord, cleansing from sin, removal of the guilt of sin), when grasped by faith, is our salvation. I recognize perfectly well that the sign and the thing signified are not identical. I didn’t suddenly go Federal Vision, or sacramentalist here. Our way of grasping these benefits is sola fide. Now, the language of improvement of baptism is confessional (see LC 167). I agree that baptism does not confer, in and of itself, the grace signified. All I’m really trying to say is that when we come to faith, we acquire (by sola fide) what baptism signifies. It is in that sacramental use of language that we find out that what baptism signifies saves when we grasp it by faith alone.

Now, with regard to the timing of baptism, since I see baptism as an engagement ring, it is quite possible to get married with an engagement ring. That doesn’t mean that if the bridegroom gets an engagement ring for his bride *after* the marriage, that the engagement ring would mean nothing. It is still a sign of the relationship. I don’t know if this clears up all the questions. Let me know if it hasn’t.
David Weiner said,

July 24, 2007 at 12:40 pm

Ronnie,

I actually think we are pretty much in agreement. I was commenting to greenbaggins on specific statements he made and not on any efficacy or futility of baptism or faith or their order. Apparently he was using ’sacramental language.’ I have trouble enough with the English language and so I got confused. His comment #8 cleared it all up for me. That is until he used the metaphor of baptism and an engagement ring.
NHarper said,

July 24, 2007 at 12:57 pm

This is why the Federal Vision has gained a foothold in the PCA. Baptism has become such a confused cloudy issue - even the critics are not clear on the meaning of baptism.

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love. Galatians 5:6

If baptism as the sign of the covenant is similar to the OT circumcision, then here is what we have:
For in Christ Jesus neither baptism nor unbaptism avails anything, but faith working through love.

Without the cleansing blood of Christ applied through faith, baptism as the sign of the covenant avails nothing.
Terry W. West said,

July 24, 2007 at 5:06 pm

N Harper,

I’m just curious. I seem to remember that you said you and your family left the PCA? Correct me if I’m wrong. But if that is true, did you guys become credo-baptist when you left? Again, just curious.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West
armenia4ever (Lucas Temple) said,

July 25, 2007 at 8:26 pm

irst, the New Covenant is an unbreakable covenant. The very reason why God established this New Covenant with his people is because they broke the old one (v. 32). And if the New Covenant is an unbreakable covenant, then the paedobaptists have failed to recognize an important discontinuity between the New Covenant and the previous covenant administrations. The covenant as administered to Abraham and to Moses was breakable. “Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant” (Genesis 17:14). “They broke my covenant” (Jeremiah 31:32; cf. Deuteronomy 28, 29:19-25). But according to Jeremiah, the covenant as administered in the New Covenant is not breakable by the covenantees.

Second, the New Covenant is made with believers only. This of course is the exact reason why the New Covenant is unbreakable, for only believers will persevere to the end without breaking God’s covenant. Three blessings are spoken of with respect to the New Covenant: law written on the heart–”I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts” (v. 33); personal knowledge of God–”No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest” (v. 34a); and forgiveness of sins–”For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more” (v. 34b). Now the contrast between the Old and the New is not that these three blessings will be experienced for the first time in redemptive history by the people of God! That would be to succumb to radically dispensational assumptions. The elect in every age have experienced these blessings, including the elect under the Old Covenant–law written on the heart (Psalm 37:31, 9:10, 76:1); personal knowledge of God (1 Samuel 2:12, 3:7); the forgiveness of sins (Psalm 32:1-2). Rather, the true contrast between the Old and the New Covenants is that now under the New Covenant, all who are covenant members experience these peculiar blessings. The fact that not all covenant members experienced these blessings under the Old Covenant is part of the divine motivation for readministering the covenant under the New! (v. 32: “It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers . . . because they broke my covenant.”

Third, the New Covenant is made only with the elect, with those who have experienced these blessings. It is not made with those who have not experienced these blessings. This is simply a restatement of the first two implications already mentioned. Thus in accordance with the covenant as newly administered in Christ, baptists do not give the New Covenant sign to those who give no evidence of being in the New Covenant. While recognizing the proper Old Testament distinction between an external covenant (elect and non-elect) and an internal covenant (elect only), baptists understand this external/internal distinction to be abolished in the New Covenant. No one is in covenant with God who is not a believer. Thus when paedobaptists speak of their “covenant children” as “breaking covenant” (i.e. becoming apostate by rejecting the faith), baptists rightly respond, “What covenant are you talking about? Obviously not the New Covenant! Only those who have the law of God written on their hearts, who know the Lord, and who have their sins forgiven, are in the New Covenant! Your ‘covenant children’ were never in the New covenant, and so never should have received the New Covenant sign!”

(This is taken from another paper that i had been looking at, but it makes some great points.

Green Baggins