Green Baggins

 While we await Wilson’s response to my two posts on Sacerdotalism (here and here), we will move on to his chapter on baptism.

In this chapter, Wilson is trying to thread a middle course between ex opere operato on the one hand, and bare sign on the other. His words:

Of course this baptism does not automatically save the one baptized; there is no magical cleansing power in the water. We reject the Roman Catholic notion that saving grace goes in when the water goes on. We deny any ex opere operato efficacy to the waters of baptism. We also deny the modern Protestant reductionism that says that when the water goes on, somebody gets wet.

So far, so good. I am with Wilson here. There is a lot of space, however, between these two views of baptism.

Wilson then immediately talks about what happens to a baptized unrepentant pagan. Wilson wants to call him a covenant-breaker. Saying this, however, makes us back up a couple of steps to ask these two questions: 1. Aren’t unbelievers already covenant-breakers in Adam? Why do they need baptism in order to be called covenant breakers? Are we going to say that they become breakers of both the covenant of works and the covenant of grace? To me this is a fascinating question that definitely deserves exploration. 2. Wilson’s statement here presupposes a particular view of the covenant of grace that involves not the saving benefits, but the status of believers and unbelievers within the covenant. The status in one way is the same, meaning that the sanctions and promises apply equally to the believing and the unbelieving. This gets at two different explanations of the covenant of grace. We can phrase it in the form of a question: with whom is the covenant of grace made? The LC answers this question by affirming that the covenant of grace is made with Jesus Christ, and in Him all His elect seed (LC 31). And here I must confess to having moved in my position. No doubt Wes White will rejoice with many trumpets. I affirm now that the substance of the covenant of grace is made with the elect only, in accordance with the LC. I believe that the external signs of the CoG belong to the believers and to their children. But having the external signs does not necessarily mean that one has the substance of the CoG (which is salvation itself). Apostasy is falling away from these external signs (which are not meaningless, but do apply the sanctions: the point here is that the sanctions are not part of the essence of the covenant itself. Rather the sanctions tell us to go the direction of faith in order to receive the promise, which is the substance). Turretin is right: we should talk about the covenant properly conceived (the narrow sense in which the substance or core of the covenant is salvation itself), and the covenant improperly conceived (or maybe a better distinction would be formal and informal, or narrow and broad).

So, back to Wilson. I affirm that baptism applies the covenant sanctions upon the person, such that he is required to come to faith and repentance. And I affirm with Wilson that we can therefore speak of a person “breaking” the covenant by not living a life of repentance. I would add that the covenant-breaker is only breaking the covenant in a broad sense. The covenant of grace in a narrow sense is unbreakable, just as it is unconditional. Even the “conditions” are fulfilled by God (He gives us the faith, and He gives us perseverance). So, ultimately speaking, the covenant of grace is unconditional, unbreakable.

It looks as if I am not going to get all the way through this chapter with one post. Baptism, after all, deserves more than one post. But we will move on to consider 1 peter 3:18-22. I affirm with Wilson that we can say that baptism saves. That is, we can say that what baptism signifies saves us. Wilson seems to make this qualification when he says that it isn’t the water, but rather the resurrection of Christ that saves us (p. 100). However, what is lacking here is the understanding of the context of 1 Peter 3: 18-22. This is almost certainly the most difficult passage in the entire New Testament to interpret. I have had a go at it here. The question becomes this: baptism saves us from what? Well, what was Noah saved from? He was saved from the rest of the corruption of the world, the demons (πνεύμασιν) that ruled through the people. It is therefore more than possible that what Peter is trying to tell us is that we are saved from demons by the power of what baptism signifies. It would be interesting at least to see what Wilson thinks of this passage in more depth. There are thousands upon thousands of pages written on the passage, including at least three major books (Bo Reicke’s thesis, Dalton’s thesis, and Traver’s thesis at WTS, not including all the commentaries). Does Wilson agree with Dalton’s thesis on the passage? We will pick up with the next passage in the next post.

Wilson’s thesis for chapter three is to establish “the nature and necessity of new birth” (p. 33). In other words, “growing in our covenant understanding does not entail abandoning historic Calvinism, nor does it mean jettisoning the historical evangelical faith or the historic Reformed faith.” Wilson does not see himself as abandoning the “born-again” theology of evangelicalism, although he certainly sees himself as discarding forms of “self-birth” evident in much of “evangelicalism” today. I am reminded of his scathing and perfectly accurate descriptions of the “axis of treacle” in The Serrated Edge.  In other words, Wilson intends to describe his position as having solidarity with historic evangelicalism, not the “big umbrella” description of evangelicalism that is practically meaningless today.

The point is put even more sharply in this statement: “Simply put, the objectivity of the covenant does not mean that a man does not have to be born again. And this means we must consider the nature of the new birth” (p. 33).  For Wilson, this means that, ultimately speaking, there are only two kinds of people: regenerate and unregenerate, “the inhabitants of heaven and hell respectively” (p. 33.

However, the picture is complicated by the introduction of the covenant. There are covenant breakers and covenant keepers. And, furthermore, there are those who believe but are not part of the covenant. He provides a handy chart on p. 34. Then follows what gives me a first check:

The modern evangelical tendency is to assume that we have the ability to see the heart, and we then look at covenant membership through the lens of that mysterious ability. But we cannot see the heart. We cannot see regeneration, where it comes from, or where it goes. Our Lord taught us that we cannot see the wind blowing. We can have some idea of its effects, but this is not the same thing (p. 34).  

I call this a check, because this might be the first substantive disagreement I have with the book. He says further, on p. 36: “To be reborn of water and the Spirit is not something we have the ability to label and track.” Let me be clear. I agree that one cannot see into another person’s heart. However, I wonder if Wilson’s formulations have enough qualifications such that it doesn’t run counter to Matthew 7:15-20. Regarding this text, it cannot be asserted that Jesus is only dealing with the false teachers, and how to know them. That is the main point, yes. However, the scope of the passage cannot be limited to that, because of its very terms, which explicitly say that we can know healthy trees by their fruit. Let me be clear again. The way we know this is by a posteriori reasoning. That is, we argue from the effect to the cause. This is the entire reasoning upon which all science is based: science looks at phenomena, and comes up with a theory to explain what we see. Strictly speaking, it is a logical fallacy to claim that since a healthy tree bears good fruit, and we see good fruit, that therefore the tree is healthy. It is an example of affirming the consequent. However, it is no fallacy at all to say that the presence of good fruit is very good evidence of a healthy root. Can we know whether someone else is regenerated? Not if we require proof. However, we can certainly point to evidence, and in this way, we can know. Jesus tells us that there is a close relationship between the health of the tree and the quality of its fruit. It is not a loose relationship. And this passage occurs soon after the “Do not judge” passage! Jesus is not telling us never to exercise discernment, but rather to exercise cautious discernment. The first 6 verses of the passage are telling us about petty things. We are talking about “specks” in verse 3. But in verse 15, we are talking about ravening wolves, hardly a speck. It also takes discernment to tell the difference between the “speck” situation and the “wolf” situation. But how are we supposed to do something about the wolf if the fruit has only the loosest possible connection to the state of the heart? Church discipline would be impossible!

So, where does this rubber hit the road? I would argue that the church’s responsibility, when considering its members, is certainly to ascertain, by this a posterior reasoning, the regeneration of individuals in the church. Is this not how the elders are to admit people into membership? The elders cannot use the ignorance-of-%100-proof argument to excuse themselves from admitting a wolf into their church. “Yes, I see that their lives are being lived in complete rebellion against God, but since I cannot know their heart, I am going to admit them into the church, because they say that they are regenerated.” I am quite confident that Wilson would never use such a tactic in his church, by the way. However, I am not sure that his formulations have ruled this out. We, the leaders of the church, are supposed to discern, as best as we are able, the spiritual condition (i.e., regenerated or not) of a person before admitting them to the Lord’s Table. I take great pains to spell out this argument, and I hope sincerely that I have not misrepresented Wilson’s position here. And I am not even sure that he would deny the arguments I have made here. It is impossible always to say everything that needs to be said. But I do think that regeneration can be “tracked” by its fruit.

Wilson goes on to talk about corporate regeneration, about which I agree with him, especially since Wilson does not vitiate individual regeneration in his talk about the corporate aspects of God’s work. As he so eloquently says, “How could a call for omelettes be taken as opposition to eggs?” (p. 35).

I also like his affirmation of passivity in regeneration:

Modern evangelicals write books on How to Be Born Again, which betrays the fact that they are not grasping the Lord’s teaching in the third chapter of John. Does anyone write books on how to be born the first time? Who would buy it? (p. 35). Man is altogether passive until after the gift is given (p. 37).

It seems to me that more clarification is needed with regard to Calvin’s position on baptism. It must be mentioned here that the quotation in Schenk is available in volume 3 of the 7-volume Selected Works of Calvin, p. 74. If you don’t have a hard-copy of it, it is available on the Ages version of Calvin’s works. Is this statement of Calvin’s not to be interpreted in the light of Inst. 4.15.15, which says that “But from this sacrament, as from all others, we obtain only as much as we receive in faith.” In other words, I would agree that the forgiveness of sins can happen at baptism. But it only happens if faith is present. I did not find this qualification clearly stated in this chapter, and it is a crucial qualification. Wilson does say, “Many have been baptized and have not known the reality offered in that baptism. The problem is not that they have the baptism, but rather that they do not have the faith.” What is not clear about this statement is its relationship to the word “offers” in the first full paragraph of p. 40. Is Wilson arguing for this limited sense of baptismal regeneration in Calvin’s theology irrespective of faith? I would say categorically that Calvin would never say that a child is regenerated at baptism without faith being present. So, regeneration does not happen in any sense at baptism for the apostate.

I found a fascinating thought about baptism and the Trinity while reading a’Brakel last night. In the section in question, a’Brakel is laying out the reasons why the Christian needs to meditate on the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is so important that a’Brakel says “the entire spiritual life of a Christian consists in being exercised concerning this mystery, and is thus distinguished from the practice of civil virtue and natural religion” (vol. 1, pg. 176). Now, a’Brakel defines the doctrine of the Trinity in such a way that it implies or points to the entirety of soteriology. And this is true. The Father plans our salvation, the Son accomplishes our salvation, and the Holy Spirit applies our salvation to us. So, a’Brakel is right. n this context, a’Brakel also gives reasons why the Christian needs to meditate on this doctrine. Here is what he says about baptism: “Baptism also obligates us to worshjip these three Persons and to seek to be blessed by each of them” (vol. 1, pg. 177). The reason for this, of course, is that we are baptized into the name (notice the singular here!) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. So, in addition to all the other things baptism obligates us to do, it also obligates us to the study and meditation of the Trinity.

Here is the text (verses 1-4): “I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.”

The phrase I wish to examine is that phrase “baptized into Moses.” Obviously, all the Israelites passed through the Red Sea. Therefore, they were all baptized into Moses. It didn’t matter what age they were, they were baptized into Moses. Infants are included in this. What we have here is an indisputable example of “baptizo” being referred to infants. However, some of the details could use some elucidation.

Moses here is a type of Christ. This is proved by verse 6, which speaks of these things as “types” for us to follow. The Baptists might wish to argue here that the word only functions on a typological or figurative level. However, the question still remains, “Why did Paul use that word here?” By the way, this passage also forms part of the argument against “baptizo” always meaning “to immerse,” since the Israelites were not immersed. They went through on dry ground. It was the Egyptians who were immersed! However, this is a side issue, which could be dealt with in another post.

To be baptized into Moses surely functions on a typological level to point us to being baptized into Christ. If this is the case, then we have rock (vs. 4!)-solid evidence of paedo-baptism in the NT. We must be careful here in distinguishing and noting the sign and the thing signified. Remember that sacramental language sometimes ascribes the effects of the thing signified to the sign. Here we have the thing signified (escape from the Egyptians by the grace of God in the Red Sea), and a sign (the word “baptizo”) closely conjoined. They can be distinguished, though not violently separated. This is not to say that baptism saves, unless by that we mean that that to which baptism points saves us. The language must be extremely careful to not ascribe too much or too little to baptism. The fathers had their baptism in the sea. God was saving them. That is a type for us. Verse 6 absolutely and finally prohibits us from relegating verses 1-4 to the interesting but irrelevant solely typological level. These types are for our benefit. Therefore, the baptism of the fathers in verses 1-4 has reference to our baptism in Christ. Notice the parallel of baptism into Moses with baptism into Christ. Surely, Paul has the latter in mind in speaking about the former. In short, this passage is extremely strong in favor of paedo-baptism.

To my mind, almost the entirety of the issue hinges on the meaning of the word “dokimazo” in 1 Corinthians 11:28. This article (ht David McCrory) argues for paedo-communion on the basis of its understanding of the context and historical situation of the Corinthians when Paul wrote the letter. The specific section is about two-thirds of the way down the article under the title “Some specific objections; a. children cannot prove themselves.” I would suggest that the article does not do the word “dokmazo” justice at all. BDAG has this definition for the word, “to make a critical examination of something to determine genuineness, put to the test, examine,” listing this passage under that definition. What is one to make a critical examination of? The answer is “heauton” (oneself). Quite simply, it is eisegesis to claim that zero subjective aspects are attached to this examination.

BOQ It is possible for a covenant child, when tested (cf. I Cor. 10:13), to demonstrate by his words and behavior that he is living a godly life which seeks the approval of God. Such faithfulness can be observed even in a young child by both parents, elders, and other members of the church. EOQ But even this would require that the child no longer be an infant. Don’t get my position wrong. I think that children of age 6 are capable in some instances of such examination. I think other children of age 15 are incapable of it. This is where the session of the church is so important. But the article does not do justice to the definition of “dokimazo” in BDAG. The best article I have ever read on the passage dealing with paedo-communion is by George Knight. It is available in the Auburn Avenue Theology: Pros and Cons volume, available here.

Here is the passage in the ESV: “In him 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, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.”

In Greek: ἐν ᾧ καὶ περιετμήθητε περιτομῇ ἀχειροποιήτῳ ἐν τῇ ἀπεκδύσει τοῦ σώματος τῆς σαρκός, ἐν τῇ περιτομῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ¹²συνταφέντες αὐτῷ ἐν τῷ βαπτισμῷ, ἐν ᾧ καὶ συνηγέρθητε διὰ τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐνεργείας τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν:

The question for us is this: how connected are circumcision and baptism in this passage? The answer must be “very connected.” For example: the circumcision made without hands is epexegeted by verse 12’s “having been buried with him in baptism.” The circumcision of Christ at the end of verse 11 is also epexegeted by “baptism of Christ.” We know in other portions of Scripture that Jesus viewed His death as a baptism (Mark 10:38, where the present tense forbids us to understand His baptism there as the baptism that He experienced in the Jordan river). We also know that His death can be described as a cutting off (”circumcision”) for the sake of His people. Furthermore, we know that the New Covenant is in fundamental continuity with the Abrahamic Covenant (Galatians 3:7-9). So, in Colossians, Gentiles who have been baptized into Christ have already received the real circumcision. Now, some might attempt to argue that circumcision only has a pointing capacity (to Christ), and that therefore it ends with Christ’s finished work. However, here it is the Gentile (!) who is said to receive the circumcision, that is, that to which circumcision points. The significance, then, of circumcision is ongoing. The significance is that, in Christ’s circumcision, we receive that circumcision by being part of Christ’s body. How do we receive that circumcision? By being buried with Jesus in baptism. So, we receive that to which circumcision points by being baptized. Therefore, there is fundamental continuity between circumcision and baptism. Therefore, if anyone wishes to object to infant baptism, then those same objections have to be levelled against infant circumcision. This is part of John Calvin’s argument for infant baptism, by the way.

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).

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.

Peter Leithart has a very interesting article here. He argues that the recent fuss over baptismal regeneration is really the fuss about Presbyterians going in a Pietist direction. However, one is puzzled by his method of argumentation: is he arguing that since the German Pietists argued for baptismal regeneration that therefore those who are opposed to the FV are not really in the tradition of Pietism? That is, is he trying to take the rug out from under Lig Duncan, Rick Phillips, etc? This would seem to be his method of argumentation. If it is, then he has forgotten one all-important fact: the language of sacraments. What I mean by this is what WCF 27.2 “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.” And even in Leithart’s previous post about Chemnitz, we can see Chemnitz’s care in making faith integral to the effect of what baptism signifies. Duncan, Phillips, etc. would agree whole-heartedly with the idea that when baptism is improved by faith, regeneration occurs. They would merely deny that it occurs always at the time-point of baptism regardless of whether faith is present. That is my position, as well. So, Leithart has failed to take the rug out from under Duncan, Phillips, etc.

I have already talked a great deal about baptism here. What I want to do here is to note a few more rather important things that the WCF says about baptism. Baptism is said explicitly to admit the one baptized into the visible church (28.1). The divines were very careful here not to ascribe too much to baptism. They were also careful not to ascribe too little to baptism. However, that is not usually what is being attacked these days. These days, most of the attacks are coming from people ascribing too much to baptism. The nature of the grace “exhibited and conferred” is that of sign and seal. Sign and seal modify ALL the phrases in 28.1: “sign and seal of the covenant of grace, (sign and seal) of his ingrafting into Christ, (sign and seal) of regeneration, (sign and seal) of remission of sins, etc.”

Baptism is not necessarily the time-point of regeneration, as 28.5 confirms. It can be, but that would not be by the bare rite of baptism. One of the most helpful things that the WCF says is that “the efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered.” Some have twisted this to mean that the WCF is saying that the efficacy starts at baptism, but is not tied down to it: that is, that it is not a one-time shot of grace. This is not what the WCF is saying. The WCF is saying that baptism’s efficacy can be a “delayed reaction.” This is clear from the “yet notwithstanding” right after the semi-colon, which indicates that the grace being exhibited and conferred might have been denied given the first phrase of 28.6. If that grace might have been denied given the first phrase of the section, then the first phrase cannot mean that the grace starts immediately at the time point of baptism, but is not tied down to that moment. Otherwise, the flow of argument would make no sense. Rather, it must mean that there can be a “delayed reaction.” This is confirmed by the last phrase of the section “in His appointed time.” The grace comes in His appointed time, if it comes.

That it does not necessarily come is confirmed by the last part of 28.5: “grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it…that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.” This phrase is sometimes taken to mean that grace and salvation are normally annexed to it. However, this is an invalid inference, since the target against which this section aims is the belief that it is okay to neglect the ordinance of baptism. The target is not those who say that grace and salvation are always annexed to baptism. I take the word “so” in that phrase to mean “thus.” It is not an indication of degree. A parallel would be the KJV translation of John 3:16: “For God so loved the world…” The word “so” there does not indicate that God loved the world this much. It indicates that God loved the world so, thusly. So also here (pun intended). A synonymous rendering would be “grace and salvation are not in such a way inseparably annexed unto it as that…” If we use the word “thus,” however, we must be careful to note that the word would not have a “therefore” connotation, but rather the word would set the interpretation, as in the rendering I have adopted above.