I’m always looking for good resources on infant baptism and was very happy to recently find this excellent overview of the doctrine as it’s confessed by the Reformed churches. Enjoy!
As I read Brian’s post, I couldn’t help but think of those precious verses in Heb. 11 which speak of Moses’ pursuit of the reproach of Christ over all of the treasures of Egypt.
“By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a short time. He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward.”
The Lord calls us to travel on the narrow road, the road of the cross, the pursuit of joy in a far greater object of beauty than anything the world has to offer us. While a theology of glory might drive us to pursue earthly victories and carnal security, the theology of the cross calls to us in the midst of affliction, assuring us that the narrow road that leads to eternal life will provide us an otherworldly security which the world cannot give.
“Christ’s sufferings contained an active obedience; and it is this which made them a righteousness: for mere pain, irrespective of the motive of voluntary endurance, is not meritorious. And Christ’s obedience to precepts was accompanied with endurance….In many places Christ’s bearing the preceptive law is clearly implied to be for our redemption. See for instance, Gal. 4:4. By what fair interpretation can it be shown that the law under which He was made, to redeem us, included nothing but the penal threatenings? ‘To redeem us who were under the law.’ Were we under no part of it but the threats? See, also, Rom. 5:18, 19….Rom. 8:3, 4. What the law failed to do, through our moral impotency, that Christ has done for us. What was that? Rather our obedience than our suffering” -R.L. Dabney, Systematic Theology, p. 626
“And if the actual sin of Adam be imputed unto us all, who derive our nature from him, unto condemnation, though he sinned not in our circumstances and relations, is it strange that the actual obedience of Christ should be imputed unto them who derive a spiritual nature from him, unto the justification of life? Besides, both the satisfaction and obedience of Christ, as relating unto his person, were, in some sense, infinite, – that is, of an infinite value, – and so cannot be considered in parts, as though one part of it were imputed unto one, and another unto another, but the whole is imputed unto every one that doth believe.” -John Owen, The Imputation of Christ’s Obedience
“The obedience is that by which he is furnished so as to fulfill these roles, to conduct to salvation and to bestow it. In other words, the obedience is the accomplishment that procures salvation and ensures its bestowal. No consideration could more definitely institute the place that obedience occupies in the securing and imparting of salvation in its all-embracing connotation. In other passages the obedience of Christ is set forth as the basis or medium of more specific elements in salvation. In Paul’s statement ‘By the obedience of the one shall many be constituted righteous’ (Rom. 5:19), the obedience of Christ is brought into relation to justification as its basis or ground. In Hebrews 10:10 the obedience is viewed as that by which we are sanctified, and this sanctifying is probably conceived rather as the purification from sin derived from Christ’s expiatory offering. But in Hebrews 2:10 and 5:8, 9, it is salvation inclusively considered that is derived from the obedience of Christ. So we must say that the obedience of Christ is that which procured salvation in broadest compass. Salvation must never be conceived of in design, accomplishment, or actual possession, apart from Christ as the Savior. And salvation is secured by the obedience of Christ, because it was by obedience that Jesus as God-man was constituted the all-sufficient and perfect Savior.”
-John Murray, The Obedience of Christ
The doctrine of baptismal regeneration is not only repudiated by all the Reformed Confessions, but, what perhaps, will to many minds be more convincing, it is impossible to reconcile the doctrine with their theology. Every one knows that the Reformed Churches adopted the theological system of Augustin. They all taught that none are born of the Spirit but those who are finally saved. If a man is called (regenerated,) he is justified; and if justified, he is glorified. There is no such thing, according to their doctrine, as falling from grace. If the Reformed therefore believed that all who are baptized are vitally united to Christ, and regenerated by the Holy Ghost, then they held that all the baptized are saved. They assuredly did not hold the latter, and therefore it is no less certain that they did not hold the former. It is impossible for a man to be a Calvinist, and believe the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. -Charles Hodge, Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, pp. 382-383
Disclaimer: In posting links to the following posts, I am not making a public statement regarding either my agreement or disagreement with the entirety of the authors’ words. This information is intended as an aid for fellow Reformed Christians. The statements, views, and opinions presented on the blogs referenced are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this particular blog
Pastor Brian Carpenter has recently written an excellent post dealing with some of the all too common defections from the grassroots nature of American Presbyterianism present within some denominations.
The first can be found here. Brian rightly points out that sessions, presbyteries, and general assemblies aren’t Masonic societies sealed off from the the rightful purview of the public. On the contrary, Presbyterian denominations like the PCA have historically attempted to prevent this kind of approach by implementing grassroots measures opposed to the clericalist tendency to keep the public in the dark. By the way, by posting this link to Brian’s blog I’m in no way pointing an accusatory finger at any particular Presbyterian or Reformed denomination. Just thought I’d get that out there.
In denominations like my own (The Presbyterian Church in America) a church court cannot demand that members not discuss issues that were handled in the court’s sessions, with the exception of whether the court was in executive session, and even here the confidentiality is restricted to the nature of the discussion. When a court enters executive session it adjourns with a motion to the effect, “I move that we arise and report.” Whatever decisions were made in this session are reported to the open session and included into the minutes of the court. The meeting of a church court is public and includes visitors; neither members nor visitors can be barred from talking to anyone about the events of the meeting. If this kind of prohibition was ever mandated by a church court and a complaint was filed, there is a high probability, from what I’ve read and discussed with other pastors in the PCA, that the court would lose the case. Why? WCF 20:2 tells us why in unequivocal terms.
“God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.”
Members, know your rights! The contra-clericalist words of the Westminster Confession are on your side.
Dr. R. Scott Clark of Westminster Seminary California, whose book Recovering the Reformed Confession is, in my mind, hands down the best piece of popular Reformed literature written in the last decade, has weighed in on a few controversies going on within the Reformed world. By the way, if you haven’t read his book, make it your business to purchase this book before you buy any others. Positively, he’s once again reminded us of those aspects of Reformed theology that many in our day have either neglected or abandoned outright. The two posts can be found here and here. Also, if you haven’t read his article on Baptism and the Covenant of Grace: The Double Mode of Communion in the Covenant of Grace, published in the Confessional Presbyterian Journal, I’d ask you to put down everything you’re doing and read it immediately. It might just change your covenant theology forever. And if you heed Clark’s arguments, that wouldn’t be such a bad thing. The entire article can be found here.
Lane Keister has offered a very insightful examination of Robert Rayburn’s public letter to the SJC of the PCA. He very graciously answers some of Pastor Rayburn’s ecclesiastical and theological concerns, particularly, the claim made by some scholars (not mentioning any in particular by the way) that a temporary forgiveness can be granted apart from the reality of justification. Lane’s blog is one of my favorites, and you’d be wise to read it regularly. He also critiques a paper written by a PCA pastor. Lane has an excellent grasp of church history and is able to use his remarkable historical consciousness to prove, very convincingly, that our theological representatives within the Reformed tradition embraced a baptismal theology consistent with the Dortian categories of unconditional election, perseverance of the saints, total inability, etc. etc.
My good friend Tim Massaro, a student at Westminster Seminary California and one of the smartest guys I know, has weighed in on some of the recent controversies over at his blog. He’s also posted a a gem of a quote by J. Gresham Machen, a personal hero of mine, who writes in Christianity and Liberalism about what churches should look for in choosing ministers.
Jason Stellman has posted here on “The Theology of the Cross Salinger Style.” I try to read Catcher in the Rye at least once every year, so this post is certainly near and dear to my heart!
This is some of the stuff I’ve been keeping up with. I hope you enjoy it just as much as I have!
The following is taken from the Westminster Larger Catechism…
Question 59: Who are made partakers of redemption through Christ?
Answer: Redemption is certainly applied, and effectually communicated, to all those for whom Christ has purchased it; who are in time by the Holy Ghost enabled to believe in Christ according to the gospel.
Question 61: Are all they saved who hear the gospel, and live in the church?
Answer: All that hear the gospel, and live in the visible church, are not saved; but they only who are true members of the church invisible.
Question 62: What is the visible church?
Answer: The visible church is a society made up of all such as in all ages and places of the world do profess the true religion, and of their children.
Question 63: What are the special privileges of the visible church?
Answer: The visible church has the privilege of being under God’s special care and government; of being protected and preserved in all ages, not withstanding the opposition of all enemies; and of enjoying the communion of saints, the ordinary means of salvation, and offers of grace by Christ to all the members of it in the ministry of the gospel, testifying, that whosoever believes in him shall be saved, and excluding none that will come unto him.
Question 64: What is the invisible church?
Answer: The invisible church is the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ the head.
Question 65: What special benefits do the members of the invisible church enjoy by Christ?
Answer: The members of the invisible church by Christ enjoy union and communion with him in grace and glory.
Question 66: What is that union which the elect have with Christ?
Answer: The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God’s grace, whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband; which is done in their effectual calling.
“A problem with the the FV claims that a covenant is essentially a relationship is that proponents offer dubious biblical support for their doctrine. Much of the evidence they cite does prove that Scripture can speak of covenant in terms of a marital relationship, and that in its personal and vital dimensions. This, however does not prove that the marriage metaphor exhausts all that is entailed in membership within the covenant of grace. In other words, just because some persons in covenant relate to God in that way does not necessarily prove that all persons in covenant relate to God in similar terms.
Much of the biblical language in describing covenants, furthermore, is patently legal or forensic, and speaks of covenants in terms of an agreement. FV proponents do not necessarily deny this, but they practically neglect these data in their discussion of covenant. Their discussion, then, is selective and produces an unbalanced picture of a covenant. FV proponents illegitimately privilege the marriage metaphor at the expense of the total witness of biblical data.”
-Guy Waters, The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis, pp. 13-14
Dr. Clark has provided some very excellent observations concerning two central features of the covenant theology confessed by the Reformed churches often left out of these discussions on covenant and sacraments.
First, there is the external/internal ways of relating to the covenant of grace, or the “double mode of communion” which theologically contextualizes 16th century discussions of baptism. We can see how it would be easy to leave out this central feature of 16th century thought and simply assume that the Reformed apply to the sign the thing signified in every instance. Even more so if the distinction between the visible and invisible church is rejected.
Secondly, the sacramental union with respect to both sign and thing signified is a very important feature of 16th century sacramentology which needs to be accounted for. In other words, its sometimes assumed that whenever sacramental efficacy is discussed by a Reformed scholar, both sign AND thing signified are in view which is not the case at all. This is more similar to the Roman Catholic and Lutheran interpretation of Romans 6 which flattens out the tensions of sacramental union and recognizes both sign and thing signified applied in every mention of baptismal effiacy.
Thanks Dr. Clark for some helpful observations concerning the way covenant children relate to the covenant of grace, and the very nuanced approach the Reformed have typically taken throughout history.
About a year ago, Dr. James White posted a video on his website referencing a conversation which took place between myself and some of the contributors to the Reformed Catholicism blog when it was still up and running. The video can be found here. Dr. White quite dismissively challenged the paedobaptist interpretation of Acts 2:38-39, a key verse in the discussion over baptism. The passage reads:
Peter replied, 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. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.
Dr. White’s beef with the interpretation of the passage being discussed at RC was its apparent disregard for the latter portion of this passage “for all who are far off- for all whom the Lord our God will call.” In Dr. White’s opinion, paedobaptist interpreters of this passage stop at the mention of children and ignore what he thinks is a serious textual challenge to their position. I’d like to offer this response to the contrary, namely that the end of this passage is entirely consistent with Peter’s extension of the baptismal promises to covenant children.
This can be approached from a variety of angles. First, the question must be asked, who are the “all who are far off” that Peter mentions? Before identifying this group of people, it might be wise to identify the two groups mentioned beforehand. The passage informs us that Peter is addressing the Men of Israel, an issue which neither sides to my knowledge will dispute. So the promise extends first to the people of Israel (Mt. 15:24), then to their children, and finally to “those who are far off.”
The second group here mentioned- “your children”, unlike the first, presents an interpretive bone of contention between Reformed Christians and their Baptist friends. Baptist’s usually interpret this passage as addressing children capable of the repentance commanded by Peter in the beginning of v. 38, a position entirely inconsistent with what we see of the covenantal relationships established by God with his people throughout the course of redemptive history. If Peter is espousing the Baptist position, then Peter is certainly engaging in a pretty precarious rhetorical strategy here, affirming what God has affirmed for thousands of years (familial solidarity, infant inclusion) while simultaneously denying this in the same breath. If such a massive shift in covenantal relations was then in process, don’t you think Peter would have been a little clearer? Why essentially repeat the promises of the Abrahamic covenant if your intention is to nullify a central aspect of its administration? Man that crowd must have been confused! Anyway, I think Calvin’s words here are much more consistent with the import of these words. Note also his dismissal of the Anabaptist interpretation as failing to do justice to what Peter is teaching.
“And we must note these three degrees, that the promise was first made to the Jews, and then to their children, and last of all, that it is also to be imparted to the Gentiles. We know the reason why the Jews are preferred before other people; for they are, as it were, the first begotten in God’s family, yea, they were then separated from other people by a singular privilege. Therefore Peter observeth a good order, when he giveth the Jews the pre-eminence. Whereas he adjoineth their children unto them, it dependeth upon the words of the promise: I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed after thee, where God doth reckon the children with the fathers in the grace of adoption.”
This place, therefore, doth abundantly refute the manifest error of the Anabaptists, which will not have infants, which are the children of the faithful, to be baptized, as if they were not members of the Church. They espy a starting hole in the allegorical sense, Effugium in allegorico sensu captant, they attempt evasion by giving an allegorical meaning. // And they expound it thus, that by children are meant those which are spiritually begotten. But this gross impudency doth nothing help them. It is plain and evident that Peter spoke thus because God did adopt one nation peculiarly. And circumcision did declare that the right of adoption was common even unto infants. Therefore, even as God made his covenant with Isaac, being as yet unborn, because he was the seed of Abraham, so Peter teacheth, that all the children of the Jews are contained in the same covenant, because this promise is always in force, I will be the God of your seed.”
The manifest error of the Anabaptists is their inability to account for the unity of the covenant of grace and Peter’s explicit re-affirmation of infant inclusion into it. Note Calvin’s last words in this passage. The Anabaptist error consists in denying a promise which is always in force. Contra the Anabaptists, Peter affirms what God has always affirmed, namely that the children of his people are, by reason of their solidarity with their parents, entitled to the privileges of baptism. This appears in the relationship which exists in this passage between the command to baptize (imperitave), the promises of forgiveness and reception of the Holy Spirit (indicative), and the subjects of both (you and your children). Peter commands those present to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and reception of the Holy Spirit, because the promise (the promise of baptism) is for those present and their children and all who are far off. Peter’s mention of concious repentance no more threatens the paedobaptist position any more than the imperatives given by God to Abraham threatened to exclude the application of circumcision to covenant children.
The last part of this passage is Peter’s recognition of the eschatalogical movement within redemptive history fulfilled by the death, ressurection, and enthronement of Christ to the right hand of the father. This central apostolic theme, the unity of both Jew and Gentile as one body in the New Covenant, is referenced by Peter’s mention of those who are far off. Calvin’s observation that this interpretation embodies the most natural sense of the passage is right on. This interpretation is most consistent with the threefold movement of this passage from the nation of Israel, covenant children, and finally to those far off Gentiles now brought into the covenant. Calvin notes that “far off” refers not to a distance in location, but to a covenantal and positional difference between Jew and Gentile.
“The Gentiles are named in the last place, which were before strangers. For those which refer it unto those Jews which were exiled afar off, (and driven) into far countries, they are greatly deceived. For he speaketh not in this place of the distance of place; but he noteth a difference between the Jews and the Gentiles, that they were first joined to God by reason of the covenant, and so, consequently, became of his family or household; but the Gentiles were banished from his kingdom. Paul useth the same speech in the second chapter to Ephesians, that the Gentiles, which were strangers from the promises, are now drawn near, through Jesus Christ, unto God. Because that Christ (the wall of separation being taken away) hath reconciled both (the Jews and Gentiles) unto the Father, and coming, he hath preached peace unto those which were nigh at hand, and which were afar off.”
In an attempt to conclude my thoughts on this issue, let me just say that I have the utmost respect for Dr. White and his commitment to the doctrines of grace. He’s a sharp thinker and fierce apologist, a scholar who I’d be intimidated to debate on any subject. Yet in my opinion, Dr. White is simply repeating the standard Baptist objection to the paedobaptist interpretation of Acts 2:38-39 which grasps for straws in an attempt to explain away Peter’s very Jewish covenant theology which continues to affirm the rightful inclusion of children into God’s covenantal administration. His assessment of the paedobaptist interpretation, that Reformed interpreters somehow ignore the latter portion of this passage, fails to live up to the actual facts at hand. I’ve referenced Calvin here partly because he offers the best interpretation of this passage I’ve come across and because of his place in the history of Reformed interpretation.
Calvin shows us that this threefold movement in Acts 2:38-39 is nothing more than a re-statement of what God has spoken in every era. The children of the New Israel united as one in the body of Christ are the proper subjects of the sign and seals of the covenant, entitled to the promises of forgiveness of sins and reception of the Holy Spirit, and members of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. The latter portion in no way threatens the concept of familial solidarity so deeply rooted in the administration of the Abrahamic covenant. As we’ve seen from Calvin, the latter portion of this passage only strengthens our understanding of the eschatalogically fulfilled unity of both Jew and Gentile into one body, accomplished by Christ, and applied by the Holy Spirit in the sign and seal of baptism. We should walk away from this passage recognizing that a serious change has indeed occurred with the establishment of the New Covenant. But this change isn’t the one Dr. White has in mind. On the contrary, the change in God’s covenantal dealings with his people is the extension of the covenant to all the peoples of the world, and among those called, to their children also!
This passage was one of those places in Scripture which absolutely transformed my understanding of baptism. Contrary to Dr. White’s contention, I believe that this passage offers some of the clearest and most astonishing proofs substantiating the paedobaptist position. I’ve never encountered a Baptist interpreter who has been able to account for Peter’s command to baptize and his immediate application of this command and its promises to the children of God’s people! As I’ve thought about this issue, witnessed the baptism of my own son at just one month old, and continued to study the Scripture and the Reformed tradition, I’ve been ever more strengthened in my paedobaptist convictions, not the opposite. Dr. White’s assessment here fails to convince me, and Baptists like him will have to work a lot harder in attempting to overthrow a central feature the Abrahamic Covenant.
The Reformation is the legitimate offspring, the greatest act of the Catholic Church; and on this account of true catholic nature itself, in its genuine conception: whereas the Church of Rome, instead of following the divine conduct of history has continued to stick in the old law of commandments, the garb of childhood, like the Jewish hierarchy in the time of Christ, and thus by its fixation has Romanism has parted with the character of eatholicity in exchange for that of particularity.
-Philip Schaff, Principle of Protestantism, p. 49
