Calvin on Baptism: "hypocrites ...glory in a naked and dead sign"
Some noticed my comment under another post, that I do not think men should place their children, wives, or themselves under the care of Lutheran pastors and churches, today. Why not?
Principally because modern Lutherans administer, teach, and write about the Sacraments in a way that leads tender souls to trust in the ritual and the elements rather than Jesus Christ. Here's the opening paragraph from a Concordia Publishing House pamplet distributed at no cost in the foyers of Missiouri Synod Lutheran churches around the country. Titled "What About Holy Baptism," it opens with this paragraph:
Suppose for a moment that there was a doctor who had such incredible talent that he could prevent people from dying, and bring those who had died back to life, never to die again. Just imagine how people would do whatever they could to be treated by this doctor! Now consider that in Holy Baptism, God actually does give us the gift of eternal life! Let's learn more about this marvelous blessing. (The pamplet goes on to make statements about the connection between "the Word" and the water, and once or twice faith is mentioned, but the first paragraph is an accurate representation of the whole.)
This is sacramentalism and it destroys souls. Yet sacramentalism is foundational to much of Christendom today. It permeates Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Episcopalianism, and Roman Catholicism, and it is connived at by many Reformed and Presbyterian denominations and pastors. In fact if we're honest we'll admit that the sacramental error is cheek-by-jowl next to every Biblical practice of infant baptism, bedeviling paedobaptist churches just as the sacramentalism of decisional regeneration bedevils credobaptist churches.
It is never, ever right to lead the souls under our care to believe that Baptism saves us...
The grace of Jesus Christ saves us, through faith; and that faith is the gift of God which must always precede Baptism. Saving faith is the only proper ground of applying the sign of initiation into the Covenant. The Lord's Supper and Baptism have never saved anyone and prettying them up with the labels "Eucharist" and "Holy Baptism" don't make them salvific.As Luther and Calvin warned constantly, sinful men are always tempted to exchange ceremony and ritual for heart religion and saving faith. Thus, promoting our rituals and ceremonies in such a way that hardened or ignorant sheep trust those ceremonies to save them or their children is betrayal of those souls and their children.
What about where the Bible says "Baptism nows saves us?"
Jeremiah warned against uncircumcised hearts and Jesus warned circumcized Jews that their father was the Devil. Can we possibly be so very blind, then, as to trot out this text to make a point that is directly opposed to the entire thrust of the Word of God?
For those Reformed men who are Lutherans and Roman Catholics in drag, here is "Baptism now saves us" in context:
Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him. (1Peter 3:21-22)
Note that directly after writing the phrase the Holy Spirit corrects all those sacramentalists who would want to use this text to justify paragraphs like the one above from the Concordia pamphlet. He stops to clarify that it's not the ritual and ceremony that save us, but faith in Jesus Christ.
If we are to speak according to the words of the Holy Spirit, we will always issue this sort of Godly warning to those we are baptizing and those taking part in the ritual and ceremony. Baptism now saves us, but it never has been and never is the water, the naked sign. Saying so is empty deception. As the Apostle Paul writes:
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. (Colossians 2:8-12)
The circumcision of Christ was a circumcision made without hands. The baptism of Christ is a baptism made without hands.
So the next time someone justifies the evil doctrine of baptismal regeneration by quoting "baptism now saves you," tell them to finish the sentence. The second half of that declaration made by the Apostle Peter under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit could not be more clear in denouncing the trust in ceremonies and rituals that has permeated Christendom from its very beginning.
Jeremiah knew what it was to war against it in defense of those souls under his care:
Circumcise yourselves to the LORD And remove the foreskins of your heart, Men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, Or else My wrath will go forth like fire And burn with none to quench it, Because of the evil of your deeds. (Jeremiah 4:4)
“Behold, the days are coming,” declares the LORD, “that I will punish all who are circumcised and yet uncircumcised--Egypt and Judah, and Edom and the sons of Ammon, and Moab and all those inhabiting the desert who clip the hair on their temples; for all the nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised of heart. (Jeremiah 9:25, 26)
Jesus knew what it was to war against it in defense of those souls under His care:
They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.”
Jesus said to them, “If you are Abraham’s children, do the deeds of Abraham. But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do. You are doing the deeds of your father.”
They said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father: God.”
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me. Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me. Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.” (John 8:39-47)
The Apostles knew what it was to war against it in defense of those souls under their care:
But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God. (Romans 2:29)
John Calvin knew what it was to war against it in defense of those souls under his care:
As Noah, then, obtained life through death, when in the ark, he was enclosed not otherwise than as it were in the grave, and when the whole world perished, he was preserved together with his small family; so at this day, the death which is set forth in baptism, is to us an entrance into life, nor can salvation be hoped for, except we be separated from the world....
"Not the removal of dirt from the flesh." This was added, because it might be that the greatest part of men would profess the name of Christ; and so it is with us, almost all are introduced into the church by baptism. Thus, what he had said before would not be appropriate, that few at this day are saved by baptism, as God saved only eight by the ark. This objection Peter anticipates, when he testifies that he speaks not of the naked sign, but that the effect must also be connected with it, as though he had said, that what happened in the age of Noah would always be the case, that mankind would rush on to their own destruction, but that the Lord would in a wonderful way deliver His very small flock.
We now see what this connection means; for some one might object and say, “Our baptism is widely different from that of Noah, for it happens that most are at this day baptized.” To this he replies, that the external symbol is not sufficient, except baptism be received really and effectually: and the reality of it will be found only in a few.
...when we speak of sacraments, two things are to be considered, the sign and the thing itself. In baptism the sign is water, but the thing is the washing of the soul by the blood of Christ and the mortifying of the flesh. The institution of Christ includes these two things. Now that the sign appears often inefficacious and fruitless, this happens through the abuse of men, which does not take away the nature of the sacrament. Let us then learn not to tear away the thing signified from the sign. We must at the same time beware of another evil, such as prevails among the Papists; for as they distinguish not as they ought between the thing and the sign, they stop at the outward element, and on that fix their hope of salvation. Therefore the sight of the water takes away their thoughts from the blood of Christ and the power of the Spirit. They do not regard Christ as the only author of all the blessings therein offered to us; they transfer the glory of his death to the water, they tie the secret power of the Spirit to the visible sign.
What then ought we to do? Not to separate what has been joined together by the Lord. We ought to acknowledge in baptism a spiritual washing, we ought to embrace therein the testimony of the remission of sin and the pledge of our renovation, and yet so as to leave to Christ his own honor, and also to the Holy Spirit; so that no part of our salvation should be transferred to the sign. Doubtless when Peter, having mentioned baptism, immediately made this exception, that it is not the putting off of the filth of the flesh, he sufficiently shewed that baptism to some is only the outward act, and that the outward sign of itself avails nothing.
But the answer of a good conscience. The word question, or questioning, is to be taken here for “answer,” or testimony. Now Peter briefly defines the efficacy and use of baptism, when he calls attention to conscience, and expressly requires that confidence which can sustain the sight of God and can stand before his tribunal. For in these words he teaches us that baptism in its main part is spiritual, and then that it includes the remission of sins and renovation of the old man; for how can there be a good and pure conscience until our old man is reformed, and we be renewed in the righteousness of God? and how can we answer before God, unless we rely on and are sustained by a gratuitous pardon of our sins? In short, Peter intended to set forth the effect of baptism, that no one might glory in a naked and dead sign, as hypocrites are wont to do.
This is Calvin's warning against all sacramentalists, whether Roman Catholic or Lutheran or Reformed: "No part of our salvation should be transferred to the sign."
To do so is to separate what Christ has joined together. It is to deny that Jesus Christ is the only Author of all the blessings Baptism offers to us. It is to transfer the glory of Christ's death to the water and to tie the secret power of the Spirit to the visible sign.
There are many who deny Sacraments are signs and seals and that God works through them imparting grace to His true sons. But across history the danger of Sacramentalism has been much, much greater.
It's no gain to prove one's zeal in repenting of one error by commiting oneself to another that is worse.
Clearnote Churches
Clearnote Fellowship
Christ the Word
Monthly archive
- May 2013 (17)
- April 2013 (33)
- March 2013 (43)
- February 2013 (28)
- January 2013 (41)
- December 2012 (31)
- November 2012 (37)
- October 2012 (38)
- September 2012 (21)
- August 2012 (28)
- July 2012 (46)
- June 2012 (50)
Popular Posts
Tags
Recent Comments
- T. Russell Hunter on The difference between pro-life and anti-antiabortion...
- Joseph Bayly on Register now for the Clearnote Fellowship 2013 Summer Conference...
- Eric Wilson on Register now for the Clearnote Fellowship 2013 Summer Conference...
- Ross on Prayer letters, truth-telling and missionary accountability...
- Paul on Is the pope an Apostle?
Comments
Calvin was right when he wrote that just as he was right when he wrote the part left out...
"But the fanatics, such as Schuencfeldius, absurdly pervert this testimony, while they seek to take away from sacraments all their power and effect. For Peter did not mean here to teach that Christ’s institution is vain and inefficacious, but only to exclude hypocrites from the hope of salvation, who, as far as they can, deprave and corrupt baptism."
Such fanatics are much more common in Reformed churches than those who would assert that the means of grace work in the absence of faith or as Calvin puts it "that baptism to some is only the outward act, and that the outward sign of itself avails nothing".
The Westminster Confession, like Calvin, gets it right:
I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world.
II. The outward element to be used in the sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto.
III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person.
IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.
V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; 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.
VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered to any person.
I wondered how long it would take Mr. Gray to try and eviscerate such a wonderful and timely post. Not even a half day, apparently.
Excellent post, Tim & David. Love you guys.
>I wondered how long it would take Mr. Gray to try and eviscerate such a wonderful and timely post.
How did I try to eviscerate it? Given some of the comments within it clearly our (meaning the Baylys and myself) previous discussion was in mind. How is it then inappropriate for me to respond? Or are you just trying to put a boot in without being too overt? What is your beef with Calvin and the WCF? And if you have no such beef what is your beef with me?
I love the Baylys too, doesn't mean I'm obliged to agree with them.
>It is never, ever right to lead the souls under our care to believe that Baptism saves us...
How are we to say that it is never ever right to teach what scripture plainly states? Peter states that baptism saves and then states clarifications and provides context. Providing clarification and context do not mean Peter is saying that what he said is wrong. Rather he is attempting to ensure that we would understand rightly what he said.
When we encounter a scripture that makes us uncomfortable shouldn't our response be to understand how it is true rather than to immediately assert that what scripture teaches is false? The interesting question, and the one that Peter addresses and Calvin is clearly on board with is how does Baptism save us. Clearly not in a way in which Baptism replaces or competes with Christ or the Holy Spirit. The means does not compete with the Master.
But is it truly the right response to teach that Peter was wrong? I know you aren't going to tell people that Peter taught falsely but in an implicit way a refusal to teach what Peter taught, which is what the above statement does, accomplishes just that.
"...let God be true, but every man a liar..."
It is imperative that we affirm what the scriptures affirm and do so in the same manner as the scriptures. There we find our blue water with Rome. It is quite possible (and often has been done) to teach what Peter authoritatively stated about baptism in a way that decieves and does great harm. But the correct antidote is to say what Peter said, in the way Peter explained it not to refuse to say what Peter said.
David Gray writes: "fanatics" (like Schuencfeldius) are much more common in Reformed churches than those who would assert that the means of grace work in the absence of faith..."
This blog is not read by mere memorial Evangelicals. And if I can put this delicately, your response indicates I was right to warn against sacerdotal sacramentarians. I never consider I've hit my mark unless I get a rebound, and rebound I've most certanly gotten!
Mere memorialists are forthright about their position whereas sacerdotal sacramentalists never ever admit to their doctrinal commitments, nor even that this error is a living danger.
And then all those quotes from the Westminster Standards--what on earth? Of course the Standards "get it right," but this post wasn't about all the various aspects of the Sacrament of Baptism. Is it too much to ask to be able to warn against an error that Calvin spends ninety-five percent of his comments on this 1Peter 3:21-22 warning against?
You warn against the danger of the naked sign and men go ballistic telling you they've never seen or heard of such an error. This is the best proof the error is alive and well and destroying souls now as it has across all human history.
Love,
PS: And David, our "previous discussion" never entered my mind as I wrote this. Rather, I was thinking about real souls I've shepherded through the years, including a number who have chosen the Sacraments over against the Word and the Spirit and repentance and faith.
>And if I can put this delicately, your response indicates I was right to warn against sacerdotal sacramentarians. I never consider I've hit my mark unless I get a rebound, and rebound I've most certanly gotten!
Glad to have made your night.
>This is the best proof the error is alive and well and destroying souls now as it has across all human history.
You know one of the things I loved about becoming Reformed was that a Reformed preacher didn't have any "no-go" areas in the scriptures the way garden variety evangelicals and baptists do. Reacting against someone declaring part of scripture to be such a no-go area isn't the proof you seem to think.
And when I told Fred I love you fellows I wasn't being sarcastic, as I think you know.
>And David, our "previous discussion" never entered my mind as I wrote this.
I'm glad to know this. As you read the quote below you might understand how I might have come to that erroneous conclusion...
>Some noticed my comment under another post, that I do not think men should place their children, wives, or themselves under the care of Lutheran pastors and churches, today. Why not?
If you never consider your mark hit unless you get a rebound, the danger is going to be that one day, you'll be wrong, someone will take issue with it, and you'll assume their taking issue with it as proof of your rightness. Maybe you'll be in the right, or maybe you'll just have offended someone with your often abrasive tone. Or maybe I'm just an oversensitive southerner raised in the "bless his heart" tradition. Either way, putting "love" at the end of a sarcastic dig at your brother in Christ sometimes seems like a bit of a cop-out, sort of like the "bless his heart, but he's just a stupid heretical moron" excuse for manners we have down here.
>>as I think you know.
Of course. Same here. A lover's quarrel it is.
>>I'm glad to know this. As you read the quote below you might understand how I might have come to that erroneous conclusion...
Then you're right; I was expounding upon my earlier statement, although never thought of you as I wrote.
Love,
>Either way, putting "love" at the end of a sarcastic dig at your brother in Christ sometimes seems like a bit of a cop-out, sort of like the "bless his heart, but he's just a stupid heretical moron" excuse for manners we have down here.
I don't think so with all due respect. I'm quite certain Pastor Bayly meant it and I always take it that way.
>>If you never consider your mark hit unless you get a rebound, the danger is going to be that one day, you'll be wrong,
"Consider," Roger--"consider." Not proof positive, but one possible indication to "consider."
>>putting "love" at the end of a sarcastic dig at your brother in Christ...
My comments above were not sarcastic. We're making arguments about critically important errors--not copping postures.
Love,
>>How are we to say that it is never ever right to teach what scripture plainly states?
David, apparently you didn't read what Scripture actually says, so let me repeat it here (although I already had it in the text of my post): "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him." To quote the phrase without the qualification is to misquote the text. An em dash is not a period and translators used one for a reason. It's interruptive, intended to keep sacramentalists from saying "baptism now saves you" without going on to say it's not the washing of water, not the naked sign. Why do you refuse to recognize this? Are you sure your own judgment is superior to Calvin's (and mine) concerning what needs emphasis in the time of the Reformation (and on this blog)?
>>Providing clarification and context do not mean Peter is saying that what he said is wrong...
No one said what Peter wrote is wrong. What's wrong is to quote the naked phrase without its' Holy-Spirit inspired qualification. That is to abuse the text and its Author.
>>When we encounter a scripture that makes us uncomfortable shouldn't our response be to understand how it is true rather than to immediately assert that what scripture teaches is false?
Who is "uncomfortable" with this Scripture? I love it. It's never made me uncomfortable in the least because it doesn't say what sacramentalists would like to make it say. Further, no one ever said "what Scripture says is false." Are you serious? It's those who quote the phrase without its context who are opposed to what Scripture says and twist it to their false purposes. Dear brother, please listen to Scripture and don't push off the parts you find uncomfortable. :-/
>>The interesting question, and the one that Peter addresses and Calvin is clearly on board with is how does Baptism save us. Clearly not in a way in which Baptism replaces or competes with Christ or the Holy Spirit. The means does not compete with the Master.
Right, Calvin warned against the very common error of replacing the Master with the naked sign.
>>But is it truly the right response to teach that Peter was wrong?
Stop it, David--no one has said that the Apostle Peter is wrong. This repeated false accusation is getting old.
>>I know you aren't going to tell people that Peter taught falsely but in an implicit way a refusal to teach what Peter taught, which is what the above statement does, accomplishes just that.
When I write that "Baptism does not save you," the word 'Baptism' is the placeholder for the naked sign--what the Apostle Peter is referring to when he says "not the removal of dirt from the flesh."
>>It is imperative that we affirm what the scriptures affirm and do so in the same manner as the scriptures. (T)he correct antidote is to say what Peter said, in the way Peter explained it not to refuse to say what Peter said.
Let me shove your eyes into this, dear brother: for a man to say "Baptism now saves us" without immediately adding "not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience" is to refuse to say what Scripture says. It is to twist Scripture into supporting sacramentalism. If you want to quote Scripture, quote what it says--not what you wish it said.
Love,
>>I'm quite certain (Tim) Bayly meant it and I always take it that way.
Thank you for your grace, dear brother. In fact, you're right.
Love,
>>If you want to quote Scripture, quote what it says--not what you wish it said.
Pastor I'm quite happy with what it says. That's why on multiple occasions above I referred to quoting that scripture with the context that Peter provides for it. That means adding the phrases that follow. Those phrases explain how Peter is right when he says baptism saves and how he understands the idea that baptism saves and how he wants others to understand the idea. You seem now to be saying much the same thing I said.
My primary problem was that when you say "It is never, ever right to lead the souls under our care to believe that Baptism saves us..." then you are contradicting Peter. Peter can say it because Peter doesn't JUST say it he also says what follows to provide context and understanding as to how to interpret what he said regarding baptism. Where am I off on this?
>>Where am I off on this?
Dear Brother,
I've never contradicted the Apostle Peter, but you're convinced I have and I give up.
Love,
I'm sorry to have frustrated you. Let me try and explain.
"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. "
Shouldn't every preacher be able to say this?
And if so how is it squared with:
"It is never, ever right to lead the souls under our care to believe that Baptism saves us..."
That is my conundrum.
Or maybe do you mean when you say:
"It is never, ever right to lead the souls under our care to believe that Baptism saves us..."
That you won't say:
"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you,"
without also saying :
"not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. "
If so then we are in agreement.
I am a layman, raised Reformed but currently attending (though not a member of) a Lutheran church. So admitting a possible bias by current situation, I feel like the Revs. Bayly (I assume, whoever of you wrote the post, that you both agree) are perhaps still mainly overreacting to Rome's abuses.
>> It is never, ever right to lead the souls under our care to believe that Baptism saves us...
The grace of Jesus Christ saves us, through faith; and that faith is the gift of God which must always precede Baptism. Saving faith is the only proper ground of applying the sign of initiation into the Covenant.
Rev. Bayly, where you seem to say that Peter is specifically denying that the "ritual of baptism" has any effect, it seems to me that Peter is actually defining the nature and method of the effect of baptism. If you could clarify your reasoning, or respond to mine, or both, I would appreciate this greatly. I will elaborate on how I come to my conclusion.
In the first place, I do not believe the I Peter text is the only one which can be adduced for the defender of saving grace in baptism. For example, Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned." We see from the negative that belief is the firm ground, that baptism without faith is an empty sign that Christ and the true teachers of his church have warned against - but at the same time, we find that the positive command does require baptism for, if not salvation itself, at least for the saved person, as we also find in the accounts of Pentecost, the Ethiopian eunuch, Cornelius, et al.
(Following that up, I think we could infer from James, perhaps, that baptism is, in the ordinary scheme of things, one of the first "works" without which faith is dead. This seems to me an especially delightful interpretation, as baptism is itself a sign of grace from God - as are all the good works He strengthens us to do. However, this last paragraph is mainly speculative, not part of my argument as such.)
However, to return to I Peter. The "full text" - at least as rendered by the King James Version - begins somewhat previously. I'll reproduce the whole thing, as the KJV divides it. I Peter 3:18-22
"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: by which [ref. the Spirit] also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him."
We observe:
"Baptism doth... save us... by the resurrection of Jesus Christ". The qualification is of course important: we can contrast the ritual washing of the Levitical priesthood which was only a "putting away of the filth of the flesh". But it seems to me most simply read - especially bearing in mind other texts mentioned above - to say that baptism is effecacious not through this washing but because baptism is the "answer of a good conscience unto God" (or your (NASB?) "appeal to God for a good conscience") - but it is still effecacious (which I seem to be spelling wrong).
Now if we develop the figure (Peter tells us that baptism is a "like figure") we see this as well. Baptism is most easily read as being compared to Noah's prefiguring of baptism for us in the Flood, "wherein... eight souls were saved by water". That salvation was of course physical, but the figure is used as an analogy for baptism, no?
Additionally, the KJV English at least (I can't answer for the Greek, so perhaps you can advise?) allows for, or even demands, an interpretation that baptism is a figure of Christ's bringing "us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit". That is to say, the KJV renders vv. 19-20 as a subordinate clause, so that the "like figure" could refer back to verse 18 and the death and resurrection - which Peter then seems to says is in fact how baptism saves us.
Well, the comments were definitely a step down, but the piece itself was, as the Brits says, spot on. What a delight to see someone rightly hoisting the flag of justification by faith alone, instead of using it to pummel our fv friends. This is the right way to correct error, rightly affirming what we believe. I'm with you guys, again. That ought to worry you.
My knowledge of formal theology is no greater than Lutheran confirmation studies in grades 8-9 and a couple of adult Bible studies that included a hefty dose of lay-level theology.
But FWIW, I remember our Lutheran minister saying something like this in every church service, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved [although in RSV-speak]. Grant this to us all, Lord." I assume that this was part of the Lutheran liturgy and the Lutheran Church's take on the issue at that time.
I have a copy of the 1979 version Book of Common Prayer open to the section in the Catechism on Holy Baptism, I can't copy the quotes I'd like to because my lower left arm is badly broken x2. So I'll close with what our rector tells us -- baptism isn't fire insurance; we receive the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of baptism, which makes us part of God's family and be born again but the H.S. also strengthens to grow as Christians. Any mistakes in what I paraphrased from Fr. Ron are mine -- and might be because I need another pain pill.
If baptismal regeneration is such an evil doctrine, why did Augustine believe in it?
First of all, amen to the original post. I hope this does not crush the spirit of my dear hosts, as sometimes an angry response is necessary to demonstrate the rightness of the impulse. :^)
Mrs. J. asks a great question; if "BR" is evil, why do a host of theological greats believe it? And to that, I answer that if one will follow the Word, there are any number of men with whom one must disagree on many points.
>I answer that if one will follow the Word, there are any number of men with whom one must disagree on many points.
Amen. And if one follows the Word one should not be afraid to use the words the Word uses.
"Saved through water" not "by water."
When Noah was saved, just as when Israel was saved when passing through the Red Sea, the water's work was to destroy those it touched. The ark saved Noah through (meaning "in the midst of" as in "as he passed through") the water.
When Peter says that the waters of the flood symbolize baptism he doesn't mean there is a one-to-one relationship between baptismal water and the water that carried out God's judgment on the world. Otherwise no one would baptize because baptism would damn, not save. Or we would hold the baby in one arm and fling the water away from him with the other.
The water symbolizes the distinction God makes between His people and the world. The water doesn't make the distinction; rather, it is part of the announcement of the distinction God has made when He regenerates someone. Hence, Peter calls the right application of baptism "the pledge of a good conscience toward God." A pledge is not the thing in itself, it is a sign of what is pledged.
And if baptismal regeneration were right, Paul really dropped the ball with the Galatians, didn't he? I mean, he could have just written them to say one simple sentence: "Baptism replaces circumcision as the instrument of justification." But he didn't because neither circumcision nor baptism has ever been the means of our salvation.
Dear David,
As you should know by now, it's not a question of being afraid to use the words the Word of God uses, but of ripping them out of context in such a way as to aid and abet one of the most dangerous heresies that has dogged the Covenant Community and the Church of Jesus Christ across the history of man. Sacramentalism has always been alive and well and soul-destroying, as I've shown by the Scripture texts in the post above. The Sacraments don't save us. We are saved by grace through faith.
And so if I were in the midst of Evangelicals who believe faith is a work that pleases God, and that He has done all He can do and now it's up to us to believe, I would not say "By grace you have been saved through faith" without continuing "and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. Not as the result of works so that no one may boast."
There are many phrases of Scripture similar to "Baptism now saves you" where quoting the phrase out of context will aid and abet the Devil in his work of devouring. That's what this post said and what I've maintained ever since. It's a simple warning that simple souls receive and are helped by.
What bothers me about your comments is that you seem resistant to recognizing the danger of ripping these words out of context. So I'm left with the conclusion that you don't accept that we are surrounded by souls who fully believe and preach and teach that baptism now saves us. And immediately you say, "But it does--Baptism now saves us! Why are you contradicting Scripture?"
I respond "I'm not contradicting Scripture" and we're off and running.
Did you know that I wrote what I did in the original post so that someone would do what you've done--so that someone would say that I'm contradicting Scripture? It was intentional to make the point I've gone on to make with you as a foil. I could pull up many other phrases of Scripture that are similarly abused and you'd agree wth my warning, but not this one. And I think that's because you're so concerned over the error of mere memorialists that you can't see the Lutheran/Presbyterian/Roman Catholic error of sacramentalism.
This is why I quoted Scripture and Calvin warning against sacramentalism. It's a real danger and those who quote the phrase "Baptism now saves us" without quoting the full sentence are trying to heal mere memorialism with a deathly poison that's worse than the sickness they're seeking to heal.
And that my friend is likely where we'll leave it. You believe mere memorialism is more dangerous than sacramentalism whereas, speaking as an ordained pastor of three decades work among particular souls, I fear for the souls who trust in church membership and the Sacraments for salvation. And I have worked against those errors for decades. Relentlessly.
I also work hard against the error of mere memorialism. But take me outside and ask, and I'll answer that Roman Catholicism's sacramentalism (ex opere operato) is alive and well and doing business in many Reformed churches under cover of light.
You have been a dear brother, helping us in our work for years, now. Please allow me my pastoral warning without seeking to silence it by the accusation it's faithless or needless.
With much affection,
Matthew 4:6
I think it would be helpful, per the interesting discussion David Gray and our gracious hosts have been having, to translate the word as "immerse."
(I say this lightheartedly, but seriously; we infer the ordinance by its context, but sometimes we run into danger with hastily assuming that a word refers to our own church's habit--for a great example, see the evangelical feminist use of "diakonos" or "diakona")
BTW, point WELL (add some emphasis to that one) taken about the dangerous tendency of credobaptists (especially revivalist types) to trust a prayer for their salvation.
>>I feel like the Revs. Bayly (I assume, whoever of you wrote the post, that you both agree) are perhaps still mainly overreacting to Rome's abuses.
Dear Jonathan,
You may be right, but David and I think not. And we're pastors with a combined five-plus decades of work pastoring God's flock. We've watched a number of friends and PCA pastors and fellow Reformed graduates of our seminary (Gordon-Conwel) and a friend of the family (Tom Howard) convert to the Roman Catholic error and we know the Roman Catholic heresy continues to seduce many within the conservative Reformed church today--in both pulpits and pews.
Among those (most we know personally) who have embraced Roman Catholicism's heresy:
Marcus Grodi (Gordon-Conwell):
http://chnetwork.org/information/marcus-grodi/
Scott and Kimerly Hahn (Gordon-Conwell):
http://www.scotthahn.com/about-dr-hahn.html
Tom Howard (prof at Gordon College):
http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/70204.Thomas_Howard
http://www.baylyblog.com/2006/04/gordon_college_.html
Ken Howell (Westminster Theological Seminary, prof at Reformed Theological Seminary--Jackson; contributor to Reformation Study Bible):
http://www.ligonier.org/reformation-study-bible/contributors/
http://chnetwork.org/2011/01/kenneth-j-howell-the-eucharist-converted-me/
Steve Wood (Gordon-Conwell):
http://www.salvationisfromthejews.com/woodreview.html
http://www.avemariaradio.net/christian-radio-host.php/Steve-Wood/
Gerry Matatics (Westminster Theological Seminary):
http://www.gerrymatatics.org/aboutgerry.html
Sacramentalism is no idle threat. Since Trent, it's been toxic and those who have ever observed its ecclesial life outside these United States of America aren't fooled by her triumphalist hucksters announcing they have finally "come home."
Love,
>>to trust a prayer for their salvation.
Please see the latest post.
Love,
Gerry was also at Gordon-Conwell, when Scott and Kimberly were there, for what it's worth.
>>Gerry was also at Gordon-Conwell, when Scott and Kimberly were there, for what it's worth.
So was Marcus Grodi, and Tom Howard went over to Rome then, too. So David, Nathan, and I with Scott and Kimberly, Marcus, and Jerry under the uber-feminists Gordon Fee, David Scholer, and Roger Nicole, the expelled-from-Evangelical Theological Society redactionist, Ramsey Michaels, the post-process theologian Royce Gruenler, the revival-in-purgatory Richard Lovelace, the godly and wise and holy Christy Wilson, the bitter-foe-of-all-things-dispensational Meredith Kline, the almost-theonomist John Jefferson Jingleheimer Davis, the clear universalist Mark Dyer, and The Imperious One who is the hero of all good men who never attended Gordon-Conwell, David Wells.
Quite a troop, aye?
Ken Howell has often worshipped with us here in Bloomington. He told me his conversion to the papacy happened when he was in Jackson teaching at Reformed. He started attending mass at a Roman church and one day, he said,when the bells rang he "realized it really was the body and blood of Christ." So he converted to Rome and after a while, left his position at Reformed Seminary.
Love,
>> We've watched a number of friends and PCA pastors and fellow Reformed graduates of our seminary (Gordon-Conwel) and a friend of the family (Tom Howard) convert to the Roman Catholic error and we know the Roman Catholic heresy continues to seduce many within the conservative Reformed church today--in both pulpits and pews.
Perhaps this explains some of our difference. I'm pushing 50 and I've never had anyone I know personally go to Rome. I'm aware of people like Francis Beckwith or Tom Howard but that's about it. Perhaps it is a greater temptation to those at places like Wheaton and Gordon-Conwell who are in what we might characterize as the upper crust. The folk I know have generally either been career military or the good people of the north woods of Minnesota. I suspect the temptations each group is prone to are not identical, at least in intensity and how they manifest themselves.
>> ...We've watched a number of friends and PCA pastors and fellow Reformed ... convert to the Roman Catholic error... Among those (most we know personally) who have embraced Roman Catholicism's heresy...
I was perhaps over-hasty. It is true that I have since highschool (and since I'm now a 20-something that's not all that long) grown up with many Catholic friends whom I consider true Christians, and I therefore do not take as dim a view as you seem to of the RC denomination, especially individual Catholics, in Christ's church (perhaps I am naive here). However, all I meant to say was that in this particular instance the post seemed to take things too far - admittedly, against something I have not observed myself as a problem.
In the same way we can understand the stereotypical Quaker formless worship service, with no order of worship or even real leadership, open to all, as an over-reaction against the formalism of papistic services (ignoring for the moment the many other issues with Quaker theology), I see your flat denial of salvation in baptism as an over-reaction (if not perhaps to the same degree) to the "sacramentalism" your experience has taught you needs to be warned against most vigilantly. As David Gray has pointed out, the transmission of grace through baptism, even to salvation, is taught in the Westminster Confession.
In short, I am not sure what your list of those who have fallen into the RC error on the subject is intended to accomplish. I have observed that you are conscientious in maintaining this blog, so that so far I am assuming a reasoned response to my scriptural concerns is forthcoming, either to say that we agree but are mistakenly arguing through a difference of emphasis, or to dispute my conclusion: however, the list you gave does neither, though it does explain your concern.
Oh, the glory of the book of Romans in keeping me from Rome! I've been in the great old cathedrals of Europe, and if it were not for Paul telling us, 1500 years in advance, about the Council of Trent, I might have gone, too.
>>In short, I am not sure what your list of those who have fallen into the RC error on the subject is intended to accomplish.
Jonathan, Tim is demonstrating that he can name several even among his personal acquaintances who have fallen into the Roman Catholic error and this underscores that this is an error that must be spoken to. The list is for those who agree that it is a serious error to go over to Roman Catholicism but are not convinced that it happens often enough to be concerned about.
>>>If you never consider your mark hit unless you get a rebound, the danger is going to be that one day, you'll be wrong, someone will take issue with it, and you'll assume their taking issue with it as proof of your rightness.
Roger,
You're right - we can't use the rebound to prove whether we're right or not. This would be absurd: a false teacher who, upon spouting lies, gets opposition from faithful pastors, would in that opposition find proof of his correctness.
The proper use of the rebound is, when we're convinced from Scripture of a point and we teach. We're not looking for confirmation of the doctrine but for confirmation of whether the teaching was needed -- if no one disagrees, maybe it wasn't an important topic to bring up after all, and we can move on. But where there is strident opposition, it is a confirmation that there is indeed a need for the doctrine to be taught. And that more is still needed!
Add new comment