Baptism (the sign) and thing thing signified are inseparable, and must be held closely together in our thought, so closely in fact that we can attribute the effect of one to the other.
'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.' (The Westminster Confession of Faith 27.2)
This isn't some pseudo-Catholic theology carried over by the writers of the WCF. The NT writers also saw the two as inseparable; consider:
- Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved (Mark 16:16)
- 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 (Acts 2:38)
- 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 (Colossians 2:11-12)
- let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water (Hebrews 10:22)
Hebrews 10:22 is particularly helpful to think about:
'That phrase, which does not set up an antithesis between the internal and the external bur rather in a positive "rhetorical parallelism" joins the inner and the outer in "one indivisible reality".' (p. 110, G Wainwright, "Baptism III: Acts, Hebrews, General Epistles, Revelation" in IVP Dictionary of the NT)
In the Reformation there was a great conflict in which there was really three parties. The Roman Catholics who held that external actions were all that mattered, the Anabaptists and other radicals who held that the only the internal ('spiritual') things mattered, and finally the Magisterial Reformers who refused to separate the two. The external actions condemned us if they were not mirrored by internal reality. Our internal faith had to rest on external things (the Word and the Sacraments both of which the Radicals rejected) and could not exist apart from them. Luther saw the need for both better than most (Calvin sometimes almost seemed to view the external things as only accommodations to our weakness and not theoretically necessary):
new spirits assert that faith alone saves, and that works and external things avail nothing, we answer: It is true, indeed, that nothing in us is of any avail but faith, as we shall hear still further. But these blind guides are unwilling to see this, namely, that faith must have something which it believes, that is, of which it takes hold, and upon which it stands and rests. Thus faith clings to the water, and believes that it is Baptism, in which there is pure salvation and life; not through the water (as we have sufficiently stated), but through the fact that it is embodied in the Word and institution of God, and the name of God inheres in it. Now, if I believe this, what else is it than believing in God as in Him who has given and planted His Word into this ordinance, and proposes to us this external thing wherein we may apprehend such a treasure?
But, and this is important, Luther recognised that the order of external and internal things was of huge importance, and had to be got right:
Now when God sends forth his holy gospel he deals with us in a twofold manner, first outwardly, then inwardly. Outwardly he deals with us through the oral word of the gospel and through material signs, that is baptism and the sacrament of the altar. Inwardly he deals with us through the Holy Spirit, faith and other gifts. But whatever their measure or order the outward factors should and must precede. The inward experience follow and is effected by the outward. God has determined to give the inward to no one except through the outward. For he wants to give no one the Spirit or faith outside of the outward Word and sign instituted by him [...]
Observe carefully, my brother, this order, for everything depends on it.
(p.224, Martin Luther, Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments (1925), in Selected Writings of Martin Luther ed. T.G. Tappert)
If we translated the greek word "baptism" with "immerse", or "bathe", or "washing", would we even notice it? Maybe it's just because the history of the church (although that's not insignificant) made a theological issue out of water baptism for original sin that we take every use of the word as to do with that particular rite? For John to "preach a baptism" was surely like my mum "preaching a baptism" to me when I came home from football covered in mud as a kid...or "baptised into Christ" in Rom 6 is surely the spiritual unity with Christ as we're bathed, dunked, immersed into him?
ReplyDeleteMy hunch is baptism in synoptics is a very Jewish thing, but I really don't know what to make of baptism in Acts or Paul, and will happily defer to others' better judgment.
However, I'm increasingly convinced that "instructions about washings" in Hebrews 6, and again in Hebrews 10 is old covenant stuff, from which we must move on to maturity, not laying again the foundation (Levitical Law).
Isn't the whole point of Hebrews 8-9 that the substance of washing is consciences cleansed, of which ceremonial washings were just a picture? Likewise, Hebrews 10 is pulling it all together in image - surely the rhetorical parallelism is not to say there's "one indivisible reality" between the curtain in the temple and christ's body, or the holy place in the temple and the heavenly city, or the high priests and Christ?
I am not sure the distinction between the RCC and the MRs is so great as you suggest.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding isn't that the RC church teaches (taught) that only external actions matter, rather that because the sacraments were instituted by God through Christ we can trust in their efficacy.
Quote from (compendium of) the Catechism of Catholic Church:
"The sacraments are efficacious ex opere operato ('by the very fact that the sacramental action is performed') because it is Christ who acts in the sacraments and communicates the grace the signify. The efficacy of the sacrament doesn't depend upon the personal holiness of the minister. However the fruits of the sacraments do depend on the dispositions of the one who receives them."
The seemingly more prosaic example of matrimony is quite helpful in thinking through how grace works in the sacraments. It's a shame the reformers did away with that one.
Dear Dave,
ReplyDeleteI really concerned by the assertion that baptism effects what it signifies -- do I misunderstand you? Are you saying that salvation comes through baptism?
Chris, a friend and I named James were discussing that very interpretation of Romans 6 today, and we both agree with you; I don't think there's actually any reason to make the word baptizo mean the sacrament there.
All my love in Christ,
Arron
I'm really sorry everyone that I'm going to be so brief. I'm crazily busy this weekend and for the next few days.
ReplyDeleteI think I'm going to have to do a post on Romans 6 at some point, and whether we should understand baptizo in the NT to be about the sign or the thing signified (although the interesting thing about that wording - which makes it unhelpful - is that what is signified is BOTH redemption accomplished in Christ, and applied in our lives).
Firstly, though apologies about my last paragraph which I have now realised is just plain wrong (I'll rewrite it). Although none of you picked up on that so you must have stopped reading by then! I don't blame you.
Secondly, I'm slightly disappointed that all the comments have been on the sacraments. One of my main motivations in writing this post was to show that our approach to the sacraments has been messed up by not getting the distinction and connection between external and internal realities. This applies to words of encouragement, preaching, and suffering as much as the sacraments. Maybe its my fault for skewing the post in the direction of baptism too much.
Anyhow, Chris,
In Hebrews 10:22 I suppose 'pure water' could refer to 'the heavenly reality to which the Jewish washings mentioned in 9:10 pointed' but I'm pointed to thinking that it refers to external things because it talks about our 'bodies' being washed rather than 'our hearts'. Maybe 'indivisible reality' is too strong though.
Maybe I'll think about Hebrews some more.
Steve,
I suppose that the RCs have changed somewhat, and what the Reformers were criticising was popular theology as much as anything else. However, I would still have some issues with how the RC catechism seems to suggest that the external act is effective even without faith, even if it admits that the fruits do. Maybe I was a bit harsh on the RCs though. Depends what you mean by 'effective'.
Luther again (this time criticising the RCs and not the Anabaptists): "unless faith is present or conferred in baptism, baptism will profit us nothing; indeed it will become a hindrance to us not only at the moment at which it is received but throughout the rest of our lives" (Babylonian Captivity). Now maybe the RC Catechism could be made to say the same, but clearly Luther thought that this was something that the RCs of his day did not believe.
Arron,
I don't want to give a quick yes/no answer to those questions for fear you will misunderstand me. Instead, I will try asking you a question:
> Do you believe your preaching of the promise of Christ's death and resurrection effects new life in the hearer?
> Do you believe that faith comes through hearing?
If yes then you believe that the 'The inward experience follow[s] and is effected by the outward'. The only reason that you can think that this applies to preaching and not baptism is because you see preaching as speaking God's promises, but see baptism as speaking human promises. This is at the root of our disagreement. You said in a previous comment that baptism was 'a matter of first obedience' (I will get round to responding to that comment by the way) but that is not what it is in the first place (even if it is secondarily)! I feel that so strongly! As Luther says:
'Now, the first thing in baptism to be considered is the divine promise, which says: "He that believes and is baptised shall be saved." on [this promise] all our salvation depends. We must consider this promise, exercise our faith in it and never doubt that we are saved when we are baptised.' (Babylonian)
Thanks for reply and hope all goes well over next few days.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I think RC theology would agree with the quotation from Luther: candidates for baptism or the candidate's parents and godparents have always had to make a profession of faith.
I did think about commenting on external v internal. But it's a very difficult subject. In brief, I think the only evidence of internal states are external actions. Perhaps that's why I enjoy Cormac McCarthy so much; he doesn't give us a privileged insight into people's inner states but instead recreates our real-life experience of only being able to understand people through their actions and words.
Tying all this back to the sacraments. It's not that inner states don't matter, but only that the church has always had a sacramental economy that allows people to express their internal faith through sacramental action. We don't have access to the inner state of others so have to trust their good intentions. We can, however, trust God for the effectiveness of sacraments. As your other Luther quotation suggests, doubting the sacraments is doubting God's promises.
Hi Steve,
ReplyDeleteWords are difficult to deal with sometimes.
I like what you say about Cormac McCarthy though.
I probably need to know more about RC theology to comment further.
Hi Dave,
ReplyDeleteI believe that God regenerates through the Word giving new life to the heart by His will in enabling faith, not that the Word being preached automatically regenerates mystically. Men are regenerated so that they can then believe, and do -- a new creature believes, PERIOD (2 Cor. 5:17 backwards). How wide a distinction are you drawing between one being regenerate and one being justified? Could someone be regenerated and still be unjustified?
John Piper makes the analogy of a flame on a candle. The heat and the light make the flame. Outwardly, one cannot see whether or not the light or the heat came first in the advent of the flame. Now, although we know that regeneration comes first (John 3:3-7, John 6:44), outwardly, we are unable to see this because salvation looks like this; "For with the heart, one believes and is justified, and with the mouth, one confesses and is saved." Rom. 10:9b. Now, whether or not this argument will hold water regarding your view will depend upon whether you think one can be regenerate and still go to hell, or be regeneration and there be extended time between that and your justification. On reflection, I think you would have to believe that, but I could be wrong, so I'll wait for your clarification.
Internal realities of salvation depend upon justification. One is not saved until one is justified from sin before a holy God.
Wanted to make a quick observation from my Greek New Testament regarding your comment on 'repent AND be baptised," etc. The word for 'and' is 'kai', and interestingly, learning that word means that you now know 6.7% of the entire greek new testament! I digress; my point is that this word that we translate 'and' doesn't work the same way 'and' in english does, because it can also easily and frequently mean 'and therefore', 'and thus', 'then' and other such phrases making a time distinction. Check out any lexicon. I'll give Strong's for good measure,
"G2532
καί
kai
Apparently a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force; and, also, even, so, then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words: - and, also, both, but, even, for, if, indeed, likewise, moreover, or, so, that, then, therefore, when, yea, yet."
-- Strong's Numbers Greek Dictionary
All my love,
Arron
Hi Arron,
ReplyDeleteFirst off, in connection with what’s new with you according to your blog, I can assure you I am praying. I won’t say more because I don’t like doing those types of conversations online.
Thanks for answering my questions though. I’m sorry I’m not being good at responding to all your comments. My promises are substantially less trustworthy than God’s you can see; which interestingly may mean that my lack of comments has done more to suggest Luther was onto something than anything I’ve actually written! Having said that I am scared by how much you are misunderstanding me, and maybe more words will just make things worse. I had to read your comment over 5 times before I understood what you must be thinking I think to bring up the points you do.
So I will respond briefly, but if you want to know more about what I think about baptism you are probably best reading Luther's Babylonian Captivity and Catechisms carefully and then coming back to me with any questions about that. On baptism I'm pretty thoroughly with Luther and he puts things better than me.
Anyhow. First off, I agree wholeheartedly with your first sentence. And remembering that baptism is nothing without the word joined with the water I could then say:
"I believe that God regenerates through baptism giving new life to the heart by His will in enabling faith, not that baptism being performed automatically regenerates mystically."
Although I probably would never say it quite like that.
The rest of your comment then gets into deep waters, because we have entered the minefield of the ordo salutis which is causing so much heat and little light in internecine debates these days. I’ll try and make a few large brush strokes but I am not educated enough to make comments on the detail.
Interestingly Piper's analogy seems stolen from Calvin except Piper talks about a candle and Calvin the sun. That very analogy has been much argued about, but I haven't made up my mind on its usefulness. Anyhow, I only mention all this to stress that things are not as easy as they may seem. Within the Reformed, and within Protestantism there are a lot of differences on this, although I'm not sure they amount to much. It is difficult mainly because the biblical writers used what have become technical terms in our tradition much more loosely than we do (c.f. The Apology to the Augsberg Conf on Justification).
So with that, lets try answering your questions.
1. How wide a distinction are you drawing between one being regenerate and one being justified?
I don't want the distinction to be too strong or too weak. They are closely connected but distinct.
Sorry that is so vague but that is one of the biggest questions you could ask and I’m not qualified to be more precise, and not even sure I want to be.
2. Could someone be regenerated and still be unjustified?
No.
3. [Do] you think one can be regenerate and still go to hell[?]
No.
4. [Can] there be extended time between [regeneration] and your justification?
The discussion of time in connection with justification is difficult. Justification, regeneration, and salvation all have 3 tenses. I have been saved, I am being saved, I will be saved. So it is complicated and I couldn't give you a short answer. Narrowly construed in the way I think you mean the question then my answer would be ‘no’, but the question could be widely construed so don’t put to much weight on my answer.
However, all of that is not very relevant to our differences on baptism. Much closer to the root of the differences is the quote of Luther’s from “Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments”. I’m interested that you haven’t really engaged with that, or for that matter with any of the Luther quotes which are so pertinent to our discussion. That’s why I think it may be better to refer you to Luther and let you do some more reading at your leisure rather than distracting you by responding to your points which lead me on tangents from the main topics.
As for the Greek, you know I’m no good at that. Although I do find it interesting that with both kai and baptizo you have had to resort to saying that the words could mean X instead of their natural, historically accepted, usual translations, which support a higher view of baptism. Besides even if kai means ‘and therefore’ in this case that does not contradict a high view of baptism, but just removes one proof-text from the discussion.
Hi Dave,
ReplyDeleteI will make it a matter of individual study in Luther's writings before responding to anything prior to your final point about my greek reference.
Firstly, greek beats tradition any day -- so much so that I don't eve want to insult your intelligence by expounding that concept further.
Secondly, historically the church has had a high view of Mary too -- are you going in that direction also?
For your consideration.
Many thanks for your prayers. Prayer keeps me alive, under God. ;)
In Christ Jesus,
Ever your brother and slave in the Gospel,
Arron
Good stuff.
ReplyDeleteAlthough on the greek v. tradition line, interpretation is best done in community with the church throughout history, they are not really opposed. Charles Spurgeon once said:
"In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others."
The church does not trump God's word, but it does lay a presumption as to the interpretation of a text.
I think you must be trying to wind me up about Mary...
BTW I've just read Calvin's 1545 Geneva Catechism on the sacraments and that is top notch too so you may want to read that as well. I would have only tiny differences in opinion with what he has to say and may post on it soon (but don't hold your breath). He does better than Luther at keeping some things in balance, although he is a bit inconsistent about how indiscriminate we should be in baptising and doesn't talk enough about the Word.