Thank you for the clarification on the reformed position. I'm still sorting through most of what I read. I think it would be helpful if you can tell me if the following statements are either reflective of the continental reformed tradition or not. In the interest of full disclosure, as a lutheran I would agree with all of these. If you'll play along I'll follow up with the author of each of these posts (and citations if needed to view in context).

1) "Christ uses these sacraments, not only to represent and seal, but also actually to apply, the benefits of his redemption to believers." [emphasis added]

2) "It is, therefore, astonishing that so many who go by the name "Reformed" in our day seem to deny, at least in the practical treatment of these Sacraments, the efficacy of these means of grace. ...the gnosticism (spirit against matter emphasis) of our age seems to pervade evangelical thinking and this has not been without its effect in our own churches. The hidden assumption appears to be that God works immediately and directly, without means, in bringing us to faith and keeping us there. Spirit is set against matter; in this case, the material elements of human preaching, water, bread and wine. The Anabaptistic, pietistic, and then revivalistic strains of evangelicalism eventually triumphed over the Reformation's evangelical stance and to the extent that Reformed churches today follow these general evangelical trends, they lose their Reformed identity." [emphasis added]

3) "Calvin says that Christ's Sacraments are instituted so that "believers, poor and deprived of all goods, should bring nothing to it but begging" (Institutes 4.14.26). The Sacrament's "force and truth" do not depend on "the condition or choice of him who receives it. For what God has ordained remains firm and keeps its own nature, however men may vary" (ibid). So for Calvin, as for Luther, "sacramenta conferunt gratiam" (Sacraments confer grace)."

4) "And so we utterly condemn the vanity of those who affirm the sacraments to be nothing else than naked and bare signs. No, we assuredly believe that by Baptism we are engrafted into Christ Jesus, to be made partakers of his righteousness, by which our sins are covered and remitted, and also that in the Supper rightly used, Christ Jesus is so joined with us that he becomes the very nourishment and food of our souls"

5) "The sacraments become effectual means of salvation,not by any power in themselves or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered; only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ by whom they are instituted"

6) In many conservative Reformed and Presbyterian circles, it is as if the prescribed forms for Baptism and the Supper were too high in their sacramental theology, so the minister feels compelled to counter its strong "means of grace" emphasis. In this way, the Sacraments die the death of a thousand qualifications. The same is true when we read the biblical passages referring to Baptism as "the washing of regeneration" or to the Supper as "the communion of the body and blood of Christ." Why must we apologize for these passages and attempt to explain them away? Our confessions do not do this. Our liturgical forms (if we still use them) do not do this, but we feel compelled to diminish them these days. "

7) "We hear quasi-gnostic sentiments even in Reformed circles these days, such as the "real baptism" that is spiritual, as opposed to "merely being sprinkled with water," or the "real communion" with Christ in moments of private devotion. How can we truly affirm the union of earthly and heavenly realities in the Incarnation? Or how can we regard the Word of God as a means of salvation if it is but ink and paper or human speech? A subtle Docetism (the ancient gnostic heresy that denied Christ's true humanity) lurks behind our reticence to see these common earthly elements as signs that are linked to the things they signify. Surely the Sacraments can remind us of grace, help us to appreciate grace, and exhort us to walk in grace, but do they actually give us the grace promised in the Gospel? The Reformed and Presbyterian confessions answer "yes" without hesitation: A Sacrament not only consists of the signs (water, bread and wine), but of the things signified (new birth, forgiveness, life everlasting)."

8) "Even if a person had already confessed before his baptism that salvation is in Christ, and even if he were already incorporated into Christ, he makes the real transition only through baptism." He is quite right when he says, "The Reformed stand with Rome, Luther, and Calvin against Zwingli in their adherence to a divine working of grace in the sacrament."

9) "Lastly, our faith receives from baptism the advantage of its sure testimony to us that we are not only engrafted into the death and life of Christ, but so united to Christ himself that we become sharers in all his blessings...Hence, Paul proves that we are children of God from the fact that we are put on Christ in baptism [Gal. 3:26-27]."

10) "But we must realize that at whatever time we are baptized, we are once for all washed and purged for our whole life..'To be assured, Paul, that your sins are forgiven, be baptized. For the Lord promises forgiveness of sins in baptism: receive it and be secure. Yet it is not my intention to weaken the force of baptism by not joining reality and truth to the sign, in so far as God works through outward means."

11) "Therefore, there is no doubt that all pious folk throughout life, whenever they are troubled by a consciousness of their faults, may venture to remind themselves of their baptism, that from it they may be confirmed in assurance of that sole and perpetual cleansing which we have in Christ's blood"

12) "My child, are you a Christian in fact as well as in name? Yes, my father. How is this known to you? Because I am baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." "How did you come into this communion of the church? Through baptism. What is this baptism? It is the washing of regeneration and cleansing from sin."

Well, that's enough for now - I'm anxious to know if those on this board would consider these statements to be consistent with the reformed/presbyterian confessions. Certainly, any of these statements would be welcome in Lutheran circles.

I really don't want to quibble on whether Baptism is effective (I am lutheran after all) but I mostly just want to understand the reformed position. Frankly - I'm getting mixed messages. One moment it "is" a means of grace and the next moment it isn't. How can something be both "x" and "non x"?

Well thanks for indulging me.

__________________
Chad Hamilton
Peace With Christ (LCMS)
Fort Collins, Colorado