Baptism into Christ.

[msortwell]

Does the baptism into Christ (mentioned in Rom 6:3 and Gal 3:27) refer to the monergistic act of regeneration. That is, is it the immediate result of the second birth, or is it logically subsequent to receiving faith (and a consequence of it)? Or is there another explanation?

 

[steadfast7]

Theo(logically) the order is: regeneration --> faith --> union with Christ. Temporally, a distinction is not really made, so I would think "baptism into Christ" is synonymous with the entire process.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Conceptually, the matter of "union with Christ" doesn't fit well into pattern-thinking, whether logical ordo salutis, or temporal historia salutis. Personally, I think this is one reason why recent debates about Reformed foundational principles (which is more basic, union or justification) generate more heat than light.

Union is a stative conception. It describes a relation that is 100%, and through-and-through, in one word. At the same time, it isn't such a word as usefully incorporates other descriptions that use process or movement to describe the "dynamics" of salvation. In other words, the stative does not "ground" the dynamic, nor the dynamic the stative. In this, we are (analogously) at the point where the "wave-properties" and the "physical-properties" do not ground one another. They have a kind of "equal ultimacy."


Baptism (among its many statements and illustrations) describes a transition. Transfer of allegiance, change in citizenship, a new Head attached to the body. Paul's pet expression, "in Christ," is a succinct but highly-charged testament of a new world of existence for the believer. Old things are passed away; behold, all things have become new. Union with Christ is the new reality, while union-with-Adam or with the world is obliterated. Baptism of the outer-man (and incorporation IN the visible "body" of Christ, the church) is a kind of citizenship papers, passport, a tangible (sensible) sign ideally of an invisible union possessing a reality that undergirds the less-reliable earthly picture (which can be a false-positive).

1Cor.10:2 is a text that should help us understand Rom.6:3 or Gal.3:27 (as those texts do the former). There, the mediatorial (head) figure is Moses, IN whom the people are baptized. They go through the Red Sea (and are thus baptized) following Moses--their actions are illustrative of faith in Moses, because it really is Moses alone (in the story) who demonstrates his faith in the unseen God. But because the people are united to their mediator, and they accompany him through the waves, they attain salvation.

Of course it's monergistic, this "union." No one unites himself to Christ, the Head. But, tying "union" to regeneration alone seems to miss the point--that union with the Head comes attached with all possible blessings of salvation (proper) and all things beside; e.g. a new identity, resurrection of the body, hitherto unheard of opportunities for service and bliss, etc.


Hope this is helpful.

 

[Matthew Tringali]

I wrote a paper for my Pauline class in Seminary on topic of Paul's use of the phrase "in Christ" or more broadly speaking "Baptized into One Body". Here is an excerpt from that paper which might be helpful in this discussion.

As has already been shown it is baptism which is the means to incorporation into the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13; Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27). The double meaning of this incorporation is the baptizee’s union with Christ in his death and resurrection and grafting into the church, spiritual for invisible and water for visible. Baptism does not however bring this body into existence. 1 Cor 12:12-13 does not say,

"that the unity of the body comes into being by baptism… Rather the term employed here – ‘to baptize into’ (baptizein eis) – denotes that the one baptized is brought into relation with an already existing person or unity (cf. 1 Cor. 10:2; Gal 3:27); this means therefore incorporation into an already existing body, namely, the communion of who have been comprehended in and baptized into Christ."

If a believer were, upon salvation, being brought into something new then an individual salvation would make more sense. But rather, baptism is corporate in the sense that Christ saves his Church which consists of Christians. Christ does not save Christians who happen to constitute the Church. “We shall never understand Paul’s concept of the church if we begin our theological thinking with the individual Christian and consider the church as something like a social gathering or an association of individuals sharing some common interest.” It is in this sense that the believer is reliant upon the church for salvation. “Salvation given in Christ has special reference to the church and to the individual believer because he belongs to the church.” Almost all scholars agree to this truth, but diverge over whether or not this is only relevant to the invisible church or if it contains any truth for the visible.

"While it is perfectly true that there is an invisible Church… there are no provisions in the Scripture for the government or administration of that body. The Lord deals with the body of professed believers in the organization known as the Church. The Christian Church today requires of those who are to be received into its membership nothing more than a credible profession of faith, the promise of obedience to the Word of God as a proof of the reality of that faith, and participation in the ordinance of baptism as the public sign and seal of the profession of faith."

It is thus irrelevant to discuss the invisible aspect. Some make a distinction to the extent so as to describe two entirely separate churches. But there is only one church viewed from two different perspectives. God views the invisible church and men view the visible. Man cannot know the mind of God and thus should invest no effort in attempting to determine precisely who belongs to the invisible church. For our part the visible church is the only perspective from which we are able to view the church and should treat members’ of it as true believers. In contrast, when a believer encounters another who claims to be one of God’s elect but is not part of the visible church, doubts are justifiable and they should be encouraged to be in full communion with the body of Christ. This is the historical opinion, the reformers agreed with Augustine “in explicitly declining to separate the true church from the broader church. They left this separation up to God’s final judgment. Thus the boundaries of the true church are hidden until the Day of Judgment.” Furthermore, Paul never intended such a false dichotomy, but expects that when the historical audience read ‘body’ that they think in terms of unity into visible community. “Nor can one restrict this unity to the sphere of what is invisible and hidden. Not only does the word ‘body’ not denote an invisible but a visible mode of existence, but on the ground of being together in Christ Paul concludes the necessity of a visible, outward manifestation of unity as the body.”

Most of the quotes there are from Ridderbos or Rayburn as well as one from Schweizer and one from Schlink. Anyone can feel free to message me if they would like an email of the whole paper.

 

[Peairtach]

Christ baptises us with - or by - the Spirit into Himself at regeneration. This is the baptism with the Spirit. The reason that this baptism with the Spirit into Christ was delayed in the case of the believing Apostles is because Christ had not yet gone to the right hand of His Father and received all power in heaven and on earth. See the "Upper Room Discourse" in the Gospel of John.

 

[msortwell]

I appreciate the responses. I will have to read them (plus any additional answers) over several times to understand the merits of each.

 

[Peairtach]

The baptism with the Spirit is sometimes called the baptism by the Spirit, because unlike the medium of water, the Spirit is active and personal.

For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. (I Cor 12:13, NASB)

Two objections which some Pentecostals and some others may have against the baptism with the Spirit coinciding with regeneration are:

(a) When the Apostles were baptised with the Spirit there were things like the sound of a rushing mighty wind, cloven tongues of fire sitting on them, and their speaking in unknown languages. Why aren't these associated with our regeneration if we are also at that time baptised with the Spirit?

(b) Many of us who are regenerate also don't seem to enjoy the spiritual power and giftedness which the Apostles got at and after Pentecost? How so, if we are also baptised with the Spirit?

I'll leave you and others to work out the answers to these Qs.

 

[msortwell]

Clarification

The baptism with the Spirit is sometimes called the baptism by the Spirit, because unlike the medium of water, the Spirit is active and personal.

For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. (I Cor 12:13, NASB)

Two objections which some Pentecostals and some others may have against the baptism with the Spirit coinciding with regeneration are:

(a) When the Apostles were baptised with the Spirit there were things like the sound of a rushing mighty wind, cloven tongues of fire sitting on them, and their speaking in unknown languages. Why aren't these associated with our regeneration if we are also at that time baptised with the Spirit?

(b) Many of us who are regenerate also don't seem to enjoy the spiritual power and giftedness which the Apostles got at and after Pentecost? How so, if we are also baptised with the Spirit?

I'll leave you and others to work out the answers to these Qs.

To be clear . . . are YOU equating baptism WITH the Spirit with the baptism INTO Christ, BY the Spirit?

 

[Peairtach]

Yes. That is the Reformed teaching, and, since the early chapters of Acts which was a transition and inaugural period, it always happens at regeneration.

 

[msortwell]

Yes. That is the Reformed teaching, and, since the early chapters of Acts which was a transition and inaugural period, it always happens at regeneration.

Would this not necessitate the conclusion that the Apostles were not "in Christ" until Acts 2 (if as your previous post states they were baptized with the Spirit at that time)?

 

[Peairtach]

The Old Testament saints were "in Christ" in the sense that they had faith - worked in them by the Holy Spirit, Who was there to stay with them - in God's promise of salvation, and in that their salvation was secure, although it was still to be accomplished in the future.

But the Scriptures also point to a radical newness in the experience of salvation in the New Covenant period i.e. after the salvation is accomplished and after Pentecost. Until Christ rose from the dead, ascended into Heaven, sat at God's right hand and had all power in Heaven and on Earth, the saints couldn't experience what it was for the risen and ascended Christ to baptise them into all that He is, because He hadn't done it all.

And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.(John 20:22, ESV)

He gave them a token of Pentecost before Pentecost in the above passage.

 

[greenbaggins]

Baptism does not incorporate a person into the visible church. Yes, you read that correctly. WCF 28.1 says "solemn admission," not "admission." The difference is that the person, by saying that he believes, already belongs to the visible church. Baptism is the sign that he belongs. WLC 166 says that "baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promises, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him." In other words, baptism is given to people who are already part of the visible church by profession of faith. Witness Abraham in Romans 4:11. He already had the righteousness of faith at least 19 years before he received the sign of it. Are we to suppose that Abraham was not part of the visible church all that time?

Baptism is a sacrament. Sacraments contain three elements: sign, thing signified, and sacramental union of the sign and the thing signified (this is Spirit-given faith). Most of the time, we speak about baptism as just the sign. However, it is perfectly legitimate to speak of baptism as having the whole picture. The efficacy of baptism lies in the union of sign and thing signified, which is Spirit-given faith. The efficacy in no way lies in the sign. This is why I am more than a little concerned about Matthew's article. I am even a little uncomfortable with some of Bruce's formulations, much as I usually agree with him. Romans 6 and Galatians 3 are examples of "sacramental language," where "the names and effects of the one (the thing signified, LK) are attributed to the other (the sign, LK)" (WCF 27.2).

 

[Peairtach]

How would you express the difference - or what differences were there - between the Apostles pre-Pentecost and post-Pentecost, and between OT believers and NT believers, Lane?

It's maybe a rather big Q, but what are the main points of difference?

*****

I'm thinking from passages like Romans 6 that maybe the reason that we as regenerate people aren't always demonstrating the power for sanctification, service and witness that the Apostolic Church demonstrated after Pentecost is because some of us don't appropriate our baptism with the Spirit into Christ?

Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 6:11, NKJV)

 

[greenbaggins]

How would you express the difference - or what differences were there - between the Apostles pre-Pentecost and post-Pentecost, and between OT believers and NT believers, Lane?

It's maybe a rather big Q, but what are the main points of difference?

*****

I'm thinking from passages like Romans 6 that maybe the reason that we as regenerate people aren't always demonstrating the power for sanctification, service and witness that the Apostolic Church demonstrated after Pentecost is because some of us don't appropriate our baptism with the Spirit into Christ?

Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 6:11, NKJV)

That IS a big question! I would say, though, that whatever the main differences are, they don't have to do with the basic structure of how sacraments work. The WCF says that the substance of the sacraments in the OT are the same as those of the NT (WCF 27:5). Romans 4:11 also proves that the terms "sign" and "seal" work just as well for the OT sacraments as for the NT sacraments.

As to the actual question, I would say the differences of OT and NT have to do with the amount of revelation people have; the sacrificial system versus the reality it typified; the Holy Spirit poured out on the church; and the world-wide nature of the true faith. There are probably more that could be listed, but that's what I can think of off the top of my head.

As to the Apostles pre- and post- Pentecost, I would say that the Holy Spirit is the main difference.

As to your query, I would say that there are probably several reasons why we aren't seeing sanctification in the life of believers, and the one you quote would surely be one of them. We need to improve our baptism, and that is not just a "coming to faith" thing, but also a lifelong thing. However, there are probably other reasons as well: quenching the Holy Spirit, legalism, antinomianism, perfectionism, and probably others as well.

 

[Matthew Tringali]

Rev Keister, thank you for your contributions and your critique of my remarks. I have some questions:

• I am not understanding your implied definition of solemn. In what way does solemn as a qualifer negate or lessen that baptism is admission to the visible church? If anything, to me, it seems to place an emphasis on that admission.
• Was someone a member of the Nation of Israel simply by having faith? Or did they first need to be circumcised before being counted among the visible people of Israel? How does the answer to these questions relate or not relate to baptism being the new sign of the visible community of God's people?
• Can we say that God did not establish / incorporate his visible community until circumcision and thus the point about Abraham is not even applicable?
• But, even if that above bullet is wrong and his visible community was created prior to circumcision... is it necessary that Abraham belonged to both the visible and invisible community of God concurrently?
• With regards to the element of a sacrament being a sacramental union of sign and thing signified... If Spirit-given faith is the thing signified then what, precisely, is the sign to which baptism is uniting the Spirit-given faith?
• As I read your statements about what a sacrament is and what a sign and the thing signified are... It feels to me that you are actually diminishing the visible - invisible distinction. But, having followed your blog for a long time, I clearly know that this is my own misunderstanding, as you would never intend this. But, you seem to be saying that faith is both the admittance to the invisible church (clearly this is a given) and yet faith is also the admittance to the visible church. So, what's the difference? What am I not understanding about your point?
• Thank you for your concern about my "article". Can you please be more specific about your concerns? Would it be helpful to read it in its full context? Or helpful to see some of the sources from which I quoted? As I recall, I did quite well on the paper and my professor at RTS did not express any theological concerns, so it would be helpful for me to understand more of your concern. Thank you.

Edit to add: Also, I have always read WLC 166 different than the light in which you have presented it. I have always read it this way: "baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church... till they [THOSE WHO ARE OUT OF THE VISIBLE CHURCH] profess their faith, and obedience to him". Meaning, they still remain outside of the visible church even after they profess their faith; and that once you administer the baptism you [solemnly] admit them into the visible church. And thus, faith has not accomplished that admission. However, I do understand that Robert Shaw, for one example, would disagree with that. But, in any case, I think either my understanding of of WLC 166 or yours both require us to read something further into it. Considering that it is meant to be expounding upon WLC 165 which describes baptism as a solemn admission into the visible church, then I (for now) prefer my understanding. But, perhaps once I better understand why the word "solemn" makes admission mean something different, then I will be convinced otherwise.

 

[Iconoclast]

Third, although many hold that “every believer is baptized into the
[mystical] body of Christ [the universal, invisible church] at conversion,” the
Scriptures teach differently. There are six passages in the New Testament that
definitely and expressly teach the baptism of the Holy Spirit: Matt. 3:11; Mk.
1:8; Lk. 3:16; Jn. 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:15–17. These statements, then, must form
the substance for the doctrine in question. A close and thorough investigation
reveals the following: first, the Lord Jesus Christ himself is the Administrator,
or the one who does the “baptizing,” “He [the Lord Jesus Christ] shall baptize
you with [in] the Holy Ghost…” (Matt. 3:11; Mk. 1:8; Lk. 3:16). “…the same
is he which baptizeth with [in] the Holy Ghost.” (Jn. 1:33). Second, the Holy
Spirit is the one into whom or with whom they were baptized or identified.
This is specifically stated in every single passage. Third, the incidents that
occurred at Pentecost (Acts 1:5; 2:1) and at the house of Cornelius (Acts
10:44–47; 11:15–17) are the only instances identified by inspiration with the
baptism of the Holy Spirit.
There are four passages in the New Testament that are assumed to teach
the baptism of the Holy Spirit: Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27–28; Eph. 4:5; Col. 2:11–
13. Although some of these passages are questionable as to their relevance,
they are nevertheless so used and thus included. A careful study will bring the
162
following conclusions: first, there is absolutely no mention made of any
administrator or one who performs the baptism. There is not the slightest
mention of the Holy Spirit. Second, the Lord Jesus Christ is the One into
whom these are baptized. Third, it may be inferred from the context in these
statements that all believers are included. These passages referring to being
“baptized into Christ” refer to the believer’s union with Christ


1 Corinthians 12:13 is vital to understanding the doctrine and bears close
study. An exegesis of this verse rightly brings it into harmony with the
passages that definitely teach the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Mark the
following: first, the rendering “by one Spirit” is literally “in one Spirit” This
would bring the first part of this statement into accord with the basic and
foundational teaching. The phrase “…are we all baptized into one body…”
reads: “…into one body we were baptized…” The verb is aorist [an event],
referring to the event of Pentecost, and should be grammatically translated
“were” rather than “are.” Further, Paul includes himself in the “we.” This
further stands against the argument that this verse refers to water baptism in
the local Corinthian assembly. If this verse is taken in the light of those
statements definitely teaching the baptism of the Holy Spirit, then it logically
refers to the baptism of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost upon the New Testament
church as an institution—a unique event.

This is from A Baptist Catechism with Commentary.....used by permission

 

[Peairtach]

Quote from Lane

Baptism does not incorporate a person into the visible church. Yes, you read that correctly. WCF 28.1 says "solemn admission," not "admission." The difference is that the person, by saying that he believes, already belongs to the visible church.

Quite interesting.

One of the consequences of this would be that the visible church existed before the time of Abraham, as Matthew points out above.

Do you mean that there are more signs of being in the visible church than just the sacraments themselves? E.g. the believers before Abraham "called on God's Name" and sacrificed to Him? E.g. being born into a believing family is a visible sign that you are in the visible church, even before you yourself are baptised? E.g. living a godly life is a sign of being in the visible church even although - for some valid reason - you never were circumcised or baptised?

 

[greenbaggins]

Rev Keister, thank you for your contributions and your critique of my remarks. I have some questions:

• I am not understanding your implied definition of solemn. In what way does solemn as a qualifer negate or lessen that baptism is admission to the visible church? If anything, to me, it seems to place an emphasis on that admission.
• Was someone a member of the Nation of Israel simply by having faith? Or did they first need to be circumcised before being counted among the visible people of Israel? How does the answer to these questions relate or not relate to baptism being the new sign of the visible community of God's people?
• Can we say that God did not establish / incorporate his visible community until circumcision and thus the point about Abraham is not even applicable?
• But, even if that above bullet is wrong and his visible community was created prior to circumcision... is it necessary that Abraham belonged to both the visible and invisible community of God concurrently?
• With regards to the element of a sacrament being a sacramental union of sign and thing signified... If Spirit-given faith is the thing signified then what, precisely, is the sign to which baptism is uniting the Spirit-given faith?
• As I read your statements about what a sacrament is and what a sign and the thing signified are... It feels to me that you are actually diminishing the visible - invisible distinction. But, having followed your blog for a long time, I clearly know that this is my own misunderstanding, as you would never intend this. But, you seem to be saying that faith is both the admittance to the invisible church (clearly this is a given) and yet faith is also the admittance to the visible church. So, what's the difference? What am I not understanding about your point?
• Thank you for your concern about my "article". Can you please be more specific about your concerns? Would it be helpful to read it in its full context? Or helpful to see some of the sources from which I quoted? As I recall, I did quite well on the paper and my professor at RTS did not express any theological concerns, so it would be helpful for me to understand more of your concern. Thank you.

Edit to add: Also, I have always read WLC 166 different than the light in which you have presented it. I have always read it this way: "baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church... till they [THOSE WHO ARE OUT OF THE VISIBLE CHURCH] profess their faith, and obedience to him". Meaning, they still remain outside of the visible church even after they profess their faith; and that once you administer the baptism you [solemnly] admit them into the visible church. And thus, faith has not accomplished that admission. However, I do understand that Robert Shaw, for one example, would disagree with that. But, in any case, I think either my understanding of of WLC 166 or yours both require us to read something further into it. Considering that it is meant to be expounding upon WLC 165 which describes baptism as a solemn admission into the visible church, then I (for now) prefer my understanding. But, perhaps once I better understand why the word "solemn" makes admission mean something different, then I will be convinced otherwise.

The definition "solemn" means that it is the formal, serious mark that someone belongs to the visible church. A person may already have the right to be in the visible church, and be called a member of the visible church without baptism. For instance, infants, before they are baptized, "are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized." I don't know how we can say that they are part of the covenant, and not part of the visible church. That would imply slippage between the administration of the covenant and the visible church. But those two things are identical. Infants are part of the visible church by virtue of birth, not by virtue of baptism. The rite of baptism *marks* the infant's entrance into the visible church. So, if we say that baptism initiates one into the visible church, then we are saying that infants are not part of the covenant administration until baptism. Then we have to posit a different set of people within the categories of "covenant administration" and "visible church." I do not believe that the Bible does any such thing. "Covenant administration" and "visible church" are the same thing.

As to your second query, I would put it this way: a profession of faith in Israel's God meant that one was identifying oneself with God's people. One had the right of belonging. Yes, the sign of circumcision was necessary to "seal the deal." But a public profession is what identifies a person with God's church.

On the third point, God's church has existed since Adam and Eve. Their professions of faith are present in the Scripture for all to see. The church did not come into existence on the basis of the sacraments. That would make the sacraments the foundation of the church, whereas it is the Word that is the foundation of the church.

On the fourth point, didn't Abraham make his profession of faith by believing in God (thus having the instrument of justification), and then marking that faith by leaving his home town? This is identification as God's people.

On the fifth point, Spirit-given faith is NOT the thing signified. The sign is the water. The thing signified is the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ. It is to that which the sign points. Spirit-given faith is the thing that connects the sign to the thing signified. It is in Spirit-given faith, which IS the sacramental union, that the efficacy of baptism lies.

On the sixth point, faith is the admittance into the invisible church, profession of faith, or making that public, is the admittance to the visible church, of which baptism is the seal. In this way, baptism works in two ways: as the sign of Christ's blood, it works in the "invisible church" direction by pointing to salvation. As the sign by itself, it points in the "visible church" direction. I don't know if I am expressing myself very clearly here, but it's the best I can do for now.

On the seventh point, I am concerned primarily with not attributing to baptism more than the confession does, and more than Scripture does. As a physical sign, it marks (but does not induct) the entrance into the visible church. As the sign that points to the thing signified, it points us to salvation. But baptism does not make us part of the visible church. I believe that profession of faith does that.

The difficulty with your interpretation of WLC 166 is the place of infants. Infants cannot make profession of faith. Their parents have to make that for them. But if infants are "within the covenant," then how can they be outside the visible church? The definition of the visible church in WCF 25 is of those that profess the true religion; and of their children (notice that it does not say "baptized" children, but simply "children"). The true mark of being in the visible church, according to WCF 25.2 is public profession of faith, not baptism. Baptism is nowhere mentioned in the definition of the visible church. Now, baptism is not irrelevant to the visible church, as I have sought to demonstrate. Baptism is the physical mark of the visible church, just as profession is the verbal mark. But the verbal mark (profession) is primary, just as Word is primary, and the Sacrament is secondary.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

My comments here were begun prior to Lane's excellent post above, and do not refer to them, other than at the end. I am in no way "responding" to what he wrote, other than to agree with him right out the gate.

Calvin's comments on Gen.4:26

26.Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord. In the verb ‘to call upon,’ there is a synecdochee, for it embraces generally the whole worship of God. But religion is here properly designated by that which forms its principal part. For God prefers this service of piety and faith to all sacrifices, (Ps.50:14.) Yea, this is the spiritual worship of God which faith produces. This is particularly worthy of notice, because Satan contrives nothing with greater care than to adulterate, with every possible corruption, the pure invocation of God, or to draw us away from the only God to the invocation of creatures. Even from the beginning of the world he has not ceased to move this stone, that miserable men might weary themselves in vain in a preposterous worship of God. But let us know, that the entire pomp of adoration is nothing worth, unless this chief point of worshipping God aright be maintained.

Although the passage may be more simply explained to mean, that then the name of God was again celebrated; yet I approve the former sense, because it is more full, contains a useful doctrine, and also agrees with the accustomed phraseology of Scripture. It is a foolish figment, that God then began to be called by other names; since Moses does not here censure depraved superstitions, but commends the piety of one family which worshipped God in purity and holiness, when religions among other people, was polluted or extinct. And there is no doubt, that Adam and Eve, with a few other of their children were themselves true worshippers of God; but closes means, that so great was then the deluge of impiety in the world that religion was rapidly hastening to destruction; because it remained only with a few men, and did not flourish in any one race. We may readily conclude that Seth was an upright and faithful servant of God. And after he begat a son, like himself, and had a rightly constituted family, the face of the Church began distinctly to appear, and that worship of God was set up which might continue to posterity.

Thus, following Calvin, it would be correct to understand that prayer (which is a kind of confession of faith), being the principal part of worship, is also its basic part; and participation in that worship by united prayer/confession is an incorporative act.

But more must be said. There is an undeniable incorporation (by this rule) by anyone who worships, therefore. And unfortunately, this runs into several problems. For worship to be truly corporate, it must be in unity. And insofar as unity can be exhibited, it must be by way of agreeable forms or order. No one can see the heart of another (he can barely trust his own heart). True worship is incorporate by men's spirits in union with Holy Spirit. The church on earth is therefore only more or less a true incorporation, and not a perfect one.

From the earliest days (Seth's) it becomes a progressively greater requirement to distinguish the worshipers of God from the non-worshipers. But, in addition, it is necessary to distinguish between those who worship God in Spirit and truth from those who worship in error. If the verbal confession of faith is the ultimate incorporative act, then the power of incorporation is lodged in the individual; ratification only is lodged in the overall (i.e. multiple individual) acceptation of the confession by the other confessors. In this case, there is no "body" to which has been granted the greater authority to incorporate (or refuse it) on earth. There is only the "hive-mind," which cannot distinguish between competing claims over directional power.

Competition leads to factionalism and fracturing. Without a unitary confession for the body, and unifying principles or acts that impose unity from the body, the cracks widen and the process of disintegration continues repeatedly and indefinitely. Where cohesiveness is maintained, it comes at the price of "lowest-common-denominator" unity; the body is invariably distorted and palsied, cancered and disordered, when a body can even be identified. Swarms are an illusion of real unity.


Thankfully, there is an alternative. In answer to earthly problems, we've been given solutions. The church is given leaders by God; the church recognizes certain truths as non-negotiable, common-denominator elements for unity, and then it insists on obtaining that confession from those who would incorporate. Let it be emphasized that the body makes a ministerial and declarative statement, rather than a constituting statement. The church has not usurped either the divine role, or the individual's role in incorporation, but performs a mediating role. By representing an already formed "body" to which the individual seeks incorporation, the church shows the priority of divine constitution and monergistic salvation. It presents a confession (the gospel, defined and explained) to the individual, and invites participation. The individual, by his (outwardly expressed) consent is incorporated to the church, just as secretly expressed faith instrumentally unites the believer to Christ in his justification.

In connection, therefore, we understand the role of baptism--the church's act of baptizing, correlative to the Spirit's baptism. Baptism is an acknowledgement of separation from the world, of solemn admission into the church. It is an actively-receptive embrace, a gift-giving act. It repeats the gospel-offer that was already declared, and proclaims salvation for those who are true disciples. It is a citizenship-act, made by the government. In the heavenlies, such things are perfectly stated; here on earth, the matter is testified though imperfectly. The gift of Holy Spirit is predicated on union with Christ. Yes, the same Spirit brings about this union; he is already at work prior to regeneration, because he is in the world to convict of sin, righteousness, and judgment (Jn.16:8-10). But the baptism of the Spirit follows from faith, an effect almost palpable in the book of Acts. He is our experience of the union with Christ, and our experiences always follow what is initiated prior to our experience. Experience does nothing to initiate itself.

So, it is the case that baptism by the church is an experience of reception, and union with the body on earth. It testifies to the realities of the past, present, and future. Not to abandon the citizenship-metaphor, but we may also liken baptism to the solemnization of marriage. The commitment of the two parties unto marriage (the confession, plighting the troth) is really that which brings them together, grounds the incorporation. But that itself is not the "solemn admission" to the union--such is the purpose for the ceremony, the public covenant. This is to be followed by the future life together, which includes the bed, etc. (This sort of understanding of marriage exposes the gross fallacies and confusions of those who put the cart before the horse--but that is a whole other topic.)

Confession of faith--the ostensible heart-union--is the ground of incorporation; while baptism does, in fact, incorporate through the bestowal of the gift. And of course, I am in full agreement with Lane's observation concerning the infants, that baptism does not resume them in covenant (administratively) that they were not already in by virtue of their birth.

This, I think, brings together things I said earlier, and Lane's further qualifications.