Question about covenant theology

[non dignus]

David, that sounds awfully condescending ("bless his heart").

Bill,
Please accept my apology. My intention was not to be condescending. It was my feeble attempt to appeal ad absurdum. The idea is to show a faulty argument by using magnification.

The Baptist will not baptise infants because the inward spiritual condition of infants cannot be known. It is for the purity of the church that he is cautious not to baptise unsound candidates. This is admirable indeed, no joke. But I don't see in scripture this scrupulousness in regard to the young. To the contrary, I see children in holy writ as the most viable candidates for baptism.

If children of believers are holy, what is there more to say?
If heaven belongs to such as these, what is there more to say? Mt 19:14

---------- Post added at 09:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:54 PM ----------

Does this mean then that the unbelieving husbands of believing wives should receive baptism? If not, then why not? What if the children are older? Should they also receive baptism without professing Christ?

The difference between the sanctified spouse and the sanctified child is this: the spouse is an unbeliever, and the child is a nonbeliever. The unbeliever has a faith apart from Christ. The nonbeliever has no faith apart from Christ.

Older children can be distinguished in this way as well. We don't force baptisms, but on the other end, we give special treatment to older children of believers. We give them the benefit of the doubt, where we wouldn't with the older child of unbelievers.

Above all, we are commanded to baptise our children (Acts 2:38,39) and we find little in this regard to the unbelieving spouse.

 

[Loopie]

David,

You are suggesting a difference between a non-believer and an unbeliever? Does scripture anywhere suggest this difference? I would argue that a non-believer is the same as an unbeliever. Children are not spiritually or morally 'neutral'. They are conceived in iniquity, sinful from birth. There are simply two types of people in the world, unbeliever and believer, Elect or Reprobate.

As for the sanctified spouse, I still see no reason why the believing husband should not baptize her without a confession of faith on her part. If BOTH his children and her are sanctified and made holy through him, then why should there be any difference between how he treats them? If he baptizes the children with no confession on their part (in the hopes that they will one day confess), he is just as right to baptize the wife with no confession on her part (in the hopes that she will one day confess).

I honestly do not see how scripture calls us to baptize based on giving someone the benefit of the doubt without hearing any confession from them.

I also do not see how Acts 2:38-39 is a call to baptize our children. Remember in verse 39 that it is to as many as the Lord our God will call to himself (Election).

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Eric,
I will go ahead and post what I wanted you to see from the other thread. I bring up Deuteronomy 29:29 in it along with other things I think pertain to the discussion here also.

Charles,
Thanks for helping me clarify. I can not judge another man's faith. I do have to operate within the perimeters of what God says concerning outward obedience and disobedience. That is why Deuteronomy 29:29 is important here.

(Deu 29:29) The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

I also believe that is another reason why the substance of the Mosaic and New Covenants are the same. Church membership in both Covenants are the same for the most part. Thus it is important to understand both covenants substance wise since God calls both the Old Covenant believers and New Covenant believers His Church. Covenant relationship is so important in this discussion.

There is some sense in which our Children are Covenant members and are sanctified by our belief as the marriage covenant sanctifies the unbelieving spouse. There is also a sense that a confessor can be in a covenant relationship by being a member in the New Covenant Church and forsake that covenant relationship as Hebrews 10:29 states. I am still trying to work this out.

I recently stated and asked questions from some guys concerning some of this subject. I will let you all into my line of thinking here.

In my working out the differences that are brought up concerning Ishmael and Isaac, I think I am looking at trying to understand how our children relate to the Covenant by their families. Are we to really consider them to be outside the Covenant as the Baptists who believe in baptizing only confessing people? Are our children not considered to be disciples?

Abraham raised Ishmael up to know his God. In fact Abraham interceded for Ishmael concerning this issue in Genesis 17. Is this really anything different than we are charged with? Do not our children have some connectivity to the Covenant and teaching of the Lord as the New and Old Testaments command?

We are commanded to go forth baptizing, teaching, and making disciples. Are our children not considered to be disciples even if we can’t judge the motives and intents of their hearts? The Lord through St. Paul commands us to raise our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Is that not discipleship? We raise them up in an environment that teaches them to call upon the Lord and seek him for forgiveness and sustenance in all things concerning life. Most of our children grow up praying, reading, and believing the Lord is their God as we have taught them. We teach them the Lord ’s Prayer telling them to pray as Jesus commanded.

(Mat 6:9) After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

(Mat 6:10) Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

(Mat 6:11) Give us this day our daily bread.

(Mat 6:12) And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

(Mat 6:13) And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.


Is this not discipleship? Are we not raising our children as disciples? What is the definition of disciple? Do we really believe that Ishmael wasn’t being discipled and taught to call upon the Lord as his God. Besides Abraham, didn’t God command everyman in Israel to teach his household the Covenant that God proclaims himself to be their God.

(Exo 20:2) I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

(Exo 20:3) Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Were those in the Old Covenant not considered to be disciplined and taught in the way in which God was their God? Even though not all of Israel is Israel they were to be taught the relational status of the Covenant as our Children are. If we are not to teach them this then what are we to teach them? Is this not the same thing we are commanded to do in bringing up our Children in the fear, nurture, and admonition of the Lord? Are our children not to be under the headship of their fathers? If we neglect this aren’t we neglecting the very thing that God has commanded us to do!

Yes, our little disciples may end up becoming apostates. But they are sanctified and attached to us as we are attached to the Church. There is a manner of sanctification in this because of our attachment to her. As it is stated in Hebrews 10:29, we should be fearful lest we trodden underfoot the Son of God, and count the blood of the covenant, wherewith we are sanctified, an unholy thing.

The above is what I look at when considering the Covenantal relationship we have in the Church. As far as Church discipline goes there is the outworking of what we are commanded concerning those who violate the law of God severely and are cut off from the visible Church as is prescribed in 1 Corinthian 5:9-11 and 2 Thessalonians 3:14,15.

And let us not forget the warnings and admonishments of Revelation chapter 2 where God says he will remove the candlestick and judge based upon our works.

(1Co 5:9) I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:


(1Co 5:10) Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out ofthe world.


(1Co 5:11) But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer,or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.



(2Th 3:14) And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

(2Th 3:15) Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

We have to operate in the here and now trusting in the fact that the secret things belong unto the Lord but those things which are revealed are for us and our children that we might be participants in the Covenant relationship. If one is elect he will in no wise be cast out for our Lord holds them and nothing can separate us from the love of God. But if one is exhibiting unbelief by his actions God has told us how to respond and expects it. That one is to be delivered over to Satan as 1 Corinthians 5 states that he might be gained. This is very much the same in substance as the Old Covenant. There is a divorce or cutting off that grace might awaken the heart and a gracious return would be allowed as it was with the Church in the Old Testament.

I didn't include the whole post here but I also go and ask others to consider Jeremiah 31 with a further exposition of it in Chapter 32. Most people don't go far enough in reading and just drop more important insight about Jeremiah 31 concerning the New Covenant that is revealed in Chapter 32.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The difficulty lies in the fact that Abraham has both physical and spiritual children. Which descendants are you talking about? All of them? Which ones are the Elect? Is it not purely the spiritual children of Abraham? Are the non-Elect members of the New Covenant?

Difficult for whom? The church in this life is a mixed community. The only descendants who "count" are those who possess the thing that is signified, and not merely the sign. Possessing the sign alone, is equivalent to possessing nothing, Lk.19:26. But it doesn't mean these "sign-holders" aren't members in that respect.

To your first "I completely agree," comment: are you saying that you agree that Peter's statement Act 2:39 is basically a RE-statement of the Abrahamic promise for a Christ-covenant age? In each of the four clauses? Then you should have no problem understanding the paedo-baptist's appeal to that verse.

So are you suggesting that the repentance and belief of those Peter is addressing is not the reason for their baptism? If it is not the purpose, nor the basis, and is simply a 'middling way', then how does that make any sense? Baptism logically comes either before or after repentance, making it either a purpose or a basis. Why shouldn't those being addressed be baptized even if they refuse to repent and believe? If repentance and faith is not the basis for their baptism, then it should be perfectly allowable for them to receive baptism while still refusing to repent and believe.

1) I made an non-technical, exegetical argument for the meaning of a specific word in Act.2:38. 2) Repentance might be a "reason" in some sense for attending to baptism, but this text doesn't make such a causal connection. 3) You seem to be off track, because here you are talking about the relation between "repentance" and "baptism," but I was talking about the relation between "remission/forgiveness" and "baptism," and I was responding to YOUR reference to THAT clause. 4) When the focus is strictly exegesis, you need to confine yourself to the terms in the verse under consideration; faith/belief (despite the relevance it has theologically) isn't mentioned here. Bottom line: please reread my whole treatment of the phrase in question, and make your queries/charges relevant.

So would you argue that the word 'your' is an improper addition to the translation of the Greek?

It depends. A reasonable argument can be made that the word "your" belongs there by inference. And, I failed to note the textual-variants on this verse. Alexandrine family MSS (followed by many modern translations) include Gk. 'humon,' meaning "your," added as the final word of that clause. So adopting that reading would weaken the force of my reasoning; but not enough, in my estimation, to overthrow my main point: that baptism itself and the objective meaning of baptism is principally what is in view, which facts are personally consequential by application.

I do not quite follow your line of reasoning. Are you suggesting that baptism is simply a different form of the gospel? So if there is a general and effectual call of the gospel, then there is a general and effectual call of baptism? Should we then baptize all human adults (whether they repent or not) as a sort of general call of the baptism-gospel, with the understanding that at least some of them will repent and believe by the effectual call of the baptism-gospel?

Eric, please do not attempt to infer implications from what I've stated, if by your own admission, you don't fully understand what I'm (or Calvin is) saying. You are an officer in the military. You would not be so careless if people's lives were on the line. Baptism is a "visible Word." The meaning invested in the rite points to Jesus Christ. Yes, baptism teaches the same Jesus, the same gospel that the written or spoken Word does. Not some other Jesus, or some other truth. Read 29.1 of your own confession. The rest of your ridiculous (and slightly abusive) comments I'm just going to pass by, as words rashly spoken, Ecc.5:2.

This is just another one of the places where your views and mine are (probably) inverses. In your view, is baptism above all else a "personal witness to faith possessed?" Is baptism the Christian's first/principal act of obedience? Regardless, I do know that in Baptist theology if you were not actually a believer when you were baptized, then when you really do believe you must be baptized, because you were "never really baptized" before; or, as some describe the practice, you must be "rebaptized." So in any event, the subjective element of baptism (what a man says about himself) is highly pronounced in your view. But in my view, the "objective" fact of baptism is paramount in any proper instance of it. Someone who meets the criteria and presents for baptism--if he is lawfully baptized, then he IS baptized; and if his heart is bad and his profession untrue or never true, that doesn't invalidate the baptism that was administered. This is because what God says in the gospel is true, even when what men say about the gospel or themselves is a lie, Rom.3:4.

Those meaningful physical descendants of Abraham were Abraham's spiritual children. Of course, the Elect also included Abraham's spiritual children who were not his physical descendants. Like you said, others such as Ishmael did not share in their father's faith, and so did not share in the truth of the covenant. But even though God established his covenant with Abraham's son Isaac, not all of Isaac's physical descentants were of the Elect. Still, the covenant with Isaac included both Elect and non-Elect, with circumcision being given as a sign to both groups of people.

No, if you are going to speak in absolute terms, "the covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed," WLC31. Abraham's covenant is one administration of this covenant, ergo it's a covenant with the elect, and that's it. Circumcision is a sign unto faith, Rom.4:11. But any earthly administration of this covenant includes unbelievers. It is impossible NOT to include them. We don't know who the elect are. So, there are always unbelievers and non-elect people who are within the covenant in terms of its less-than-ideal, pre-consummative states. Everyone in the church--elect and non-elect alike--are "under its discipline," and the important thing to do in all places and times is carry out that discipline properly.

Here I would disagree with you, because you have read Gal 3:7 to suggest that the physical descendants of Abraham have somehow disappeared. In truth, the spiritual children of Abraham existed amongst the physical descendants of Moses, and the physical descendants of David. Would you argue that the same is true for Noah? Did Noah ONLY have spiritual descendants? There is a slight inconsistency here in the structure that you are proposing. I would argue that Abraham's physical descendants have not ceased to exist. The spiritual descendants, the Elect, have always existed, but they have always existed within the broader group (this is true of Noah's descendants, Isaac's descendants, Moses' descendants, and David's descendants). In the New Covenant though we see that God finally calls his spiritual remnant out as their own group, as the visible church. In the older covenants, God included non-Elect as partakers of those covenants. In the New Covenant, God calls the spiritual children of Abraham, the remnant, out. It is they alone who are called to partake in the signs and seals of the New Covenant (baptism, communion, and heart-circumcision).

No, I put quotes around "only" as I'm being forced into the use of absolute language because of your terms. I didn't argue that they disappeared; I argued that they were never consequential members of the covenants to which they had superficial attachments. These people had REAL existence, and their superficial attachments were REAL as well, and damnable.

This is an aside, dealing with a distracting point. Noah's covenant has value, but the NT points us to Abraham's covenant as the "programmatic" beginning for producing the Savior of the world. Noah's covenant is a new-creation covenant, it's as wide as the whole world (even going beyond the human race for import). In it God makes a divine preservation-promise that affects all the survivors on earth, without consideration for how, or if, they care. There is no sense in which "faith" or "believing" in this covenant has any bearing whatever on what takes place on the basis of it. On the basis of a new world-order, creation and humanity is granted lease on life. But if we analyzed the situation, we'd have to admit that even in Noah's case, the only ones who absolutely benefit from it are believers. Now back to the main issue.​

No, I'm going to continue to state that the non-elect were NOT partakers of the earlier covenants--not if what you mean is that they were engaged to the substance of the covenant irrespective of whether they had faith or not. Being engaged only by an outward ("accidental" in classical terms) rule is sufficient to DAMN, to create responsibility and culpability; but not sufficient to BLESS (in any truly gracious sense of the word). Look, I can use the language of "participants" when speaking of those non-elect who are under the umbrella of covenant, if I'm conversing with someone who recognizes with me a dual administration of covenant--one earthly, one heavenly. Half the time, you admit an agreement with my expressions of this dual-administration. And then you turn around and deny the very basis for the expressions we agreed on. What this boils down to is the reality that you and I arrive at "things we agree on" from radically different directions. And I'm trying to make that clear. But you still insist on using the language of "inconsistency," as if that's all there was to it.

Certainly they knew about circumcision of the heart, but the difference is that God makes it one of the signs of the restoration. Yes they were commanded to be circumcised in heart, but it was not going to happen until God was the one to change their hearts. We see in Deuteronomy 30:6 that Moses, after predicting the disobedience and captivity of the Israelites, promises that God will be the one to circumcise their hearts (a sign of the New Covenant). That is why I would argue that heart-circumcision should be attached to the New Testament as a specific sign of the New Covenant.

What "difference?" Different from what? Heart-circumcision is obviously a PART of the Old Testament religion. Did the OT saints have their hearts circumcised or not? Isn't this regeneration? Who has always been the agent of regeneration? Would you indeed make regeneration peculiar to the Restoration? Why doesn't it make as much (or more!) sense to say that Moses and Jeremiah prophesy that after chastisement, God promises to do a more thorough or more abundant work of this grace than he had hitherto done? [Edit: remove my apparent exasperation as unhelpful].

I would disagree that they become fully interchangeable. Certainly the reference to outward baptism is connected to inward cirumcision (the reference is not from outward baptism to outward circumcision). Obviously God did not call Abraham to inwardly circumcise his children. He called Abraham to outwardly circumcise them. In this way I think there is a slight inconsistency in your argument, because you end up interchanging outward baptism with outward circumcision, even though you specifically said that the corollation is between inward circumcision and outward baptism. With this in mind the corollation is more like a cross-corollation rather than a direct and full interchangeable corollation.

I didn't write "fully interchangeable," but "virtually interchangeable." And again with the "inconsistency" nonsense! It isn't apparent that you grasped what I said. You rehearse back to me some of what I wrote, and you express some surprise with the "accuracy" with which I wrote; but then you just allege that I'm "inconsistent." Well, why? Because I don't see it your way? What kind of reason is that? I do not see you have worked through to even accurately represent what I wrote (misquotes and all), so as to be able to define *MY* "confusion. My point is that the referent, the spiritual import, of each pair (there are two pairs of sign/thing-signified involved) is the same reality, so the apostle(s) in teaching can "cross-correlate" without any sense of incongruity.



You are welcome to disagree with my claims, and offer your contrary views. I don't have a problem with that at all. I want you to have a good experience on this site. And let me say, I honestly don't care about "changing your thinking." My aim is clarity. And I'd rather have a convinced Baptist on my side, than a person following fads. But you do need to try to go it a little slower, maybe? And improve your accuracy and precision, both reading and writing. Passion and confidence is not going to make up for misrepresentation and a tin-ear. Let me repeat: our divide is not a question of consistency. It's a question of starting points, starting assumptions, hermeneutical methods. If they differ (and they do, sometimes surprisingly) then it isn't surprising that they end up different as well. To land a blow for inconsistency, you are going to have to show how one conclusion is incompatible with another (on the same principles), or that your opponent's conclusion is incompatible with his start, principles, or methodology. Just disagreeing with YOU doesn't prove that YOU are consistent, or that HE is inconsistent.

 

[non dignus]

Thank you, Eric, for a lively discourse. Iron sharpens iron.

David,

You are suggesting a difference between a non-believer and an unbeliever?

Absolutely. You heard it first right here.

Our consistory had a case where the wife of a Reformed brother had spent a lot of time in evangelical churches. Frankly, her confession was not solid, as you might well imagine. We accepted her profession of faith on the grounds that she was committed to her husband. If she had walked in alone, I'm certain we would have asked her to wait longer in order to ascertain if she really wanted to worship with us.

Unbelievers believe. They just don't believe the truth. Nonbelievers, on the other hand, do not have higher thinking skills. Does God exclude the mentally handicapped, the demented, the brain damaged, and likewise small children? Of course not, perish the thought.

.....Children are not spiritually or morally 'neutral'. They are conceived in iniquity, sinful from birth. There are simply two types of people in the world, unbeliever and believer, Elect or Reprobate.

I'm not saying anyone is morally neutral. I am saying that children of believers are holy. When God calls you, He takes everything you have. Is that wrong?

I also do not see how Acts 2:38-39 is a call to baptize our children. Remember in verse 39 that it is to as many as the Lord our God will call to himself.

Peter is saying to the men present that God IS calling them to Himself because they are the seed of Abraham. And to those who are afar off, as many as the Lord will call, He is calling their children with them. This is the promise.

HC 74. ....and through the blood of Christ both redemption from sin and the Holy Spirit Who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents...

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich,

It is indeed true that the church is authorized to administer the sacraments. There is another question though: who is authorized to accept and receive those covenants?

Say, hypothetically, that you know someone who is certainly not a Christian. You are aware that this person only wants to enter into a church for selfish reasons (perhaps just to fit in and make friends, or because of peer pressure). Now you might go to the church elders and inform them that you do not believe this person to be a true believer. Yet when they confront the person, the person asserts that they have accepted Christ, and wish to be baptized and take communion. There are two different questions we need to ask here:

1) Is the church authorized to baptize this person? Yes. The church is acting based off of the best information that they have. Though you might speak up against their decision, they might not give your arguments much weight (particularly if the person was very convincing). We know that the church is not infallible, and we have been told in scripture that there will be many false prophets and false teachers within the church. In this case the church is not being overly presumptuous or liberal with the sacraments, as its decision to baptize others is based on a credible confession of faith (which many false believers give).

Your hypothetical is a cavil and does not merit serious response. That is, unless your Church actually regularly baptizes people as the above suggests.

2) Is the person in question authorized to request and receive baptism? No. God knows the heart of that individual, and whether that individual is of the Elect or of the Reprobate. That individual can expect great judgment for deceiving the church, and essentially being a wolf in sheep's clothing. Obviously the church cannot infallibly know the heart of the individual, or else the church would not have baptized them.

Don't forget to add that the Church would also be God because He alone knows the hidden things.

This leads me to another hypothetical question: If the church did have infallible knowledge of who was of the Elect and who was of the reprobate, would (and should) the church still baptize those reprobate who request it? If the church knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that a person WAS NOT a believer, should the church still baptize them? Obviously not. The church should act based upon what it knows, and what God has revealed to it. That is why the church needs to be careful and conservative in the distribution of its sacraments.

Now we have not only a cavil but an impious hypothetical. It is impious because it is a direct violation of Deut 29:29. Let me see if I get this straight: if the hidden things didn't belong to the Lord then we would know who to baptize THEREFORE this establishes what?

That is also why the LCF declares that the proper subjects of the sacrament of baptism are "Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ."

Which, the impious hypothetical?

What futher revelation can the church have concerning someone's faith other than this? If the church was able to infallibly know who was Elect and who was not, they would not simply give baptism to someone that they infallibly knew was reprobate. That is why the church is indeed authorized to baptize those who profess Christ (even if they profess falsely). This does not ignore the fact that the reprobate are deceiving the church, disobeying God, and defiling the sacraments when they request and receive baptism on a false profession of faith.

Again, assuming a violation of Deut 29:29 and living in a world we don't live in, I just don't see how this is relevant.

Here's the problem as I see it: you are not only terribly ignorant of your own Confession and the reasons it establishes for the baptism of professors but you lack the training in and the mature use of the tools necessary to understand the doctrines you are attempting to handle. You do not appear interested in learning from others how to properly apply hermeneutical principles necessary for understanding but you respond with clumsy, impious, and self-contradictory arguments boldly asserting their "obvious" implications.

I would suggest you become more self-aware of your limitations and take on the role of the student here. You don't have to be convinced by me but there are several Baptist elders here who can instruct you in some of the basic tools that you obviously lack as you are embarrassing yourself and violating the Word in the process.

 

[KaphLamedh]

Thanks Loopie for good long answer!

 

[Loopie]

Rich,

I do not believe my hypothetical scenario was a cavil. I am not trying to bring up pointless and irritating arguments or situations. I was trying to illustrate a point.

The point is that there are scenarios where a person convinces the church that they are a believer. They confess Christ convincingly, but ultimately are deceivers. Other members of the church might have already had doubts concerning that person's faith. Certainly in my own church if two or three witnesses were to suggest to our leadership that someone was not really repentant, but had given false confessions, there would be a slight hesitation on the part of the church leadership to baptize that person. Is this not a reasonable thing for the church to do?

Believe me, I know that the hidden things are the Lord's, and for that reason the church must act (and is not wrong to act) based on what it knows. At the same time, each individual person knows whether they are in the Lord or not, and whether they have repented unto salvation or not. If they profess falsely, they err, and will be judged for it.

What I am saying is that the church acts based on what it knows, not what it doesn't know. If it acted based on what information it DID NOT have (ie. it had no reason to believe that a person WAS NOT a believer), that would result in the church legitimately baptizing every single person (without the need of a confession of faith) unless some other information convinces the church not to.

If the church acted based on what information it DID have (ie. it had good reason to believe that a person WAS a believer), that would result in the church legitimately baptizing only those who profess Christ, being that a credible profession of Christ was the standard by which the church decided whether to baptize or not. It would seem that in the examples of baptism in the New Testament, this is how the church acted in its administration of the sacrament.

Now as to your statement that I am ignorant in my knowledge of the LBC, I do not see where I have erred. If you would kindly show me my error, I will be happy to admit it humbly. In fact, I am very interested in the arguments that others make, whether they are paedo-baptist or credo-baptist, and have learned a good amount in these discussions, especially with Rev. Buchanan. He is a very well-learned man, and I do not doubt both his knowledge and his faith. He certainly made a perfect statement when he said that our differences were a matter of starting points, starting assumptions, and hermeneutical methods.

In fact, I will say right now that I am not learned enough in Greek and Hebrew in order to offer any significant responses to Rev. Buchanan's hermeneutical method. Now this does not mean that I will concede that his hermeneutical method must therefore be correct. I will certainly continue in my research on both sides of the issues, but this is something that ALL believers should continue to do their entire lives.

Now I must say that I respectfully do not approve of your statement that I respond "with clumsy, impious, and self-contradictory arguments boldly asserting their "obvious" implications." If you would provide some examples of this I would be happy to discuss them with you (and I will repent as necessary). If I have been impious in my attitude towards others, I again ask that you show me where. I have nothing but respect for those in this forum, and as brothers we should always show grace towards each other. I apologize if anything I have said has bothered or upset you, but I do not believe that anything that I have said fits the very nasty criteria that you just mentioned. I also do not see where I have violated God's holy Word, since I hold it to be the final standard and authority.

With that said, allow me to end this post back on topic. We do see the covenants very differently. It would seem that paedo-baptists see more similarity between the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant, whereas credo-baptists see more differences. This is not to say that credo-baptists are trying to ignore continuity or any similarity. In fact, to get back to the whole reason why I posted in this thread in the first place, what stands out the most to me is what Nichols' book teaches concerning the relationship between who the covenant is being made with, and how that covenant transfers to future generations.

In EVERY covenant of the Old Testament, we see that God makes his covenant with a righteous servant (Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Christ). Each of those covenants continue in the next generations by the descendants of those righteous servants. The big shift occurs from the Old Testament to the New Testament, when we see that Christ is the representative head of those in the New Covenant. The shift is apparent because each of the previous covenants were continued through the physical descendants of each those righteous servants. Christ, who obviously has no physical descendants, formed his covenant with his spiritual descendants. Now those spiritual descendants have existed throughout all of human history, but they always existed in the Old Testament as a group that was part of the larger group of physical descendants. In every one of those Old Testament covenants, not all of the physical descendants were the spiritual children, yet it is those specific spiritual children, the Elect, that Christ calls his church. In Christ, the covenants are fulfilled and made perfect in the New Covenant, which is inviolable.

In the end, I realize the differences between the two positions. I also am not so blind as to see when a discussion cannot continue to edify anyone, especially when it causes others to feel anger, frustration, or resentment towards me. It is not my intention to cause these emotions. I myself have been on enough discussion boards in my life to not let the words of others (whom I have never met face-to-face) evoke similar emotions in me. With that said, I will refrain from adding fuel to the fire in this discussion. I have no problem if someone would like to make any last points, or ask me any questions that they want me to answer. Please keep in mind though that I will not be online until after New Years, since I will be on vacation during the break. I wish you all a Merry Christmas!

Posted 2 January 2012:

I also want to quicky say that I apologize for anything I have done to upset anyone, or to disrupt the forums. Even though my only purpose in posting in this thread was to encourage others to read a book that just came out in print, I realize that I went further into the discussions without a proper or full understanding of the topic at hand. I did not intend to act impious or disrespectful in any way, and I ask for forgiveness from those who were offended at my words (it was not their intent to offend). I will certainly ensure that I am extremely careful in any future posts, and I pray that we can always maintain a foundation of mutual respect (even if there are differences in theology). I pray that the Lord will provide you all a blessed and happy new year!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I respectfully request Rich that you please recant your accusations against me, as they are cruel, harsh, and not given in brotherly love.

Eric,

My statements were neither cruel nor harsh but reflect my analysis of your presentation. They were not written in anger but were intended to rebuke and correct. You do not need to know how to read Greek and Hebrew in order to apply basic principles of hermeneutics which are applied to even non-inspired literature. Your responses and hypotheticals owe more to speculation rather than sober GNC based on exegesis of texts and their systemization. That you cannot see that your hypotheticals are cavils and, in the case of a Church knowing the hidden things of God impious, is telling to me. You even state that the LBCF position owes, in some measure, to these faulty criteria. Others are unable to explain it to you as you are too hasty to defend yourself rather than seriously evaluating the dangers of speculating beyond what God reveals to us.

Even in your recent post regarding the nature of the Covenants, you assert a Covenant theology as if you are learned in the manner of a Reformed Federal Theology but your presentation is found wanting and contrary to the LBCF's own Covenant theology. You don't present it as something you are working through or in need of further study but as the definitive Reformed Baptist view on the topic.

 

[non dignus]

Eric,

I am failing to see how Moses' physical descendants figure in a Biblical dispensation. I don't remember a genealogy featuring Moses. I quess the Levites would be featured in that schema. But Levi payed tithes to Melchizedek in the loins of Abraham. Please correct me.

Instead, I see 'a great multitude' mentioned in Revelation at the end of the Bible which makes a sort of book-end with Genesis 15, where the 'great multitude' is promised to Abraham. It's all for the sake of God calling Abraham to be the Father of many nations, seeing that Adam dropped the ball. Thus the cultural mandate to be fruitful and multiply is fulfilled in Christ. (Which in my estimation is a good argument for infant inclusion)

 

[non dignus]

David, naturally. That is the essence of the disagreement among paedos and credos. Credos believe there is warrant in Scripture for professor-only baptism, whereas paedos do not. I have gone on record in numerous Puritan Board threads that debating baptism is putting the cart in front of the horse. The real debate is over the nature and administration of the New Covenant. Get that issue right and baptism takes care of itself.

Bill,
I would love to read some good threads on this. Could you direct me to some? If I have anything to add, maybe I could start a new one after Christmas.
Thanks!

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I still have a lot of Reformed Baptist thought on my Puritanboard blog. You could go through it to find a lot of what Bill is saying. I changed position based upon the nature and substance of the Covenants. Most of them are things I used to defend the Reformed Baptist position.

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/pu...rcumcision-51/

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/pu...nesis-17-7-71/

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/pu...eally-new-315/

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/pu...s-2-11-12-318/

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/pu...ians-7-14-338/

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/pu...-children-349/

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/pu...an-conner-351/

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/pu...an-conner-352/

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/pu...-covenant-479/

 

[KingofBashan]

If baptism replaces circumcision as a seal of this covenant, at what time did the switch occur?

This small, bolded portion of your original question is pivotal.

If I understand properly, the cbaptist view is that circumcision is a shadow of regeneration, and baptism is a sign of regeneration, while regeneration is the seal for covenant membership.

If I understand properly, the pbaptist view is that circumcision is the outward sign of covenant membership, and baptism is the new circumcision for the new covenant.

This means that for a cbaptist, baptism is only to be administered to newborns - ie regenerates. This means that for a pbaptist, baptism is only to be administered to newborns - ie physical children of believers. (Or proselytes)

To see a justification for the cbaptist position, see Colossians 2:11-15, and Fred Malone's "The Baptism of Disciples Alone", or the much shorter (and free) "A String of Pearl's Unstrung", specifically his "second pearl".

Bottom line, if I understand properly, the cbaptist view is that baptism does not replace circumcision as a seal of the covenant. It is an ordinance instituted by Christ to be administered to those who "become disciples", a means of grace practiced in corporate worship for the edification of the body of Christ.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

If I understand properly, the cbaptist view is that circumcision is a shadow of regeneration, and baptism is a sign of regeneration, while regeneration is the seal for covenant membership.

If I understand properly, the pbaptist view is that circumcision is the outward sign of covenant membership, and baptism is the new circumcision for the new covenant.

This means that for a cbaptist, baptism is only to be administered to newborns - ie regenerates. This means that for a pbaptist, baptism is only to be administered to newborns - ie physical children of believers.

You don't understand properly. Circumcision wasn't either a sign or a seal but both a sign and a seal. It signified the Promise made by God, and, by faith, sealed the reality that the sign pointed to. The person who was circumcised, who believed in faith, possessed the reality that the sign pointed to, believed the Gospel (Heb 4), and was saved in Christ.

Baptism isn't either a sign or a seal but both a sign and a seal. It signifies the Promise of salvation made by God, and by faith, seals the reality that sign points to. The baptized person, who believes in faith, possesses the reality that the sign points to, believes the Gospel, and is saved in Christ.

This means that for a cbaptist, baptism is only to be administered to newborns - ie regenerates.

Let's try this again.

Baptism is only to be administered to regenerate people? Do I understand you properly?

Does your Church practice baptism?

Are all those whom the Church has baptized in your congregation regenerate?

This means that for a pbaptist, baptism is only to be administered to newborns - ie physical children of believers.

Huh? Was there some sort of premise that I'm missing here that leads to this faulty conclusion?

 

[KingofBashan]

Rich,

My church does practice baptism. I attend a church that subscribes to the LBCF. We baptize professing believers who have been examined. All evidence points to their regeneration. This of course does not guarantee they are regenerate, but it protects the purity of the church to a large degree. (The way I worded my statement was perhaps too presumptuous. It assumes that we understand that the only way to know if someone is regenerate is if they profess faith.)

I have two counter-questions concerning the idea that baptism is both sign and seal:

If baptism is a seal of our faith, then why does Paul point to the Spirit as our seal? That would strongly imply regeneration as the seal.
If baptism is a seal, then how does anyone who is baptized ever fall away from the faith?

I have a third question for clarification:

What is the "reality that sign points to"?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

(The way I worded my statement was perhaps too presumptuous. It assumes that we understand that the only way to know if someone is regenerate is if they profess faith.)

Again too presumptuous. One does not know another is regenerate by the profession of faith. God alone knows this.

If baptism is a seal of our faith, then why does Paul point to the Spirit as our seal? That would strongly imply regeneration as the seal.
If baptism is a seal, then how does anyone who is baptized ever fall away from the faith?

I did not state that baptism is a seal of our faith. Re-read what I wrote. Baptism is a seal to those who have faith. Those with faith possess the reality signified by baptism and have all its graces sealed to them. The Spirit is, of course, that which seals the reality of things signified to those who have faith. He also grants that faith by His Sovereign choosing.

Here there is not an un-biblical separation between the sign and what is signified. Baptism is a sign but it is used of the Spirit as a seal to those to whom the graces belong. It is not a seal to all who receive baptism but only to those who receive, by God's grace, evangelical faith and all other evangelical graces belonging to union with Christ.

I have a third question for clarification:

What is the "reality that sign points to"?

Union with Christ.

 

[KingofBashan]

I didn't mean I was too presumptuous about accepting a brother's profession at face value, but that I was too presumptuous about how a pbaptist might interpret my cbaptist statement. A cbaptist believes in regenerate church membership. This is primarily judged by their profession of faith, and if I understand things properly (which as you have pointed out I may not), secondarily by evidence this profession is genuine. Our Lord instituted church discipline to account for any case where this profession was a lie - which isn't the fault of the congregation for "not knowing their regeneration" but is the sin of the false professor who told the lie.

Am I understanding you properly: 1. The believer possesses union with Christ by faith. 2. The sign of this union is baptism. 3. The benefits of union with Christ are guaranteed (sealed) by the Spirit. 4. The Spirit guarantees using baptism.

If I am reading you right we agree on everything except 4. Therefore, if I read you right, I still have to press the question because the Bible doesn't teach us that the guarantee of our inheritance (union with Jesus) is baptism, but our guarantee is the Spirit himself. God dwelling in us now is the guarantee of the eternal union we will experience with God forever. Baptism is only an ordinance, a means of grace, a sign of a spiritual reality which God has sovereignly acomplished in the heart of the individual to be baptized.

I realize we don't see eye to eye on this. But I believe I did originally articulate the cbaptist position accurately. The point being that the original poster was asking some cbaptist questions from pbaptist presuppositions. He should be aware of this or he will have a difficult time sorting through the issues clearly.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Union with Christ possesses the believer through Election, predestination, and regeneration which gives him faith which is the instrument of justification and sanctification. That is how I understand Union with Christ. He brings us into union with himself through His Work.

 

[Herald]

Union with Christ is something that is made possible by the atoning work of Christ and the sealing work of the Spirit. The Spirit regenerates, sanctifies, and seals. The Spirit's warrant to do these things is based on the redemptive work of the Son, and the divine calling of the elect by the Father through predestination and election; similar to what Randy wrote.

Price, where we separate with paedobaptists is on who is the proper recipient of baptism. We agree with them on the redemptive work that baptism signifies. The difficult thing for both paedobaptists and credobaptists is to correctly understand the other side of the argument.

I have a suggestion for you that I recently made to another newcomer to the board. Take your time to read through some of the past threads on the topic, in this case, baptism. Bone up on the what others have said. It will help give you a better understanding, not only of the paedobaptist position, but of your own position. When I joined this board I was on the fence regarding baptism. I took the time to consider the many threads that dealt with the topic. I also sought the counsel of my pastor and did my own study/research. I eventually became convinced of the position I now hold. I am forever grateful to those paedobaptist brothers who displayed great patience with me even though we disagreed.

Blessings.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Our Lord instituted church discipline to account for any case where this profession was a lie - which isn't the fault of the congregation for "not knowing their regeneration" but is the sin of the false professor who told the lie.

Actually, Church discipline has nothing to do with trying to determine whether a person is regenerate or not but deals, specifically, with unrepentant sin. The institution of discipline by the Lord says nothing about the Church determining the hidden things of God.

Am I understanding you properly: 1. The believer possesses union with Christ by faith. 2. The sign of this union is baptism. 3. The benefits of union with Christ are guaranteed (sealed) by the Spirit. 4. The Spirit guarantees using baptism.

No.

The Spirit does not "guarantee" using baptism but baptism is the outward sign (that works through the senses) by which the Spirit seals these things. We do not believe in immediate revelation. The Word and Sacraments are all mediated. We are bound to space and time. Our knowledge of the things of God comes through the things He gives us and has annexed His Promise to. His Word reveals Christ to our hearing. The Sacraments reveal Christ and seal His benefits to us in our seeing, touching, and tasting. It's not as if baptism exists in some corner to signify union with Christ but has nothing to do with who the Spirit communicates or grants the benefits that union to us. This is why the word baptism can be so easily interchanged in the NT Scriptures between physical act and spiritual reality because it's not either that we are sealed by the Spirit or we are sealed by baptism. There is a sacramental union between the two where the spiritual reality (what we have no access to without means) is united to the physical sign (what we can hear, see, taste, touch).

 

[Herald]

Our Lord instituted church discipline to account for any case where this profession was a lie - which isn't the fault of the congregation for "not knowing their regeneration" but is the sin of the false professor who told the lie.

Actually, Church discipline has nothing to do with trying to determine whether a person is regenerate or not but deals, specifically, with unrepentant sin. The institution of discipline by the Lord says nothing about the Church determining the hidden things of God.

Rich is absolutely correct. Church discipline deals specifically with unrepentant sin. Could it play a role in uncovering a false professor? Yes, but that's not its primary purpose. The unrepentant sinner who is put out of the church is being declared an unbeliever by the church, or at least considered to be such. But what about the false professor who never draws attention to himself? He lives an outwardly moral life and executes his spiritual duties in an acceptable manner. They may never face church discipline. All Christians need to understand that there may be false professors in their midst who may never come to their attention.



sent from my Toshiba Thrive

 

[KingofBashan]

Thank you all for your helpful posts. Bill and Rich, you have helped sharpen my understanding of church discipline. I was unclear if not incorrect in what I said. Thank you.

Through this discussion I am gaining a better understanding of the paedobaptist understanding of baptism. I also appreciate Rich's patience.

Bill, perhaps I am weak on my understanding of the verb "seals". My understanding is that it relates to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is the "mark of God", so to speak, on his people, which is, everywhere it is mentioned in this kind of context, referring to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Rich, I still don't see how you come to the conclusion that the Spirit uses the sign of baptism to seal "these things". But before I ask you any further questions I am going to take Bill's advice and read some of the other posts on this same topic. My questioning hasn't been to attack you or change your mind, but to understand your logic. The only way I know how to delve into someone's logic is to ask them pressing questions. I realize along with Bill that the differences over baptism are rooted in very different logical analysis of the Bible. I simply don't understand the paedobaptist logic.

I appreciate what Bill said when he wrote,

Price, where we separate with paedobaptists is on who is the proper recipient of baptism. We agree with them on the redemptive work that baptism signifies.

I am thankful Rich and I agree on so much, and on such important matters. If my posts came across in any other way, that was not my intention.

Like I said, my original inent was to summarize briefly the differences between credobaptist and paedobaptist views, which the OP seemed to miss. He was asking questions that expected cbaptist answers from pbaptist presuppositions, and vice versa, (the most glaring of which in my opinion was the idea that baptism is a seal). Our baptist forefathers put it like this when they wrote an appendix to the LBCF, saying:

If our brethren do suppose baptism to be the seal of the Covenant which God makes with every beleiver (of which the Scriptures are altogether silent) it is not our concern to contend with them herein; yet we conceive the seal of that Covenant is the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ in the particular and individual persons in whom he resides, and nothing else.

I'll follow their lead and no longer make it my concern to contend over this minor point. My objective was simply to make the point for the sake of the OP.

 

[Herald]

Bill, perhaps I am weak on my understanding of the verb "seals". My understanding is that it relates to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is the "mark of God", so to speak, on his people, which is, everywhere it is mentioned in this kind of context, referring to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Eric,

I recommend that you read a 19th Century Baptist theologian on this topic. Here is a link:

Manual of Theology, Second Part
by John L. Dagg

Read his handling of the topic of baptism

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Price,

I think a few things might help you understand the relationship of the Holy Spirit to our assurance of God's grace. Quoting Calvin as he discusses how the Spirit operates to seal our faith:

36. The next thing necessary is, that what the mind has imbibed be transferred into the heart. The word is not received in faith when it merely flutters in the brain, but when it has taken deep root in the heart, and become an invincible bulwark to withstand and repel all the assaults of temptation. But if the illumination of the Spirit is the true source of understanding in the intellect, much more manifest is his agency in the confirmation of the heart; inasmuch as there is more distrust in the heart than blindness in the mind; and it is more difficult to inspire the soul with security than to imbue it with knowledge. Hence the Spirit performs the part of a seal, sealing upon our hearts the very promises, the certainty of which was previously impressed upon our minds. It also serves as an earnest in establishing and confirming these promises. Thus the Apostle says, “In whom also, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance,” (Eph. 1:13, 14). You see how he teaches that the hearts of believers are stamped with the Spirit as with a seal, and calls it the Spirit of promise, because it ratifies the gospel to us. In like manner he says to the Corinthians, “God has also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts,” (2 Cor. 1:22). And again, when speaking of a full and confident hope, he founds it on the “earnest of the Spirit,” (2 Cor. 5:5).

Calvin, J. (1997). Institutes of the Christian religion. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Certainly the Holy Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance but He is the earnest insofar as He assures us of God's grace. This is accomplished by imbuing us of a knowledge that we are Christ's. He gives us an awareness and confidence, in faith, that the Promises of God belong to us.

In his discussion of Sacraments, then, Calvin ties together this same idea of the Holy Spirit's operation on faith through visible signs which seal the believer's interest in Christ:

1. AKIN to the preaching of the gospel, we have another help to our faith in the sacraments, in regard to which, it greatly concerns us that some sure doctrine should be delivered, informing us both of the end for which they were instituted, and of their present use. First, we must attend to what a sacrament is. It seems to me, then, a simple and appropriate definition to say, that it is an external sign, by which the Lord seals on our consciences his promises of good-will toward us, in order to sustain the weakness of our faith, and we in our turn testify our piety towards him, both before himself, and before angels as well as men. We may also define more briefly by calling it a testimony of the divine favour toward us, confirmed by an external sign, with a corresponding attestation of our faith towards Him. You may make your choice of these definitions, which in meaning differ not from that of Augustine, which defines a sacrament to be a visible sign of a sacred thing, or a visible form of an invisible grace, but does not contain a better or surer explanation. As its brevity makes it somewhat obscure, and thereby misleads the more illiterate, I wished to remove all doubt, and make the definition fuller by stating it at greater length.

2. The reason why the ancients used the term in this sense is not obscure. The old interpreter, whenever he wished to render the Greek term μυστήριον into Latin, especially when it was used with reference to divine things, used the word sacramentum. Thus, in Ephesians, “Having made known unto us the mystery (sacramentum) of his will;” and again, “If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God, which is given me to you-wards, how that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery” (sacramentum) (Eph. 1:9; 3:2). In the Colossians, “Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but is now made manifest to his saints, to whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery” (sacramentum) (Col. 1:26). Also in the First Epistle to Timothy, “Without controversy, great is the mystery (sacramentum) of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16). He was unwilling to use the word arcanum (secret), lest the word should seem beneath the magnitude of the thing meant. When the thing, therefore, was sacred and secret, he used the term sacramentum. In this sense it frequently occurs in ecclesiastical writers. And it is well known, that what the Latins call sacramenta, the Greeks call μυστήρια (mysteries). The sameness of meaning removes all dispute. Hence it is that the term was applied to those signs which gave an august representation of things spiritual and sublime. This is also observed by Augustine, “It were tedious to discourse of the variety of signs; those which relate to divine things are called sacraments” (August. Ep. 5. ad Marcell.).

3. From the definition which we have given, we perceive that there never is a sacrament without an antecedent promise, the sacrament being added as a kind of appendix, with the view of confirming and sealing the promise, and giving a better attestation, or rather, in a manner, confirming it. In this way God provides first for our ignorance and sluggishness, and, secondly, for our infirmity; and yet, properly speaking, it does not so much confirm his word as establish us in the faith of it. For the truth of God is in itself sufficiently stable and certain, and cannot receive a better confirmation from any other quarter than from itself. But as our faith is slender and weak, so if it be not propped up on every side, and supported by all kinds of means, it is forthwith shaken and tossed to and fro, wavers, and even falls. And here, indeed, our merciful Lord, with boundless condescension, so accommodates himself to our capacity, that seeing how from our animal nature we are always creeping on the ground, and cleaving to the flesh, having no thought of what is spiritual, and not even forming an idea of it, he declines not by means of these earthly elements to lead us to himself, and even in the flesh to exhibit a mirror of spiritual blessings. For, as Chrysostom says (Hom. 60, ad Popul.). “Were we incorporeal, he would give us these things in a naked and incorporeal form. Now because our souls are implanted in bodies, he delivers spiritual things under things visible. Not that the qualities which are set before us in the sacraments are inherent in the nature of the things, but God gives them this signification.”

4. This is commonly expressed by saying that a sacrament consists of the word and the external sign. By the word we ought to understand not one which, muttered without meaning and without faith, by its sound merely, as by a magical incantation, has the effect of consecrating the element, but one which, preached, makes us understand what the visible sign means. The thing, therefore, which was frequently done, under the tyranny of the Pope, was not free from great profanation of the mystery, for they deemed it sufficient if the priest muttered the formula of consecration, while the people, without understanding, looked stupidly on. Nay, this was done for the express purpose of preventing any instruction from thereby reaching the people: for all was said in Latin to illiterate hearers. Superstition afterwards was carried to such a height, that the consecration was thought not to be duly performed except in a low grumble, which few could hear. Very different is the doctrine of Augustine concerning the sacramental word. “Let the word be added to the element, and it will become a sacrament. For whence can there be so much virtue in water as to touch the body and cleanse the heart, unless by the agency of the word, and this not because it is said, but because it is believed? For even in the word the transient sound is one thing, the permanent power another. This is the word of faith which we preach says the Apostle” (Rom. 10:8). Hence, in the Acts of the Apostles, we have the expression, “Purify their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:9). And the Apostle Peter says, “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience)” (1 Pet. 3:21). “This is the word of faith which we preach: by which word doubtless baptism also, in order that it may be able to cleanse, is consecrated” (August. Hom. in Joann. 13). You see how he requires preaching to the production of faith. And we need not labour to prove this, since there is not the least room for doubt as to what Christ did, and commanded us to do, as to what the apostles followed, and a purer Church observed. Nay, it is known that, from the very beginning of the world, whenever God offered any sign to the holy Patriarchs, it was inseparably attached to doctrine, without which our senses would gaze bewildered on an unmeaning object. Therefore, when we hear mention made of the sacramental word, let us understand the promise which, proclaimed aloud by the minister, leads the people by the hand to that to which the sign tends and directs us.

5. Nor are those to be listened to who oppose this view with a more subtle than solid dilemma. They argue thus: We either know that the word of God which precedes the sacrament is the true will of God, or we do not know it. If we know it, we learn nothing new from the sacrament which succeeds. If we do not know it, we cannot learn it from the sacrament, whose whole efficacy depends on the word. Our brief reply is: The seals which are affixed to diplomas, and other public deeds, are nothing considered in themselves, and would be affixed to no purpose if nothing was written on the parchment, and yet this does not prevent them from sealing and confirming when they are appended to writings. It cannot be alleged that this comparison is a recent fiction of our own, since Paul himself used it, terming circumcision a seal (Rom. 4:11), where he expressly maintains that the circumcision of Abraham was not for justification, but was an attestation to the covenant, by the faith of which he had been previously justified. And how, pray, can any one be greatly offended when we teach that the promise is sealed by the sacrament, since it is plain, from the promises themselves, that one promise confirms another? The clearer any evidence is, the fitter is it to support our faith. But sacraments bring with them the clearest promises, and, when compared with the word, have this peculiarity, that they represent promises to the life, as if painted in a picture. Nor ought we to be moved by an objection founded on the distinction between sacraments and the seals of documents—viz. that since both consist of the carnal elements of this world, the former cannot be sufficient or adequate to seal the promises of God, which are spiritual and eternal, though the latter may be employed to seal the edicts of princes concerning fleeting and fading things. But the believer, when the sacraments are presented to his eye, does not stop short at the carnal spectacle, but by the steps of analogy which I have indicated, rises with pious consideration to the sublime mysteries which lie hidden in the sacraments.

6. As the Lord calls his promises covenants (Gen. 6:18; 9:9; 17:2), and sacraments signs of the covenants, so something similar may be inferred from human covenants. What could the slaughter of a hog effect, unless words were interposed or rather preceded? Swine are often killed without any interior or occult mystery. What could be gained by pledging the right hand, since hands are not unfrequently joined in giving battle? But when words have preceded, then by such symbols of covenant sanction is given to laws, though previously conceived, digested, and enacted by words. Sacraments, therefore, are exercises which confirm our faith in the word of God; and because we are carnal, they are exhibited under carnal objects, that thus they may train us in accommodation to our sluggish capacity, just as nurses lead children by the hand. And hence Augustine calls a sacrament a visible word (August. in Joann. Hom. 89), because it represents the promises of God as in a picture, and places them in our view in a graphic bodily form (August. cont. Faust. Lib. 19). We might refer to other similitudes, by which sacraments are more plainly designated, as when they are called the pillars of our faith. For just as a building stands and leans on its foundation, and yet is rendered more stable when supported by pillars, so faith leans on the word of God as its proper foundation, and yet when sacraments are added leans more firmly, as if resting on pillars. Or we may call them mirrors, in which we may contemplate the riches of the grace which God bestows upon us. For then, as has been said, he manifests himself to us in as far as our dulness can enable us to recognise him, and testifies his love and kindness to us more expressly than by word.

7. It is irrational to contend that sacraments are not manifestations of divine grace toward us, because they are held forth to the ungodly also, who, however, so far from experiencing God to be more propitious to them, only incur greater condemnation. By the same reasoning, the gospel will be no manifestation of the grace of God, because it is spurned by many who hear it; nor will Christ himself be a manifestation of grace, because of the many by whom he was seen and known, very few received him. Something similar may be seen in public enactments. A great part of the body of the people deride and evade the authenticating seal, though they know it was employed by their sovereign to confirm his will; others trample it under foot, as a matter by no means appertaining to them; while others even execrate it: so that, seeing the condition of the two things to be alike, the appropriateness of the comparison which I made above ought to be more readily allowed. It is certain, therefore, that the Lord offers us his mercy, and a pledge of his grace, both in his sacred word and in the sacraments; but it is not apprehended save by those who receive the word and sacraments with firm faith: in like manner as Christ, though offered and held forth for salvation to all, is not, however, acknowledged and received by all. Augustine, when intending to intimate this, said that the efficacy of the word is produced in the sacrament, not because it is spoken, but because it is believed. Hence Paul, addressing believers, includes communion with Christ, in the sacraments, as when he says, “As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27). Again, “For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13). But when he speaks of a preposterous use of the sacraments, he attributes nothing more to them than to frigid, empty figures; thereby intimating, that however the ungodly and hypocrites may, by their perverseness, either suppress, or obscure, or impede the effect of divine grace in the sacraments, that does not prevent them, where and whenever God is so pleased, from giving a true evidence of communion with Christ, or prevent them from exhibiting, and the Spirit of God from performing, the very thing which they promise. We conclude, therefore, that the sacraments are truly termed evidences of divine grace, and, as it were, seals of the good-will which he entertains toward us. They, by sealing it to us, sustain, nourish, confirm, and increase our faith. The objections usually urged against this view are frivolous and weak. They say that our faith, if it is good, cannot be made better; for there is no faith save that which leans unshakingly, firmly, and undividedly, on the mercy of God. It had been better for the objectors to pray, with the apostles, “Lord, increase our faith” (Luke 17:5), than confidently to maintain a perfection of faith which none of the sons of men ever attained, none ever shall attain, in this life. Let them explain what kind of faith his was who said, “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief” (Mark 9:24). That faith, though only commenced, was good, and might, by the removal of the unbelief, be made better. But there is no better argument to refute them than their own consciousness. For if they confess themselves sinners (this, whether they will or not, they cannot deny), then they must of necessity impute this very quality to the imperfection of their faith.

8. But Philip, they say, replied to the eunuch who asked to be baptized, “If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest” (Acts 8:37). What room is there for a confirmation of baptism when faith fills the whole heart? I, in my turn, ask them, Do they not feel that a good part of their heart is void of faith—do they not perceive new additions to it every day? There was one who boasted that he grew old while learning. Thrice miserable, then, are we Christians if we grow old without making progress, we whose faith ought to advance through every period of life until it grow up into a perfect man (Eph. 4:13). In this passage, therefore, to believe with the whole heart, is not to believe Christ perfectly, but only to embrace him sincerely with heart and soul; not to be filled with him, but with ardent affection to hunger and thirst, and sigh after him. It is usual in Scripture to say that a thing is done with the whole heart, when it is done sincerely and cordially. Of this description are the following passages:—“With my whole heart have I sought thee” (Ps. 119:10); “I will confess unto thee with my whole heart,” &c. In like manner, when the fraudulent and deceitful are rebuked, it is said “with flattering lips, and with a double heart, do they speak” (Ps. 12:2). The objectors next add—“If faith is increased by means of the sacraments, the Holy Spirit is given in vain, seeing it is his office to begin, sustain, and consummate our faith.” I admit, indeed, that faith is the proper and entire work of the Holy Spirit, enlightened by whom we recognise God and the treasures of his grace, and without whose illumination our mind is so blind that it can see nothing, so stupid that it has no relish for spiritual things. But for the one Divine blessing which they proclaim we count three. For, first, the Lord teaches and trains us by his word; next, he confirms us by his sacraments; lastly, he illumines our mind by the light of his Holy Spirit, and opens up an entrance into our hearts for his word and sacraments, which would otherwise only strike our ears, and fall upon our sight, but by no means affect us inwardly.

9. Wherefore, with regard to the increase and confirmation of faith, I would remind the reader (though I think I have already expressed it in unambiguous terms), that in assigning this office to the sacraments, it is not as if I thought that there is a kind of secret efficacy perpetually inherent in them, by which they can of themselves promote or strengthen faith, but because our Lord has instituted them for the express purpose of helping to establish and increase our faith. The sacraments duly perform their office only when accompanied by the Spirit, the internal Master, whose energy alone penetrates the heart, stirs up the affections, and procures access for the sacraments into our souls. If he is wanting, the sacraments can avail us no more than the sun shining on the eyeballs of the blind, or sounds uttered in the ears of the deaf. Wherefore, in distributing between the Spirit and the sacraments, I ascribe the whole energy to him, and leave only a ministry to them; this ministry, without the agency of the Spirit, is empty and frivolous, but when he acts within, and exerts his power, it is replete with energy. It is now clear in what way, according to this view, a pious mind is confirmed in faith by means of the sacraments—viz. in the same way in which the light of the sun is seen by the eye, and the sound of the voice heard by the ear; the former of which would not be at all affected by the light unless it had a pupil on which the light might fall; nor the latter reached by any sound, however loud, were it not naturally adapted for hearing. But if it is true, as has been explained, that in the eye it is the power of vision which enables it to see the light, and in the ear the power of hearing which enables it to perceive the voice, and that in our hearts it is the work of the Holy Spirit to commence, maintain, cherish, and establish faith, then it follows, both that the sacraments do not avail one iota without the energy of the Holy Spirit; and that yet in hearts previously taught by that preceptor, there is nothing to prevent the sacraments from strengthening and increasing faith. There is only this difference, that the faculty of seeing and hearing is naturally implanted in the eye and ear; whereas, Christ acts in our minds above the measure of nature by special grace.

10. In this way, also, we dispose of certain objections by which some anxious minds are annoyed. If we ascribe either an increase or confirmation of faith to creatures, injustice is done to the Spirit of God, who alone ought to be regarded as its author. But we do not rob him of the merit of confirming and increasing faith; nay, rather, we maintain that that which confirms and increases faith, is nothing else than the preparing of our minds by his internal illumination to receive that confirmation which is set forth by the sacraments. But if the subject is still obscure, it will be made plain by the following similitude: Were you to begin to persuade a person by word to do something, you would think of all the arguments by which he may be brought over to your view, and in a manner compelled to serve your purpose. But nothing is gained if the individual himself possess not a clear and acute judgment, by which he may be able to weigh the value of your arguments; if, moreover, he is not of a docile disposition, and ready to listen to doctrine; if, in fine, he has no such idea of your faith and prudence as in a manner to prejudice him in your favour, and secure his assent. For there are many obstinate spirits who are not to be bent by any arguments; and where faith is suspected, or authority contemned, little progress is made even with the docile. On the other hand, when opposite feelings exist, the result will be, that the person whose interests you are consulting will acquiesce in the very counsels which he would otherwise have derided. The same work is performed in us by the Spirit. That the word may not fall upon our ear, or the sacraments be presented to our eye in vain, he shows that it is God who there speaks to us, softens our obdurate hearts, and frames them to the obedience which is due to his word; in short, transmits those external words and sacraments from the ear to the soul. Both word and sacraments, therefore, confirm our faith, bringing under view the kind intentions of our heavenly Father, in the knowledge of which the whole assurance of our faith depends, and by which its strength is increased; and the Spirit also confirms our faith when, by engraving that assurance on our minds, he renders it effectual. Meanwhile, it is easy for the Father of lights, in like manner as he illumines the bodily eye by the rays of the sun, to illumine our minds by the sacraments, as by a kind of intermediate brightness.


Calvin, J. (1997). Institutes of the Christian religion. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.