Valid Baptism Presumes Actual Union w/ Christ?

[A.J.]

Hi to all,

I am new here, but have been struggling with this issue on who the proper subjects of baptism are. One of the reasons I joined this forum is to be able to receive help from brethren who could help me decide on this issue. What I will accept as the teaching of the Bible on this will determine not only which church to join, but whether I will be baptized (again). I was baptized as a Roman Catholic baby, and was baptized as a 9-year old child in a youth camp. I was baptized again when I was 16, but was living in sin. I gave a (false) profession of faith. I was converted years later after that last baptism. From a Baptist perspective, not one of these baptisms was valid since I received them as an unbeliever.

Here is my question. Reformed Baptists do agree that both circumcision and baptism signify the same realities (e.g., regeneration, justification, union with the Lord, etc.). They say, however, that this does not require infant baptism. Their argument goes something like this: There was something ANTICIPATORY about circumcision. It anticipated something that God WOULD do to people. Hence the reality it signifies, regeneration, was cast in FUTURE terms (cf. Deut. 10:16, 30:6; Jer. 4:4). This is not the case with baptism. Though they both signify regeneration, baptism points to something that is ALREADY existing in the one baptized. The NT makes it clear that those who HAVE BEEN baptized, HAVE BEEN buried in Christ, HAVE PUT on him, and HAVE BEEN raised with him (cf. Rom. 6:2-3; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:11-12). Baptism therefore presumes union with Christ. Reformed Baptists would argue further that this does not mean they everyone they baptize is truly united to Christ (e.g. Simon Magus in Acts 8). What they are saying is that regeneration is a pre-requisite to a valid administration of baptism.

(Correct me if there is something wrong with my presentation above of the Reformed Baptist position.)

I know Reformed Paedo-Baptists would point to Rom. 4:11-12 which says that circumcision is a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith and yet was given to infant Isaac who could not profess faith. But I need more clarification on this matter. What is the Reformed Paedo-Baptist response to this specific Baptist argument especially in the light of the Baptist use of texts like Rom. 6:2-3, Gal. 3:27 and Col. 2:11-12? Thanks.

- Albert

P.S. Having said that, I do find myself much closer now to the historic Reformed position on infant baptism. My reading on the subject really paid off. I have consulted Paul Jewett and Fred Malone and several others, but I am not convinced.

 

[MW]

I am new here, but have been struggling with this issue on who the proper subjects of baptism are. One of the reasons I joined this forum is to be able to receive help from brethren who could help me decide on this issue. What I will accept as the teaching of the Bible on this will determine not only which church to join, but whether I will be baptized (again). I was baptized as a Roman Catholic baby, and was baptized as a 9-year old child in a youth camp. I was baptized again when I was 16, but was living in sin. I gave a (false) profession of faith. I was converted years later after that last baptism. From a Baptist perspective, not one of these baptisms was valid since I received them as an unbeliever.

Dear brother, you will receive an array of answers here, but I think your experience as described above shows the very practical reason why the reformed tradition has taught that baptism is for the children of members of the visible church. Without it, there is no point at which a person can say, I am a believer. The fact is that we sinful human beings are faithless and wavering, and never believe as we ought; but God's covenant promises remain the same. He cannot deny Himself. Salvation is all of grace, and baptism is a sign and seal of that salvation. On that basis, I think your first baptism, though unlawfully administered, with numerous false practices added to it, was nevertheless a valid baptism, because it was an application of water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Whatever man intended by administering it, whatever the people thought who brought you forward for baptism, whatever your own particular condition at the time, the fact remains that God instituted it to signify and seal your ingrafting into Christ and being made a partaker of the benefits of the covenant of grace; therefore, now, as you look back as a believer on your baptism, you can say with confidence that you are baptised into Christ by the grace of God. Blessings!

 

[A.J.]

Dear brother, you will receive an array of answers here, but I think your experience as described above shows the very practical reason why the reformed tradition has taught that baptism is for the children of members of the visible church. Without it, there is no point at which a person can say, I am a believer. The fact is that we sinful human beings are faithless and wavering, and never believe as we ought; but God's covenant promises remain the same. He cannot deny Himself. Salvation is all of grace, and baptism is a sign and seal of that salvation. On that basis, I think your first baptism, though unlawfully administered, with numerous false practices added to it, was nevertheless a valid baptism, because it was an application of water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Whatever man intended by administering it, whatever the people thought who brought you forward for baptism, whatever your own particular condition at the time, the fact remains that God instituted it to signify and seal your ingrafting into Christ and being made a partaker of the benefits of the covenant of grace; therefore, now, as you look back as a believer on your baptism, you can say with confidence that you are baptised into Christ by the grace of God. Blessings!

Rev. Winzer, thanks for the answer. I agree that God's covenant promises remain the same. He is a God to believers and their children (Gen. 17:7; Acts 2:39). But my question still puzzles me. Why does the Apostle Paul speak of people baptized as those who have been buried, have put on, and have been raised with Christ (Rom. 6:2-3, Gal. 3:27 and Col. 2:11-12)? In other words, why does he speak in a language which seems to say that those validly baptized actually and already have what baptism signifies? I am not sure how to answer this particular question. Blessings!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Dear brother, you will receive an array of answers here, but I think your experience as described above shows the very practical reason why the reformed tradition has taught that baptism is for the children of members of the visible church. Without it, there is no point at which a person can say, I am a believer. The fact is that we sinful human beings are faithless and wavering, and never believe as we ought; but God's covenant promises remain the same. He cannot deny Himself. Salvation is all of grace, and baptism is a sign and seal of that salvation. On that basis, I think your first baptism, though unlawfully administered, with numerous false practices added to it, was nevertheless a valid baptism, because it was an application of water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Whatever man intended by administering it, whatever the people thought who brought you forward for baptism, whatever your own particular condition at the time, the fact remains that God instituted it to signify and seal your ingrafting into Christ and being made a partaker of the benefits of the covenant of grace; therefore, now, as you look back as a believer on your baptism, you can say with confidence that you are baptised into Christ by the grace of God. Blessings!

Rev. Winzer, thanks for the answer. I agree that God's covenant promises remain the same. He is a God to believers and their children (Gen. 17:7; Acts 2:39). But my question still puzzles me. Why does the Apostle Paul speak of people baptized as those who have been buried, have put on, and have been raised with Christ (Rom. 6:2-3, Gal. 3:27 and Col. 2:11-12)? In other words, why does he speak in a language which seems to say that those validly baptized actually and already have what baptism signifies? I am not sure how to answer this particular question. Blessings!

Albert,

That is a good question. Incidentally, I think you summarized the Reformed Baptist (RB) position pretty well and your English is excellent. I just moved from Okinawa this past Summer and have many Filipino friends.

Let me first answer your question from the angle of how it poses problems to the RB position and their way around it. As you note, the Scriptures speak of baptism in two different ways. In one way we can detect it is speaking of a visible Sacrament and, in another, we see that it is speaking of what a person who has faith and vital union with Christ enjoys.

Now, because the RB wants the membership of the Church to reflect the latter category, they want to apply the sign to those that really do enjoy those benefits.

The problem is that, to understand who these are, is to try to peer into the hidden things of God. He knows the elect, we do not.

As there is not identifiable, visible mark then, the RB will state that Profession is the most likely way to detect an elect person. They also state that example in the NT warrants this practice, which Paedobaptists dispute as special pleading given the mention of household baptisms. They also ignore the two clear cases where mode and membership of baptisms are mentioned in the NT in the case of Noah and Moses.

That aside, then, the RB really cannot accomplish the ideal goal in mind - have the visible Church = the elect. Profession, as we see above, is not a means to determine election and the Scriptures present no formula that says "baptize professors in order to create the most likely elect visible Church."

In any event, it must be admitted that baptized professors are not all elect and the Church is still left with the reality that you have visibly baptized members who are not "baptized" in the way that the New Testament also uses the term to describe the elect - they do not have vital union with Christ.

Here the RB position becomes sticky because, in order to sustain the concept of an ideal NT community, the RB makes the Scriptures to speak as if nothing is really happening in baptism (the ordinance) except a sign of something else. It doesn't necessarily join to anything nor does it hold forth any spiritual reality. It is, in fact, disconnected from baptism in the other sense and the RB really has two different baptisms: 1) the ordinance, 2) the hidden work of the Spirit. You will see this in arguments where the point will be made that "...that's speaking of baptism in the Holy Spirit..." etc.

Now, as I transition to the Paedobaptist (PB) position, let me quote the WCF on the nature of the Sacraments:

I. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him: as also to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word.

II. There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.

III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

IV. There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the gospels, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord: neither or which may be dispensed by any but a minister of the Word, lawfully ordained.

V. The sacraments of the Old Testament, in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the New.

The first thing I want you to notice is that we view that there is a sacramental union between the sign and the spiritual reality it signifies. Where the Baptist insists that you have to call one baptism and the other "baptism of the Holy Spirit" the Scriptures are comfortable to use the same term to refer to both. Why? Because in the visible administration of the Sacrament, we believe the Holy Spirit connects the two together and grace really is conferred to those to whom it belongs (the Elect). The Church does not know who they are and has a ministerial duty to perform the Sacraments as the Church and not as God determining the elect from the reprobate.

Notice the last paragraph too. What you ought to have been asking above, as well, is "How come the Scriptures will speak of circumcision many times throughout the Scriptures in a way that could only refer to the Elect?" You see, it's the same issue. The Scriptures of the OT didn't have to worry about Baptistic thinking assuming that the hearer commanded to "circumcise his heart" believed he wasn't under any obligation because, after all, he just had his foreskin circumcised. The substance of circumcision is the same as baptism and, just as in the NT, there was a sacramental unity between the sign and the spiritual reality it signified.

 

[A.J.]

In any event, it must be admitted that baptized professors are not all elect and the Church is still left with the reality that you have visibly baptized members who are not "baptized" in the way that the New Testament also uses the term to describe the elect - they do not have vital union with Christ.

Here the RB position becomes sticky because, in order to sustain the concept of an ideal NT community, the RB makes the Scriptures to speak as if nothing is really happening in baptism (the ordinance) except a sign of something else. It doesn't necessarily join to anything nor does it hold forth any spiritual reality. It is, in fact, disconnected from baptism in the other sense and the RB really has two different baptisms: 1) the ordinance, 2) the hidden work of the Spirit. You will see this in arguments where the point will be made that "...that's speaking of baptism in the Holy Spirit..." etc.

Now, as I transition to the Paedobaptist (PB) position, let me quote the WCF on the nature of the Sacraments:

I. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him: as also to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word.

II. There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.

III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

IV. There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the gospels, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord: neither or which may be dispensed by any but a minister of the Word, lawfully ordained.

V. The sacraments of the Old Testament, in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the New.

The first thing I want you to notice is that we view that there is a sacramental union between the sign and the spiritual reality it signifies. Where the Baptist insists that you have to call one baptism and the other "baptism of the Holy Spirit" the Scriptures are comfortable to use the same term to refer to both. Why? Because in the visible administration of the Sacrament, we believe the Holy Spirit connects the two together and grace really is conferred to those to whom it belongs (the Elect). The Church does not know who they are and has a ministerial duty to perform the Sacraments as the Church and not as God determining the elect from the reprobate.

Notice the last paragraph too. What you ought to have been asking above, as well, is "How come the Scriptures will speak of circumcision many times throughout the Scriptures in a way that could only refer to the Elect?" You see, it's the same issue. The Scriptures of the OT didn't have to worry about Baptistic thinking assuming that the hearer commanded to "circumcise his heart" believed he wasn't under any obligation because, after all, he just had his foreskin circumcised. The substance of circumcision is the same as baptism and, just as in the NT, there was a sacramental unity between the sign and the spiritual reality it signified.

Rich, well said. I have apparently forgotten the idea of sacramental union, a term I have already heard many times. It did not occur to me that this is actually the answer to my question until I read your post. This morning, I was meditating on Col. 2:11-12 which seems to say that those who are baptized have actual union with Christ. Yet we read in the next chapter that children (Col. 3:18-22) are among those addressed by the Apostle Paul as saints and faithful brethren (Col. 1:1). I was asking myself how this was possible when not every child (or even adult member) in church is necessarily regenerate! Now I understand. Sacramental union is the answer.

I must candidly admit that if we understand the texts I quoted in the original post in the way you have indicated, Reformed Paedo-Baptist conclusions regarding the unity of God's people and his covenant promise which have always included children (Gen. 17:7; Acts 2:38-39) and the apostolic pattern in administering the sign to professors and their families (Acts 16:14-15, 16:31-34, 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:14-16; cf. Gen. 17:9-14) become even clearer. Thank you for answering my question (and for the compliment about my English). May God bless you and your household.

 

[MW]

In other words, why does he speak in a language which seems to say that those validly baptized actually and already have what baptism signifies? I am not sure how to answer this particular question. Blessings!

Rich answered this very clearly by referring to sacramental union. We might also notice that the visible church is addressed on the basis of what she professes to be, but this does not imply that each and every individual in the church possesses the grace of salvation.

 

[Marrow Man]

From a Baptist perspective, not one of these baptisms was valid since I received them as an unbeliever.

Albert, I can certainly sympathize. I was raised in a Baptist church, and I was immersed as a child of about 10 or 11 after making a (false) profession of faith. I was later converted in college at the age of 21. Fearing that my former baptism was invalid, I confided in my two room mates (they were the ones who led me to Christ), and they took me to a swimming pool one night and "baptized" me. I'm not 100% on the Baptist perspective of this last baptism, but I would suspect that it would be considered invalid like the first, since it was not performed by ordained men (please correct me if I'm wrong).

My point is this: according to the Baptist perspective, I suspect that I have not been duly baptized. I don't even consider the second to be a lawful baptism in any way. Yet I am now an ordained minister in a presbyterian denomination, set apart for that task by the laying on of hands by presbyters. Yet according to a credo-baptist model, I would not even be considered to be a valid member of the church (if I am understanding the position correctly). I have been told in the past by some baptists that I have not been lawfully baptized, with the implication that I am in some grave error. Needless to say, I don't agree!

 

[Hamalas]

 

[A.J.]

Rich answered this very clearly by referring to sacramental union. We might also notice that the visible church is addressed on the basis of what she professes to be, but this does not imply that each and every individual in the church possesses the grace of salvation.

Rev. Winzer, I agree. Thanks for pointing that out.

Albert, I can certainly sympathize. I was raised in a Baptist church, and I was immersed as a child of about 10 or 11 after making a (false) profession of faith. I was later converted in college at the age of 21. Fearing that my former baptism was invalid, I confided in my two room mates (they were the ones who led me to Christ), and they took me to a swimming pool one night and "baptized" me. I'm not 100% on the Baptist perspective of this last baptism, but I would suspect that it would be considered invalid like the first, since it was not performed by ordained men (please correct me if I'm wrong).

My point is this: according to the Baptist perspective, I suspect that I have not been duly baptized. I don't even consider the second to be a lawful baptism in any way. Yet I am now an ordained minister in a presbyterian denomination, set apart for that task by the laying on of hands by presbyters. Yet according to a credo-baptist model, I would not even be considered to be a valid member of the church (if I am understanding the position correctly). I have been told in the past by some baptists that I have not been lawfully baptized, with the implication that I am in some grave error. Needless to say, I don't agree!

Pastor, it makes me glad to know that there are other brethren who share the same experience that I had. Regarding the validity of the second baptism you received, I know of Reformed Baptists who would take exceptions on abnormal instances where there is no gospel church around and/or there is no ordained minister available to administer the baptism. But you situation when you were 21 was obviously not abnormal. Your friends should not have baptized you. In any event, God fulfilled his promise to save in the baptism you received when you were 10 (cf. WCF 28:6). Soli Deo Gloria!

Also, I am reminded of Prof. Samuel Miller's argument from history in his Infant Baptism: Scriptural and Reasonable. If infant baptism is not true and yet it was the universal practice until the Anabaptists started questioning it, then there is no visible church today! Even those adults who received baptism by pouring or sprinkling were not validly baptized (according to our Baptist brethren).

The Landmark Baptists who emerged from the SBC (19th century) apparently knew very well how serious this kind of argument was. So if believer's baptism only and by immersion only constitutes a valid baptism, and if true churches are to exist today, then there must have been "true churches" (i.e., those administering baptism to believers only and by immersion only) all along from the time of the Apostles until the Protestant Reformation. The Roman Catholic church, Eastern Orthodoxy, and all of the confessional Protestant Paedo-Baptist bodies are all false churches according to their scheme. Landmarkism's argument from history is of course misleading at best and deceptive at worst. I cannot imagine how the various sects historically branded as heretics could become predecessors of "true churches" today.

Though I still have many questions, I do see myself in the direction of accepting infant baptism as the most consistent teaching of Scripture. And because of that, I will probably not get re-baptized anymore. Thanks for sharing.

Hi. Thank you.

 

[JonathanHunt]

(Correct me if there is something wrong with my presentation above of the Reformed Baptist position.)

How may reformed baptists make any response when we are not allowed to reply?

 

[A.J.]

(Correct me if there is something wrong with my presentation above of the Reformed Baptist position.)

How may reformed baptists make any response when we are not allowed to reply?

Reformed Baptists may make responses either through PM, or by starting another thread addressing their concerns, something which elder Bill Brown did recently. See his thread, How does baptism affirm our faith?.