On its face, the Reformed understanding of our Lord's command
to make disciples and to baptize them and their children (Matt 28:81—20;
Acts 2:39) seems clear enough. However, judging by modern discussions
in the confessional Reformed and Presbyterian churches, things are
more complicated than one might expect.
Over the last thirty years, considerable disagreement has arisen
among the confessional Reformed and Presbyterian churches over what
happens in baptism, what baptism promises, to whom and under what
circumstances. The controversy has intensified in recent years with
the rise of the self-described "Federal Vision" movement which says
that baptism confers upon the baptized person a conditional,
temporary election, union with Christ, justification, and adoption.
As a shorthand, let us call these baptismal benefits. The Federal
Vision also downplays or denies the distinction between the church
considered as a visible or invisible entity or the distinction between
an internal or external relation to the covenant of grace.
Such distinctions are frequently derided by Federal Visionists
as the remnants of the Colonial "Halfway Covenant" or even as Baptistic.
Instead, they argue, the Reformed faith understood properly, teaches
that there is only one way to be in the covenant of grace, that
it is, "all or nothing," that every baptized person ("head for head") has
the benefits of Christ.
According to the Federal Visionists, having been admitted to
the covenant by grace (i.e., by baptism), a Christian is obligated
to retain those benefits by cooperating with grace or faithfulness.
This is how they define "faith," as trusting and obeying. Those
who have faith so defined will retain the benefits given in baptism
and will show themselves to have been really elect in the traditional
sense of the word. Sometimes the Federal Visionists speak as if
there are two kinds of election: the first is an eternal, unconditional election and the second
is a historical, temporary, conditional election.
Sometimes, however, it is not clear that they really believe
in two kinds of election. Certainly when they speak of election
relative to "the covenant" (these writers do not much like the traditional
Reformed distinctions between the covenants of redemption, works,
and grace) they are most often speaking of the historical administration
of what they consider a conditional, temporary election and covenant.
Thus, frequently, these writers are not writing about the "the covenant"
or "election" as we have traditionally conceived them. Most often
they seem to be thinking of a covenant that is both gracious and
legal simultaneously, before the fall and after it, in roughly the
same way. To make their point they tend to emphasize the fact that our liturgical
forms speak of covenants as having two parts.
This controversy raises the most profound questions for Reformed
theology, piety, and practice. After all, the Princeton theologian
B. B. Warfield (1851—1921) called the doctrine of the covenant,
"the architectonic principle" of Reformed theology, i.e., the thing
on which it is built and Herman Bavinck (1854—1921) agreed.
Were the Federal Vision a movement outside the Reformed Churches,
its rise and influence might not be so troubling. It is, however,
not a movement that has grown up outside the Reformed churches,
but within them. The proponents of this new view of baptism, covenant,
and election wish to be regarded as confessionally Reformed.
This essay contends that the Federal Vision doctrine of baptismal
benefits, their historical, conditional view of covenant and election,
is contrary to the Word of God as confessed in the Reformed Churches
and worthy of ecclesiastical discipline. In order to take a step
toward clarifying the picture, this essay will briefly survey the
major views taught in the various historic Christian churches, the
teaching of Scripture, the teaching of the Reformed confessions
and conclude by offering some pastoral considerations.
The Roman View
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is quite explicit that,
to have "faith," one must "first have been touched by the Holy Spirit."
This touching is said to occur by "virtue of our Baptism, the first
sacrament of the faith" in which the "Holy Spirit in the Church
communicates to us, intimately and personally, the life that originates
in the Father and is offered to us in the Son."
Quoting Irenaeus, the Catechism teaches that baptism, "gives
us the grace of new birth...."1 This happens because, quoting the
Council of Trent, "celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments
confer the grace that they signify."2 Baptism does what it does
because it works "ex opere operato," i.e., "from the working it
is worked." According to Rome, Baptism necessarily regenerates,
washes away original sin, and initially justifies, because God has
willed it to do so and endowed baptism with this power.
As wrong as we find this account of baptism, it might not be
so bad except for the sting in the tail of the Roman doctrine: "Nevertheless,
the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the
one who receives them."3 Suddenly what might have been construed
as a mere mistake becomes a pernicious error. Do not miss the force
of such language. When Rome speaks of "disposition" she means "the
result of one's cooperation with the grace of the Spirit." In short,
however clothed in the language of grace, the Roman doctrine is that baptismal efficacy
is dependent upon human cooperation. It is no wonder that the Reformers
saw in this doctrine a repetition of the Judaizing doctrine of grace
plus works, i.e., "another gospel" (Galatians 1:7—9).
Perhaps even more shocking to Reformed sensibilities is the Roman
doctrine that "the fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit
of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature."4
This is the culmination of the Roman doctrine that creation, from
the very beginning, was inherently defective by virtue of being
finite and therefore that "grace perfects nature." In sum, according
to Rome, salvation is divinization and that process begins in baptism
and continues as we cooperate with grace.
The Protestant View
As one, the Protestants rejected the Roman doctrine of nature
and grace. They rejected the Roman view that the Bible is composed
of an "Old Law" and a "New Law," the difference between which is
that, under Christ, God gives Christians more grace to fulfill the
New Law. In place of this scheme, the Protestants (including Calvin
and the authors of our Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession,
and the Canons of Dort) all held that there are two ways of speaking
throughout Scripture: law and gospel. The law says, "do this and
live" and the gospel says, "Christ has done for you." For Rome,
justification is sanctification so that God can only call one righteous
who is, in himself, intrinsically righteous.
For the Protestants, however, justification is God's free declaration
that a sinner is righteous only on the basis of Christ's righteousness
imputed. Whereas Rome defines faith relative to justification as
trusting and obeying (cooperating with grace), by which process
(including acts of penance) the believer is said to accumulate merit
toward final justification; confessional Protestants define faith,
in the act of justification, as "a certain knowledge and a hearty
trust" that "not only to others, but to me also, forgiveness of
sins, everlasting righteousness, and salvation are freely given
by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ's merits."
(Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 21).
In our view, the power of faith does not reside in the act of
faith itself (contrary to the Arminians and Socinians), but in its
object: Christ and his righteousness. This is why we say "by faith
alone" or sola fide. We also categorically disagree with Rome on
the cause and ground of our justification. Rome defines grace as
a sort of medicine with which Christians are infused in the sacraments.
She even defines it, in some instances, as the divine being itself.
By contrast, we define grace as the unmerited, free,favor of God.
We confess that God's accepts us only for Christ's sake out of His
undeserved favor. This is what we mean by sola gratia. The legal
ground for God's acceptance of us is the accomplishment of Christ's righteousness and imputation
of His merits (a notion widely rejected by the Federal Vision despite
its prominence in our standards). This view is in stark contrast
to the Roman doctrine according to which, God "bestows merit" on
us in view of our cooperation with His Spirit. Thus, confessional
Protestants have much in common in our rejection of the Roman doctrine
of baptism, covenant, and election.
The Lutheran View
There are distinctive aspects of the Lutheran doctrine of baptism
and election (and implicitly covenant) that we do not accept. Article
9 of the Augsburg Confession (1530) teaches of baptism that "it
is necessary to salvation," and that the baptized "are received
into God's favor." More pointedly, Martin Luther (1483—1 546) argued
at length in his Large Catechism (1529) that though it is true that
we are justified by faith alone, the water of baptism, having been
joined
with the Word of the gospel, becomes a sacrament and so "faith clings
to the water, and believes that it is Baptism, in which there is
pure salvation and life."5 He reiterated that "without faith it
[baptism] profits nothing."6
For Luther, baptism, as a gospel sacrament, has the same power
of the Gospel to effect new life. It is God's work, not ours.7 Whatever
ambiguity there might have been in Luther's doctrine of baptism,
was largely removed by the orthodox Lutherans who interpreted Luther
(and the Augsburg Confession) to teach that baptism is a "means
of justification."8 Further, it "works forgiveness of sins...washes
away sin...sanctifies and cleanses...regenerates and saves."9
Though orthodox Lutheranism confesses a doctrine of unconditional
election, they also deny our doctrine of reprobation and perseverance
of the saints. According to them, at the moment of the administration
of baptism faith is kindled, and one is not only included visibly
into the church, but one is made alive and shall remain so unless
and until he resists the grace of the Spirit.10 Not surprisingly,
as a consequence of this view, the orthodox Lutheran theologians
were and remain highly critical of our Canons of Dort.
The Baptist View
Though like the Anabaptists (See Belgic Confession Art. 34) in their rejection infant baptism
(paedobaptism) as contrary to the New Covenant, Modern Baptists
are actually descended from the congregational and Presbyterian
churches. The Baptists reject paedobaptism on two principal grounds:
1) it is not taught in the New Testament and 2) it is contrary to
the Spiritual nature of the New Covenant.
In the confessional Baptist understanding, only those who actually
believe are members of the New Covenant. Therefore the London Baptist
Confession (1689) teaches that those "who do actually profess repentance
towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ,
are the only proper subjects of this ordinance" (29.2). In the confessional
Baptist view, baptism is not merely a sign and seal of what is true
of those who believe, but of categorical statement of what is actually
true of the person baptized at the time of baptism (21.1). In the
Baptist confession, baptism is not about promises made by God, in
baptism, and realized by faith, but only about present realities.
If the realities symbolized by baptism are not present, one is not
eligible for the ordinance. To Reformed folk, Baptists seem impatient.
They expect too much of the heavenly reality in this life.
What seems clear from this survey is that, in their own ways,
the Federal Vision, Roman, Lutheran, and Baptist views of baptism
all identify too closely the sign (baptism) with the thing signified
(the benefits of Christ). Only the Reformed view of baptism confessed
in the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards (1647)
avoids either confusing baptism with covenant and election or stripping
from it the promises of God which make it a sacrament and a means
of grace.
Endnotes
1. Catechism of the Catholic
Church, 2nd Edition (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997)
p. 683.
2. Catechism of the Catholic
Church, p. 1287.
3. Catechism of the Catholic
Church, p.1128.
4. Catechism of the Catholic
Church, p.1129.
5. Large Catechism, part 4,
p. 29. See Robert Kolb and Timothy Wengert eds., The Book of
Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2000).
6. Large Catechism, part 4,
p.34.
7. Large Catechism, part 4,
p. 35.
8. J.T. Mueller, Christian
Dogmatics (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1934, p.491.
9. Ibid., p.491-496.
10. Solid Declaration, "Free Will"
p. 83; "Election" p. 39, 78; Mueller, Christian Dogmatics, p. 436.
Dr. R. Scott Clark is Associate Professor of Historic and Systematic
Theology at Westminster Seminary in California.
